Author: Marwa El- Shinawy

  • Opinion| US creates a new Afghanistan in Ukraine

    Opinion| US creates a new Afghanistan in Ukraine

    Recently, there have been increasing reports and documented testimonies confirming that a huge number of weapons with which European countries support Ukraine is being sold on the black market, reaching the hands of international terrorist groups.

    For example, Ukrainian military officials recently admitted that their country has lost nearly 50% of the weapon supplies that have flowed in since the outbreak of the war on 24 February, which opens the door to selling them to third parties, whose identity remains unknown.

    Also, in late May, Europol — the European police agency — expressed concern that weapons sent by the West to Ukraine could fall into the “wrong hands.” The agency confirmed, according to its director Catherine de Bolly, that such a possibility threatens to repeat the scenario that Europe witnessed three decades ago when criminal gangs were able to obtain large quantities of weapons that were used in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1990s.

    The American CBS network also published a report on the process of arming Ukraine since the start of the Russian invasion, according to which, only 30% of the weapons that the West sends to the Ukrainian army eventually reach “their final destination.”

    The report stresses that the bulk of the weapons are delivered to the Polish border, where American and European units from NATO hand them over to Ukrainian officials at the border, which is where American and Western arms control ends.

    Jonas Ohmann — one of the officials in charge of the Blue-Yellow Corporation that has worked to arm Ukrainian units since 2014 and is based in Lithuania — says: “All these goods go across the border. Then something happens, about 30% of them reach their final destination.”

    In the same context, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated on 20 October that NATO member states have sent no less than 700 artillery systems, 80,000 missile systems, 800,000 artillery shells, and 90 million ammunition rounds.

    She emphasised that NATO military shipments end up in the hands of terrorists, extremists, and criminal groups from the Middle East, Central Africa, and Southeast Asia.

    In response to these reports and testimonies, the attitudes of some European countries towards arming Ukraine have changed. This is where Italy announced to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine on 10 November, with Italian Defence Minister Guido Crocito saying: “We are not preparing the sixth package and we are not talking about supplying missiles to Ukraine. I think that in the future, there will be a new position within NATO and the EU on further military assistance to Ukraine, but at the moment, we are completing the arms supply to Ukraine that was promised by the previous government.”

    Furthermore, German Chancellor Olaf Schultz confirmed that Germany does not intend to supply Kyiv with tanks, as it may represent a dangerous step that leads to further escalation in Ukraine, but he pledged to support Ukraine in a way that avoids conflict between NATO and Russia.

    These statements by the German chancellor came days after officials in Berlin announced the discovery of shipments of Stinger missiles in the German port of Bremen coming from Ukraine.

    The strange thing is that despite all these European reports and positions, the US insists on ignoring all of this and even insists that these reports are nothing but misleading information from Russia.

    For example, US officials viewed reports of the sale of Javelin missiles on the internet by Ukrainian militants as a disinformation campaign from Russia. This was confirmed by Eric Pahon — a Pentagon Spokesperson — to the American Fox Business Network.

    Moreover, Biden insists on arming Ukraine even if it is at the expense of the American stockpile. This is where the US has already provided 5,500 missiles to Ukraine, a number that contributed to reducing American stockpiles, according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. 

    According to the European Centre for Counterterrorism and Intelligence Studies, Ukraine will become the largest recipient of US security and military assistance in the world, as it received more military aid in 2022 than the US has provided to Afghanistan, Iraq, or Israel in one year.

    The Pentagon announced on 10 November a new package of US military equipment worth $400m. Before that, on 14 October, the Pentagon announced similar aid worth $725m, in addition to a “long-term” investment of $2.2bn to enhance Ukraine’s security. In September, Biden unveiled a $3bn aid package — the largest to date — bringing the total military aid committed to Ukraine this year to $18.3bn.

    Data issued by the Pentagon on 14 October revealed the details of that aid, which included 1,400 stinger anti-aircraft defence systems, 8,500 javelin anti-armoured vehicle systems, 32,000 different anti-armour systems, more than 700 switchblade drones, and the same number of phoenix ghost drones.

    The most important and dangerous thing is that the US knows beyond any doubt that these smuggled weapons definitely fall into the hands of terrorist organisations that were exaggeratedly active in Ukraine after the war. This is especially after President Voladimir Zelansky issued an open invitation to mercenaries and foreign fighters to volunteer in the war three days after it broke out.

    The terrorist organisations now operating in Ukraine are known and declared to all. The Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS have already been spotted coming from Idlib in northern Syria, including ISIS’ subsidiary groups Ansar al-Tawhid, Guardians of Religion, and Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham, which have close relations with Washington and are fighting alongside the Ukrainian army against Russian forces.

    Many analysts also confirm that the reason for the presence of an estimated 5,000 ISIS militants in Ukraine today is to help Washington and NATO with Ukraine in exchange for Washington’s support in separating northern Syria from the rest of the country.

    Also, among the extremist groups operating openly in Ukraine, according to reports, are neo-Nazi groups, Chechen fighters, Balkan fighters, the Right Sector Movement, the Azov Battalion, the Dzhokhar Dudayev and Sheikh Mansur battalions, and the Crimean Battalion. All these battalions and organisations are radical extremist entities and pose an imminent danger.

    This is what made many European countries, such as France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, and Belgium appeal to their citizens to refrain from engaging as volunteers to support the Ukrainians in the fight against the Russians for fear of engaging with such terrorist groups. Despite all this, the US insists that all of these are suspicious Russian allegations.

    The current course of the war in Ukraine in light of the exaggerated American support and stubbornness confirms that the small European country is turning, under American auspices, into a new Afghanistan in the heart of Europe.

    Therefore, Europe should expect terrorist attacks in the coming period that it has not witnessed before, as the war in Ukraine reactivated and rearmed all terrorist groups and gathered diaspora from Afghanistan, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa.

    Undoubtedly, this gathering of armed mercenaries opens the way for the widest security penetration of Europe in its modern history.

    * Marwa El-Shinawy is an Assistant Professor at the International American University for Specialised Studies (IAUS)

  • Opinion| Trump and Biden: Two sides of the same coin

    Opinion| Trump and Biden: Two sides of the same coin

    A few days ago, former US president Donald Trump confirmed his nomination for the next presidential elections, which will take place in 2024.

    Trump submitted the nomination papers to the Federal Election Commission, then spoke to his supporters at his residence in Florida. “To make America great again, I am tonight declaring my nomination for president of the United States,” Trump said, adding that he wants to prevent Biden from securing a second presidential term.

    On the other hand, US President Joe Biden responded to Trump’s nomination by saying that the former Republican president had “failed” his country during his tenure in office.

    The scene appears at first glance as a conflict between two completely contradictory parties. However, when we evaluate Biden’s performance so far, we find that there are no fundamental differences between the two presidents, especially concerning US foreign policy, which is the subject of criticism by all.

    This opinion may seem illogical, but the concrete facts on the ground categorically confirm that Biden’s policy has never differed from Trump’s.

    Let’s look first at the relationship with Russia, which many believe is a clear point of difference between Trump and Biden. However, in reality, despite Trump’s admiration for Putin’s personality, this did not change the US administration’s hard-line stance towards Russia under Trump. Indeed, during Trump’s term, the US approved the imposition of economic sanctions on Russia and worked to close Russian consulates in the US, in addition to consolidating American military support for Ukraine.

    These are certainly the same policies practiced by the Biden administration towards Russia. The situation may have worsened with the Ukrainian war, but in general, the US’ policy towards Russia has not changed. In other words, the policies of the US towards Russia under both administrations did not differ at all save for the words of flattery that Trump used to describe Putin.  

    As for relations with China, there has been no difference between the two presidents on that front either, even though many analysts expected Biden to pursue different policies after the clear hostility that Trump displayed.

    And yet, the Biden administration maintained the tariffs and export controls that were adopted during the Trump era. It also sought to limit Chinese investment in the US and pressured allies to avoid buying Chinese technology. The Biden administration also supported Trump’s allegations that the coronavirus had leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan.

    Moreover, just like Trump, Biden called Beijing’s suppression of Uighur Muslims a “genocide.”

    More importantly, the Biden administration has not changed the country’s attitude toward Taiwan at all, continuing its policy of “strategic ambiguity,” helping Taiwan to strengthen and build its defences without explicitly pledging to provide its assistance in the event of an attack by China.

    In fact, protecting Taiwan has become an issue of interest to both the Republican and Democratic parties in the US, as Washington considers Taiwan one of the most important pressure cards it has against China.

    The policy of the US towards the Middle East also did not change between the two administrations. Undoubtedly, both considered it necessary to withdraw from the region. Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was only a continuation of an agreement concluded by the Trump administration with the Taliban in 2020 to facilitate the final US military withdrawal from there, but this agreement was stalled for some time until the Biden administration came to complete it.

    Regarding Palestine, which is the most important file in the Middle East, the Biden administration avoided making any new attempts to reach a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine. This is despite Biden’s announcement of his adoption of the two-state solution. Moreover, the Biden administration has been reluctantly involved in diplomatic efforts to end the fighting between Israel and Hamas in recent rounds.

    Biden’s policy seems to have only differed in the Iranian file. Given that Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Biden has been trying to reinstate the agreement through negotiations that seem to have reached a dead end.

    As for the internal level, the Biden administration has not made any significant progress. This is where the division between the Republican and Democratic parties is still raging. The Biden administration has also reinforced the polarisation among the American people that the Trump administration created.

    More importantly, in the field of women’s rights, the Republican Party was able to achieve its greatest victory during the Democratic Biden era, succeeding in completely abolishing women’s right to abortion, even in cases of rape, which is a clear violation of women’s rights.

    Evidently, there is no fundamental difference between the Trump and Biden administrations. This is because the US has one fixed policy towards the rest of the world and does not change. American sovereignty and the protection of American interests is the constant goal that will not change in Washington.

    On the domestic level, too, the US has fallen prey to polarisation and partisan conflicts, and it does not seem to be able to get out of this whirlpool. Therefore, the US will not “be back” if Biden gets another term as his slogan says. At the same time, the US will not be “great again” either if Trump wins. Practical reality says that both Trump and Biden are two sides of the same coin.

    * Marwa Al-Shinawy is an Assistant Professor at the International American University for Specialised Studies (IAUS)

  • Opinion| The COP27, geopolitical challenges, and the demands of developing countries

    Opinion| The COP27, geopolitical challenges, and the demands of developing countries

    In just a few days, the UN Conference of Parties on Climate Change (COP27) will kick off in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.

    The conference is part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — an international treaty signed by most countries in the world to limit the impact of human activity on the climate.

    Evidently, this is the 27th edition of the conference since the agreement came into force on 21 March 1994.

    Nevertheless, there are two focal points in this particular edition that the global community is following with great attention.

    The first point is that this particular edition of the conference will be a real test of the credibility of Western countries and their commitment to fulfilling their pledges to developing countries to confront the dangers of climate change. This is especially so since Western countries had the greatest impact in creating this climate crisis.

    The second point is the geopolitical context of the conference, which constitutes a real challenge for this year’s version of the conference.

    Concerning the pledges of developed countries to their developing counterparts, studies have shown that most of the greenhouse gas emissions came from major Western countries since the Industrial Revolution.

    However, the greatest damage from climate change fell on developing countries due to their geographical nature and their financial and technological inability to face such a crisis.

    Accordingly, developed countries have a historical responsibility towards less developed countries.

    Although major countries do not deny this fact, they always evade fulfilling their promises when it comes to financing developing countries and the projects they need to establish a green economy and rely on clean energy.

    Indeed, the reason for the great anger among developing countries at the COP26 was the failure of major countries to provide regular funding to help them in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions and adapt to current climate changes through projects based on clean energy.

    This anger is especially justified given the reports confirming that limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C cannot be achieved without relying on clean energy projects.

    Recently, Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Amor said: “Central banks in the richest countries participated in $25 trillion of quantitative easing in 13 years, if we had used this to buy the bonds that financed the energy transition, we would be in the 1.5°C range today.”

    Therefore, the COP27 is expected to be a push to deliver on historical promises, such as the $100bn in annual climate finance that developed countries were supposed to provide every year from 2020 to 2025 that remains to be fulfilled.

    Also, about five hundred global financial services companies had promised to allocate $130 trillion dollars in investments to fulfil the goals stipulated in the Paris Agreement, however, developing countries are yet to see a penny from these promises.

    Also, one of the pending matters that await a decision at the COP27 is a project to establish a fund to compensate for the losses incurred by developing countries based on the historical responsibility of the developed countries in causing this global damage.

    This is because developing countries insisted at the COP26 on setting up a fund to compensate for these damages alongside with the Climate Aid Fund.

    Developing countries agreed to a settlement based on their acceptance of reducing carbon emissions following the Glasgow decisions in exchange for a promise from richer countries to study the issue of establishing a compensatory fund and to present it to in the COP27. 

    There have already been pledges of £2m and €1m, respectively, from Scotland and Wallonia — a region of Belgium — to address losses and damages. Denmark has also allocated 100m Danish kroner ($13m) to break the taboo on the issue among wealthy nations.

    As for the geopolitical context, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting political tensions between several countries may hinder cooperation at the COP27.

    Also, the tension between the US and China may constitute an obstacle to their cooperation on climate, especially since one of the important outcomes of the COP26 — the US-China Climate Agreement — has already been undone after US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent visit to Taiwan.

    Most importantly, the far-reaching effects of the Russian-Ukrainian War, which has led to food and energy insecurity and skyrocketing prices, pushed climate change down domestic political agendas around the world, and reignited demand for new fossil fuel projects to reduce dependence on Russian gas. 

    Undoubtedly, all countries of the world are facing unprecedented challenges, but the issue of climate has become a life-threatening issue for this planet, necessitating the suspension of political conflicts in these difficult times.

    More importantly, rich countries should not take the geopolitical climate as an excuse to shirk their responsibilities towards developing countries.

    * Marwa Al-Shinawy is an Assistant Professor at the International American University for Specialised Studies (IAUS).

  • Opinion| Biden’s threats to punish Saudi Arabia are much ado about nothing

    Opinion| Biden’s threats to punish Saudi Arabia are much ado about nothing

    The US-Saudi relations have witnessed an unprecedented deterioration in the past few days. It came after OPEC Plus had decided to reduce its oil production by 2 million barrels in the coming period. Certainly, this decision had negative effects on the Joe Biden administration, as this decision would raise fuel prices as the midterm congress elections are approaching. This will weaken the Democrats’ situation in the elections. And because the current US administration is incapable of managing crises, as many previous events have proven, it hastened to inflame the situation with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in a disgraceful manner. This is where the United States accused Saudi Arabia of siding with Russia and inciting the rest of the OPEC Plus group to take such a decision, which would increase inflation rates in the United States of America significantly.

     

    To respond to these accusations, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia issued a firm statement strongly denying these allegations and confirming that the Kingdom was not involved in any geopolitical conflicts, stressing its clear position in the Security Council against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Saudi Arabia clarified in the statement that the decisions of OPEC Plus are collective decisions with the approval of all member states and that the only goal of these decisions is to maintain market balance in light of the lack of clarity of vision for the state of global markets and oil markets in particular at present. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also confirmed that the organization’s decisions are not politicized in any way and are purely economic decisions.              

       

    More importantly, and also undoubtedly, the rise in oil prices is not the only factor responsible for the rise in global prices, higher inflation rates, and the current crisis that the whole world is currently experiencing. The main reason for what the world is witnessing now is the uncalculated American provocations against Russia that have put the whole world in this predicament today.

       

    In addition, the high rates of inflation in the United States have other reasons more important than the rise in oil prices. The most important of these reasons is the failure of the monetary policies of the Biden administration so far to control inflation rates. Also, the crisis is definitely due to the sanctions imposed by the West on Russia, which led to a severe shortage of Russian oil and gas supplies.

       

    It is also worth noting that the rise in the prices of natural gas and coal far exceeded the rise in oil prices. For example, the price of natural gas in the European Union last month amounted to 347 pounds. The price of a tonne of coal also amounted to $341, $325, $207 in China, the European Union, and the United States, respectively.

    Despite this, the Joe Biden administration is trying to falsify the facts and blame the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in an attempt to create excuses and justifications for the grave mistakes of this administration in front of the American voter. To make matters worse, the Biden administration is making too many threats to punish Saudi Arabia. For example, the current administration is threatening to pass the NOPEC bill, which would (if passed) lift the immunity of OPEC members and their oil companies, allowing them to be sued for complicity in raising prices. The head of the Senate foreign relations committee, Senator Bob Menendez, also called for a suspension of US arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Three Democratic lawmakers in Congress also introduced a bill to end US protection and withdraw US forces from Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

    In fact, all these loud threats, which are actually said to support Democrats for the upcoming elections, cannot be achieved on the ground, according to the opinions of many analysts and politicians as well. As for the NOPEC bill, research confirms that it will harm the US oil and gas industry in the first place. This is because it will lead to a drop in the price of oil to the point that it will not be enough to cover the costs of extracting gas. Thus, the oil industry in the United States can stop, because the costs of extracting oil in the United States of America are very high, compared to the costs of extracting gas in Saudi Arabia.

    As for the suspension of arms sales, it is certainly a decision that works against US interests. This is because Saudi Arabia is one of the most important importers of American weapons. According to a report issued by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Saudi Arabia’s import of American weapons amounted to 24% of the total exports for the year 2021.

    Also, the threat to withdraw US forces from Saudi Arabia and the UAE is nonsense. This is because the United States had already withdrawn its forces from Saudi Arabia in 2003. Therefore, this threat will not be effective. The United States of America always deliberately ignores the fact that American protection in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates is to serve American interests, the most important of which is of course the free flow of gas and oil.

       

    More importantly, such provocative threats may push Saudi Arabia to dispense with the United States as a strategic ally and rely on other countries for armament and protection, such as Russia and China undoubtedly.

    Apparently, all the threats of the Biden administration are mere rhetoric, as the Biden administration will not be able to implement any of them. It will end, as usual, with a simple statement of condemnation of the situation, which weakens the position of the Democratic Party in the upcoming elections on the one hand, and undermines the position of the United States globally on the other hand. This is especially since the position of the United States has been greatly dwarfed during the Biden administration because of his repeated slips of the tongue and his false heroic statements that raise the ridicule of the world. 

    Dr. Marwa El-Shinawy: Assistant Professor at International American University for Specialized Studies (IAUS)

     

  • Opinion| US citizens lose confidence in the Supreme Court

    Opinion| US citizens lose confidence in the Supreme Court

    A few days ago, the Supreme Court — the highest judicial authority in the US — was caught up in controversy when it was accused of politicising its decisions in favour of conservatives, representing a dangerous challenge that threatens to undermine its legitimacy.

    For the first time in its history, according to a Gallup poll, American citizens’ confidence in the court’s decisions has declined significantly, securing only 25% of the confidence of the American public. This decline in Americans’ faith in court decisions is rapid, falling by 20 percentage points in two years.

    The court routinely had the faith of two-thirds of Americans in Gallup polls. However, this erosion of confidence is surely due to decisions issued by conservative justices in the past period on hot issues such as abortion, climate change regulations, and gun laws. These decisions seemed to be directed by the Republican Party rather than decisions by the highest court in the country.

    The issue of politicising Supreme Court decisions is not new at all. This issue used to resurface from time to time in the past decades. But it has become an issue of great momentum since the era of President George W. Bush JR., and specifically since his appointment of John Roberts as head of the Supreme Court in 2005, of which he is still president today.

    At the time, the main reason behind the rejection of John Roberts as Chief Justice by many politicians was his professional history. Many asserted at the time that he was heavily aligned with the ideologies of the Republican Party. Thus, the objection was centred on the professional history and ideological beliefs of this judge nominated to head the nation’s highest court, which should enjoy absolute impartiality.

    Many politicians asserted that Roberts’ professional history showed his lack of belief in the equal protection of all Americans, especially the most vulnerable and marginalised classes in society. This is because Roberts objected to laws that called for the protection of the rights of girls and young women to enjoy the same benefits as men and young people in sports. Also, his view was that politicians, not women themselves, should control women’s reproductive health care. He also opposed the implementation of various solutions to the social injustices in the US that have been prevalent since the era of slavery that continue to this day.      

    After the appointment of Roberts, the issue of politicising the decisions of the Supreme Court re-emerged strongly, specifically in 2007, just two years after his appointment. Many then saw their alleged fears come true after Roberts succeeded in putting together a strong bloc of four other conservative justices to vote on every major case, dividing the court along ideological lines.

    Roberts also showed indifference to the principle of respect for past judgments, or in judicial terms “Respect for Precedent”. This is where the Supreme Court follows a doctrine known as ‘stare decisis’ — a Latin term for “let it stand.”

    This doctrine means that the court should generally build on its previous rulings rather than overturn them. However, in several recent cases, Roberts and other conservative judges such as Samuel Allitowa have treated this principle and the Court’s earlier rulings with disrespect.

    One of the most famous of these rulings that overturned what came before is of course the last ruling on abortion rights that sparked a revolution in society, fuelling feelings of polarisation.

    More importantly, overturning previous rulings in favour of conservatives has caused the court to lose the ideological balance that it used to enjoy throughout its history. This is because, in the past, the Democratic and Republican parties used to maintain the “balance of the court,” taking into account the mood of the Americans, and being keen on the “impartiality” of its president as much as possible.

    To this day, many observers claim that John Roberts could not break free from his ideological convictions. The proof is that just a day before the vote to abolish abortion, he voted with the court’s dominant conservative majority to repeal a law restricting the carrying of guns in New York. A week before that, he voted, along with the conservatives, on a resolution supporting state funding of private schools to include religious education, which contravenes the principle of separation between religion and state.

    All of this has made many American citizens and the media believe that conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents are embracing a systematic project to reformulate American constitutional law from a conservative point of view. What strengthens this belief is that the court has chosen a set of very controversial ideological issues to decide on in the coming period, such as the issue of college admissions according to race, the issue of voting rights, and the election law.

    In addition to the biased decisions of the Supreme Court of the recent period, how the Supreme Court of the US is organised makes it easy and even natural to be politicised. It may surprise you that the US is the only democracy that grants members of the Supreme Court the right to serve for life. Most Western countries have set periods or mandatory retirement ages: 68 in Germany, 75 in Britain, and 75 in Canada.

    The American selection system is also unusually political. This is where the constitution gives general power to the President of the US with the advice of a Senate to appoint a Chief Justice who serves for life and cannot be removed by the President. In contrast, in many European countries, there are expert committees that play a big role in screening candidates.

    The system of voting and adjudication of cases also greatly encourages the politicisation of court decisions. This is where cases are judged based on a majority vote rather than unanimity, allowing judges’ ideological beliefs to be imposed on court decisions. In contrast, some European Supreme Courts are required to rule by unanimity rather than by majority vote. Judges also often do their best not to sow political divisions. In Italy, Belgium, and France, for example, Supreme Court judges do not publish dissent to preserve the court’s impartial image.

    The issue of the politicisation of Supreme Court decisions and the low public confidence is one of the most serious issues that threaten the American democratic system. The public’s confidence in the court and its credibility with the people is the real force that gives the court its legitimacy. Without this confidence, the court’s decisions become useless.

    This is because the Supreme Court does not have the authority to enforce its decisions. The only thing the court has the power to do is issued its decisions and publish them on its website. So, all the Supreme Court has to do is to maintain public acceptance of its rulings as legitimate. This is because once the court loses this popularity, it will pose a fundamental threat to society.

    Now, in this very critical stage of the history of the US, the Supreme Court is the only American institution able to heal the rift and end the deeply polarised state of society. But this will never happen if the chief justice and the judges do not abandon their ideological prejudices.

    * Marwa Al-Shinawy is an Assistant Professor at the International American University for Specialised Studies (IAUS)

  • Opinion| The rise of the far right in Europe heralds the impending disintegration of the EU

    Opinion| The rise of the far right in Europe heralds the impending disintegration of the EU

    The popularity of the extreme right has increased in Europe recently. the strength of this right was demonstrated by its victory in the Italian and Swedish elections. Moreover, this growth was not limited to Sweden and Italy only. Indeed, Europe’s largest country has witnessed an unprecedented growth of radical right-wing parties over the past months.  

    Last September, radical right-wing Alternative for Germany Party (AfD) won 10% of the vote in the last German parliamentary elections. In April, Marine Le Pen — Leader of France’s anti-immigrant National Rally Party — won 41.8% of the vote in the second round of the presidential election against French President Emmanuel Macron.

    In the same month, Bulgarian right-wing party Fidesz won 52.73% of the vote, representing a two-thirds majority in the parliamentary elections. So, Viktor Orban — the Leader of the right-wing party known for his anti-immigration stance — was re-elected as prime minister for the fourth time.

    Finally, in June, the right-wing National Rally Party won 89 seats in the French parliamentary elections, and these results are a major victory for the right-wing parties in France. Thus, after these latest statistics, we can say with confidence that the extreme nationalist right is witnessing a growing rise in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Austria, Sweden, Hungary, Spain, and Italy. In other words, the far right is experiencing an unprecedented incursion across Europe.

    Certainly, the far right is very different from the traditional right. While the conservative traditional right calls for the preservation of the cultural identity of the community through dialogue and peaceful means, right-wing extremists use discrimination and racist ideas to protect this identity, which they believe is threatened by foreigners and refugees. In this context, the extreme right adopts xenophobic ideas, spreading a racist and isolationist discourse, and hiding behind nationalist ideas.

    In fact, the danger of this growing isolationist rhetoric lies in its potential to dismantle the EU. This is especially so after Britain’s exit, which certainly constituted an unprecedented shock to this entity and opened the doors for the possible eventual exit of many countries and the disintegration of the West in its current form.

    Today, the hypothesis of the collapse of the EU is highly probable. This is especially so since the issue of the disintegration of the union is not new, because many crises have contributed to the increasing possibilities of the union’s collapse.

    The beginning of these crises was in 2008, when the economic crisis occurred, followed by the Ukrainian crisis, and finally the refugee influx crisis following the strategic shifts in the Middle East, including the Syrian crisis. This is in addition to the plans to stop the agreement that allows freedom of movement between member states.

    However, it can be said that the real crisis currently afflicting the union and leading to the growth of extremist rhetoric is the crisis of mistrust between governments and politicians on the one hand and between governments and citizens of the union on the other.

    Undoubtedly, the successes that Russia is achieving day after day since 2008 are among the most important crises that undermine the confidence of the European citizen in the union’s ability to provide security and peace. This is especially so since the EU was established primarily to end the devastation and suffering caused by the Second World War on the continent.

    In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia and effectively annexed the regions of South Ossetia and Anjazia, and the EU was unable to rescue it at that time. After that, Russia launched a second war on Ukraine and managed to annex the Crimea region, while the EU was again unable to take any action to stop this.

    Today, Russia is waging its third war, and Putin announced the annexation of four new Ukrainian regions to Russia. All of this is happening while the EU stands helpless to do anything about it but impose sanctions, which has become completely ineffective.

    This Russian success has spread fear among the Europeans and convinced them that their dependence on each other does not guarantee the provision of security and that the European project does not provide sufficient guarantees to achieve security and peace in the face of these threats.

    In addition to the union’s inability to provide security for the European citizen, in recent years, the union’s inability to provide economic welfare has also become prevalent. This is where the unemployment rate and external debt increased dramatically, especially after the coronavirus pandemics and the refugee influx crisis. There is also the sharp decline in economic growth rates, according to many reports, along with the main problem, which is the great economic disparity among the member states.

    Therefore, it has been proven to the European citizen today that the union is no longer capable of achieving the goals that it was created to achieve. Today, the EU is no longer able to achieve the economic well-being of citizens, nor achieve security and stability in the face of various challenges.

    Therefore, the European voter found refuge in the concept of the nation-state and the protectionist, isolationist discourse. This would certainly pose a strong threat to that regional entity and undermine the European project very soon.

    * Marwa Al-Shinawy is an Assistant Professor at the International American University for Specialised Studies (IAUS)

  • Opinion| ​​Has the CIA succeeded in guiding US Presidents in its 75 years of operation?

    Opinion| ​​Has the CIA succeeded in guiding US Presidents in its 75 years of operation?

    This year, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is celebrating its 75th anniversary. And certainly, the CIA enjoys a global reputation that makes it one of the most important — if not the most important — intelligence service in the world.

    But is the CIA really an unparalleled intelligence service that has no failures and performs its duties perfectly to collect information that no one can obtain, or is this illusion created by American cinema and everything we know about this institution is just false and exaggerated information? 

    At an event organised by the Belfer Centre to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the CIA’s founding, Sue Jordan — a former deputy director of national intelligence from 2017 to 2019 who worked for 27 years with the agency — said that the CIA’s mission is “to tell the truth, to see beyond the horizon, and to allow leaders to act before events dictate what to do.”

    This strong and confident statement makes us ask: “Was the CIA really able to provide correct and accurate information to American presidents over 75 years that would make them take the appropriate decisions?”

    One of the most famous failures of the CIA that made it a laughingstock of the world, was the 11 September attacks on the Pentagon. James Bamford — an American author, journalist, and opinion writer that is best known for his writings on the activities of the American intelligence service — said: “All the intelligence workers watched what happened on television and no one knew about it until an hour before it happened, meaning that it was an intelligence disaster.”

    More surprisingly, hours before the attacks — on 10 September 2001 — a security briefing sent by the CIA as a summary report to the president of the US at the time George Bush Jr. confirmed that there was no great danger facing the US. 

    Colin Powell — former secretary of state of the US (2005-2001) — is also the most famous American politician who became a victim of CIA misreporting. Before the War in Iraq, Powell stood in a session of the Security Council on 5 February 2003 to tell the whole world what he learned from the famous CIA report, which confirmed with pictures and evidence the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It then became clear after that that most of the contents of those reports were full of grave errors, costing hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars in losses incurred by Iraq and the US itself for 17 years.

    After this resounding scandal, in an interview with ABC, Powell described his defence of his country’s report on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN as “a disgrace to his political career,” describing it as a “painful” experience for him.

    Also, in 2000, the CIA released a lengthy 70-page report on its predictions of what the world would look like in 2015 titled ‘Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future with Nongovernment Experts.’ In this report, the intelligence agency stated that Russia would be “very weak at home and it would only have to use its gas reserves and exercise the right of veto in the Security Council to maintain its position.

    Paradoxically, Russia is currently the exact opposite of what was stated in the report. As it has enjoyed much influence on the world stage after 2015. It has established an international network of allies from Venezuela to Syria and even annexed the strategic Crimea peninsula to its territory. The report also stated that Russia will possess no more than 2,500 nuclear warheads in 2015, while it currently has 8,000. 

    Also, despite the accuracy of the agency’s predictions of war between Russia and Ukraine, the agency failed to estimate Ukraine’s capabilities to resist and predicted that the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would fall within weeks.

    This miscalculation also came after a previous mistaken prediction in Afghanistan when the agency believed that the government of President Ashraf Ghani would hold for months, but Ghani fled immediately after the US pulled out of the country and Kabul fell to the Taliban.

    The CIA has 250,000 employees that use the latest technologies. The agency also has an annual budget of about $68bn, according to its official website. Nevertheless, the failures of this institution are many and laughable, as its reports often contradict reality. 

    Ironically, the CIA’s greatest achievement is its ability to control Hollywood to portray itself to the whole world as invincible. In an article published by theLos Angeles Times on 30 May 2022, Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia and director of documentary films Roger Stahl revealed that the US Department of Defence, the Pentagon, and the CIA interfere directly in the Hollywood film industry. However, will American cinema succeed in hiding the rising tally of the CIA’s failures?

    * Marwa Al-Shinawy is an Assistant Professor at the International American University for Specialised Studies (IAUS).

  • Opinion|Will Charles be the last king of Britain?

    Opinion|Will Charles be the last king of Britain?

     Only a few days passed after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, who ruled Britain for 70 years, and then voices began to rise about the future of the monarchy in England.

    Indeed, the monarchy faces several challenges that cannot be underestimated at such a critical time. The first and most important of these challenges is the low popularity of King Charles III compared to the popularity of Queen Elizabeth.

    A poll in May put Charles’ national approval rating at 65%, 21 percentage points lower than the Queen’s rating. That’s because for decades the British have traditionally reduced the monarchy to the beloved queen. Some individual incidents also showed the decline in the popularity of Amber Charles. According to the Guardian, one protester disrupted an announcement made on Sunday in Oxford about the king’s proclamation, leading to his arrest, while another was arrested in Edinburgh in a separate incident.

         The second challenge is the desire of the anti-monarchists to seize the opportunity to proclaim a republic. This desire was made clear in many statements by supporters of the republic following the death of the queen. For example, in a statement to Reuters, Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, a group that campaigns for the abolition of the monarchy, in Reading, England, said, “The queen is the monarchy for most people. After she dies the future of the institution is in serious jeopardy,”. In similar statements also to some local newspapers, Smith asserted, “We will be campaigning pretty hard from not long after the funeral through the coronation.”

       

        This is not the first time that calls for turning Britain into a republic have risen. More recently, in 1991, Tony Bean, a prominent leftist MP, tried to persuade Parliament to vote to abolish the monarchy. In 2000, The Guardian led a campaign to create a republic, hoping to stimulate public debate. Both attempts have failed for years, but many activists today maintain that the announcement of King Charles’ accession would represent their best chance to win support for their cause.

         

        More importantly, Britain’s prime minister, Liz Truss, who took office only a few hours before the Queen’s death, has been an advocate of abolition. This is where The Independent published a clip of Truss at the age of 19, saying at one of the protests, “But only one family cannot provide for a head of state. We, liberal Democrats, believe in opportunity for all. … We do not believe that people should be born to rule.” We’ve had enough.”

       

        Indeed, Truss has recently expressed remorse for such an opinion, describing it as a “mistake”. However, political fluctuations are unpredictable, especially with a prime minister whose political positions contradict from time to time. For example, in her youth, Liz Truss belonged to the left and then fell back to the conservatives. Also recently, Truss has succeeded in winning the support of conservative activists by presenting herself as a die-hard Brexit enthusiast. This is even though it supported remaining in the European Union in the 2016 referendum.

       

         Also one of the challenges facing the monarchy in Britain after the death of the queen is the desire of many countries belonging to the British crown to secede. Charles III still commands 14 other kingdoms today, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. But successive statements by officials in these countries and opinion polls confirm that this will not last long.

      According to Reuters, in Canada, recent polls indicate that about half of Canadians believe that the country should end its relations with the monarchy after the death of Elizabeth. In New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in 2018 that she expected New Zealand to become a republic in her lifetime. Commenting on the Queen’s death, Ardern said: “There is no doubt that a chapter is closing today…she was extraordinary.”

        

        Also, just after the Queen’s death, Gaston Brown, prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda, a Caribbean country still a Crown vassal, said he would call a referendum on the country becoming a republic within three years.

         

       In addition to all of the above, the divisions within the royal family are also among the most important challenges facing King Charles. Undoubtedly, Harry and Meghan’s decision to step down from their royal duties in 2020, and later criticize Buckingham Palace and accuse a member of the royal family of racism, may work against members of the royal family and erode their popularity.

       

     Many do not know that Britain had already turned into a republic in 1649 when King Charles I was overthrown and executed in Whitehall Palace following the victory of the Puritans revolution led by General Oliver Cromwell, and the republic was declared. But this republic did not last more than nine years and then the monarchy returned. Therefore, the transformation of Britain into a republic is not outlandish or far.

     

     The coming days hold a lot. Will King Charles be able to maintain the monarchy in light of many political and economic challenges, especially at such an age of 73, as Charles is the oldest king of the royal family to take office, or will King Charles be the last king of Britain?

    Dr. Marwa El-Shinawy Assistant Prof. at International American University for Specialized Studies(IAUS)

  • Opinion|Antony Blinken defends Muslims of China and ignores Muslims of America

    Opinion|Antony Blinken defends Muslims of China and ignores Muslims of America

    Last week, the UN issued a report on human rights violations in China’s Xinjiang region. Based on this report, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called for holding Beijing accountable for what he described as a “genocide” against the Muslim Uyghur minority.

    Indeed, the report said that these abuses may amount to “crimes against humanity,” but it did not describe Beijing’s treatment of the Uyghurs as “genocide.” In fact, this accusation was levelled against China by the US in early 2021 and has since been adopted by the legislatures of many other Western countries.

    Certainly, the statements of the US Secretary of State express the directions of the current US administration, which emphasises on all occasions its focus on protecting human rights and restoring American leadership in this field. But at the same time, there are many indications that these statements are directly related to the hostile policies of the US against China and its desire to find convincing pretexts to impose more sanctions on China to undermine its global economic supremacy.

    The most important of these pieces of evidence is the Biden administration’s indifference to what is happening to the Muslims of India, despite the abundance of reports in this regard. Also, and most importantly, the calm and indifference shown by this administration to the abuses against the Palestinians that many progressive members of Congress have already described as genocide.

    This certainly does not diminish the importance of the issue of Uyghur Muslims, nor the issue of any other minority in any society. This is because the issue of “freedom of belief” is one of the most important issues that we must fight for if we want peace to prevail in the world and to live in a world free of prejudice and the imposition of opinion by force.

    Indeed, the UN report on China included several main criteria confirming the existence of discrimination and racist treatment against Uyghur Muslims that can be taken as general criteria to indicate the violation of the rights of any religious minority in any society or country in general. The most important of these criteria is the placement of unjustified restrictions on cultural, linguistic, and religious identity and expression; violation of the right to privacy; discrimination in employment and labour rights; arbitrary detention; and frequent reports of destruction of religious sites and places of worship.

    Additionally, the report concludes that serious human rights violations have been committed in Xinjiang in the context of the government’s implementation of counterterrorism and anti-extremism strategies. This is because China’s anti-terrorism law contains vague and broad concepts that give great discretion to various officials regarding their interpretation and application.

    However, in one of the most flagrant ironies — which expresses the double standards regarding the rights of minorities in the US — a similar report was recently published, but about the violation of the rights of American Muslims within the US this time.

    The report also relies on the same criteria set by the UN as an indicator of the violation of the rights of Uyghur Muslims in China. The report was issued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on the civil rights of American Muslims for 2022 and titled ‘STILL SUSPECT: The Impact of Structural Islamophobia.’

    The report confirms that cases of discrimination against Muslims have developed into a systemic policy within institutions. The report says that “the title of this report is Still Suspect: The Impact of Structural Islamophobia. The word structural is significant in the understanding that Islamophobia has seeped into every part of our society. It has made its way into government institutions and the public sphere through laws and policies, political rhetoric, and other manifestations. For example, in 2021, the CAIR received a total of 6,720 complaints nationwide involving a range of issues including immigration and travel, discrimination, law enforcement and government overreach, hate and bias incidents, incarcerated rights, school incidents, and anti-BDS/free speech.”

    “These complaints indicate that government discrimination and bias continue to have a disproportionate effect on American Muslims and further demonstrate that our communities continue to be viewed with suspicion.”

    The report adds that “This is the highest number of civil rights complaints we’ve received in 27 years.”

    This also clearly means that the violations against Muslims during the Biden’s administration exceed what Muslims have been subjected to over the past years since 9/11 and even during the Trump era, which was characterised by its hostility to Muslims.

    The report also asserts that there was a 28% increase in hate and bias incidents which included reports of forcible removal of hijabs, harassment, vandalism, and physical assault, among other complaints. This is in addition to a 13% increase in workplace and public accommodation discrimination complaints. Denial of Public Accommodations complaints included bank account closures, denial of services, and housing incidents. The abuses also amounted to attacks on mosques and places of worship.      

    Most importantly, 35% of law enforcement and government overreach complaints involved the government’s so-called terrorism watchlist, which stigmatises hundreds of thousands of people who have not been charged with or convicted of a crime.

    The report is worth reading as it is no less important than the report on Uyghur Muslims. The only difference here is that the Muslims of China found someone to defend them, but who would dare to defend American Muslims?

    * Marwa Al-Shinawy is an Assistant Professor at the International American University for Specialised Studies (IAUS)

  • Opinion| US tries to confront Russian incursion into Africa through Sudan

    Opinion| US tries to confront Russian incursion into Africa through Sudan

    It seems that the accelerated steps taken by Russia towards Africa have put pressure on the Biden administration and made it change its policies towards Sudan.

    This was evident in the arrival of John Godfrey — the former official in charge of terrorism in the US State Department — to Sudan to be his country’s first ambassador there to support the democratic transition process after 25 years of cold diplomatic ties between the two countries.

    Appointing an American ambassador in Khartoum is a major turning point in the policies of the Biden administration. This is because the Biden administration delayed sending an ambassador for a long time until the matter became the subject of criticism from many in Congress and the media as well. For example, last January, Republican Senator Jim Risch criticised the US administration’s delay in appointing an ambassador in Sudan and said in statements to the media that the delay “clearly indicates the absence of priorities that were given to nominating a name for this position, since former secretary of state Mike Pompeo announced and exchange of ambassadors with Sudan in December 2019.

    Also, Cameron Hudson, a former official in the administration of President Barack Obama on Sudan and currently an expert in the Atlantic Council wrote a report for the American Atlantic Council several months ago criticising the lack of vision by the Biden administration towards Sudan, stressing that the step of sending an ambassador to Sudan is necessary to deal with its issues.

    But despite all these sharp accusations, the administration was still reluctant to take this step despite there being no clear reasons for not sending on, as in December 2019, Pompeo announced that the US and Sudan had decided to start the process of exchanging ambassadors after a 23-year-gap.

    In a statement posted on his Twitter account, Pompeo said: “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs warmly welcomes Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok on his first visit to Washington, and we are pleased today to announce that the United States and Sudan have decided to begin the process of exchanging ambassadors after a hiatus that lasted 23 years.”

    Also in October 2020, the Sudanese Ministry of Justice announced that Sudan and the US signed a historic agreement on restoring Sudan’s political immunity. The ministry stated that the agreement was reached at the headquarters of the US State Department to settle cases against Sudan in US courts, which include the bombing of the two embassies in Nairobi and Dar Al-Salaam.

    Under the agreement, Sudan agreed to pay $335m to be placed in a joint escrow account until the US fulfils its obligations to complete the procedures for Sudan to obtain its sovereign immunity after its removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

    The ministry confirmed that, by this agreement, judicial rulings against Sudan amounting to more than $10bn to compensate the victims in these cases will be dropped, future lawsuits will be prevented against Sudan, its sovereign immunity will be confirmed, and thus its legal status will be the same as all countries that do not fall in the list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

    In fact, the real reason behind the Biden administration’s cold feet in raising the level of diplomatic representation in Sudan is that Sudan is simply not of high geostrategic importance to the US. Likewise, the Sudanese community inside the US does not have electoral importance or great economic and financial weight for the decision-makers in Washington to care about.

    Accordingly, the sudden interest in US-Sudanese relations at this particular time cannot be understood in isolation from the Russian-Sudanese rapprochement, which began to raise US concerns, especially after Russia’s clear orientations towards the countries of the continent, which were represented in Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov’s recent Africa tour.

    This is in addition to statements made by Sudan’s Minister of Defence Yassin Ibrahim Yassin at the Moscow Conference on International Security that took place a few weeks ago, where he stressed that it was necessary to participate in this conference “for the very special relations that bind us with Russia.”

    Also, the visit of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo — Vice Chairperson of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council headed by Al-Burhan — at the head of a high-ranking delegation to Moscow on the eve of the start of the Russian attack on Ukraine on February 24, 2022 falls within the framework of this rapprochement that, according to experts, serves Russian interests and contributes to expanding Russian influence in Africa.

    Dagalo’s visit — known as ‘Hemedti’ — spanned eight days and is the longest visit by a senior Sudanese official to Russia. During this visit, the two sides agreed to expedite the activation of the agreements signed between the two countries.

    For his part, Lavrov emphasised the depth of Russian-Sudanese relations and stated that his country is aware of the importance of the current developments in Sudan and is convinced of the Sudanese ability to address these problems, calling for non-interference in Sudan’s internal affairs.

    It is also worth noting here that in November 2020, Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed his Defence Ministry to conclude a 25-year agreement with the Sudanese authorities to establish a new Russian naval base in Port Sudan that is capable of accommodating approximately 300 Russian soldiers.

    Many recent reports also confirm that the role that Russia is playing in the Horn of Africa recently shows a strong desire to consolidate its presence in the Red Sea and that Sudan will be the key for Russia in Africa.

    More importantly, a report published by English newspaper The Daily Telegraph confirmed that large quantities of gold are being smuggled from Sudan to Russia to assist the Kremlin in facing international sanctions.

    Although the Sudanese government has denied the authenticity of this report, American newspaper The New York Times published a report that reconfirmed that one of the companies that mine gold in Sudan is the Russian Wagner Company that is owned by one of Putin’s close friends.

    All these facts confirm that the American interest in supporting the democratic transformation in Sudan that suddenly appeared is nothing but another attempt to strengthen American presence in the region in the face of a Russian incursion.

    The question now is when will the US truly support the democratic transformation of the countries of the region as it claims in isolation from its political interests.

    * Marwa Al-Shinawy is an Assistant Professor at the International American University for Specialised Studies (IAUS)