Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Abstract This analysis focuses on possible short and medium-term effects of Trump’s election as the 47th President of the United States. This paper starts with a brief account of Trump’s first presidency and then continues to account for major challenges that Trump’s administration will have to face domestically,The central part of the analysis focuses on the geopolitical consequences of Trump’s election. In particular, the author looks at Europe (the ongoing war in Ukraine): Middle East and Far East – especially China.The paper concludes with the author's conviction that the next few years will bring decisive changes likely to usher in the new world order.Keywords: Trump, US, Europe, Security, Geopolitics Introduction Donald Trump's election as the 45th President of the United States in 2017 had significant and far-reaching effects on world politics, marking a departure from previous administrations' approaches to foreign policy and international relations. Trump's presidency shifted from globalization to isolationism, protectionism, and nationalism (Kawashima, 2017). His "America First" strategy emphasized unilateral action and challenged the liberal international order the United States had led and protected since World War II (Mansbach, 2021). This approach has strained relationships with traditional allies, particularly in Europe, while simultaneously raising authoritarian leaders (Mansbach, 2021). Interestingly, Trump's election immediately negatively impacted trust in the U.S. government in Latin America, as demonstrated by a regression discontinuity design study (Carreras et al., 2021). Additionally, his controversial policies, such as the trade war with China, have had significant impacts on the global economy (Sahide et al., 2024). The Trump administration's foreign policy towards the Islamic World was notably less friendly compared to the Obama era, causing tensions in US-Islamic World relations (Bahari & Sahide, 2022). There seems to be a consensus that Trump's presidency accelerated societal processes, undermined democratic institutions, and encouraged hyperpartisanship within political institutions (James, 2021). While he did not always succeed in implementing major policy changes or fulfilling campaign promises, his leadership style and policy decisions significantly altered the global perception of the United States and its role in world politics, creating what some scholars describe as " a more dangerous world" (Mansbach, 2021).  Admittedly, Trump does not seem to be exceptionally hawkish when it comes to using military tools in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Let us remember that Barak Obama (Democratic Party), who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, ordered airstrikes in seven different countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Syria) (Liptak, 2014). During first Trump’s presidency, no new campaigns were started, although the intensification of the existing ones allegedly increased. Ultimately, it was Trump who was mainly behind the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Trump 2.0 November 2024 Presidential elections brought sweeping changes to the American political kaleidoscope. Donald Trump took a decisive victory over the Democratic candidate, Vice-President Kamala Harris, securing 312 electoral votes (with 270 being a victory threshold). Republicans also won the Senate with 52 seats against 47 and the House with 218 seats against 212. (Election Centre 2024).  This is arguably one of the most important political events in the world in 2024. Already Trump’s declarations regarding the first decisions to be taken once sworn in office on the 20th of January next year, plus his appointments for top offices in the U.S. administration, have caused a furore – a phenomenon referred to by many as the so-called ‘Trump Effect’. As much as political scientists, cognitive anthropologists or psychologists usually use this term to refer to racially inflammatory Elite Communication (Newman et al., 2020), this short analysis will look at the tectonic shifts in international relations, international security system and geopolitics that have already happened or are likely to occur after the 20th of January 2025. U.S. – politics Undoubtedly, the U.S. economy, society, and political system are in deep crisis. Economically, the Americans have been doing worse than ever since the Second World War. Inflation is rampant; economic inequality is very high; unemployment is on the rise; the state of infrastructure is relatively poor, and the level of public services is far from desirable, whereas taxation is reaching new heights amidst a slowing economy and diminishing number of small and medium enterprises (USA FACTS). Societywise, the problems are equally severe. According to Pew Research, the top issues facing the U.S. in this category are in the order of importance from top to bottom: the affordability of healthcare, drug addiction, illegal immigration, gun violence, violent crime, the state of moral values, the quality of public k-12 schools, Climate change, international terrorism, infrastructure condition, domestic terrorism and racism (Pew Research Centre, 2024). One should also add here the rising “wokeness’ of the American educational system, which poses a great challenge to the cohesion of the society and its future in terms of military power.  Politically, the picture is not better. According to the same research institution (Pew), the biggest problems that the U.S. political system faces are: political leaders do not face the consequences if they act unethically, it is difficult to find unbiased information about what is happening in politics, Congress accomplishes less than people give it credit for, the Federal Government does less for ordinary Americans than people give it credit for. Other problems include the role of special interest groups and lobbyists in policymaking, the cost of political campaigns and the animosity between the Republicans and the Democrats, which, in consequence, causes the inability of the political system to solve critical societal problems (Pew Research Centre, 2023). The first and foremost task ahead of Trump is to rectify problems at home. His Agenda47 (Republican Platform) declares 20 core promises: seal the border and stop the migrant invasion, carry out the largest deportation operation in american history, end inflation, and make america affordable again, make america the dominant energy producer in the world, by far, stop outsourcing, and turn the United States into a manufacturing superpower, large tax cuts for workers, and no tax on tips, defend the constitution, the bill of rights, and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms, prevent world war three, restore peace in europe and in the middle east, and build a great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country -- all made in america, end the weaponization of government against the american people, stop the migrant crime epidemic, demolish the foreign drug cartels, crush gang violence, and lock up violent offenders, rebuild cities, including washington dc, making them safe, clean, and beautiful again, strengthen and modernize the military, making it, without question, the strongest and most powerful in the world, keep the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency, fight for and protect social security and medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age, cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations, cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on children, keep men out of women's sports, deport pro-hamas radicals and make college campuses safe and patriotic again, secure our elections, including same day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship and lastly unite the country by bringing it to new and record levels of success (Agenda 47).  International Politics Internationally, Trump faces many challenges. His presidency will have to address three primary regions defined geographically: Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. - Europe As far as Europe is concerned, the most pressing issue is the war in Ukraine. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly declared that his administration's support for the continuation of the U.S. support for the war effort against Russia would be terminated during the first 24 hours of his presidency (Hansler, 2024). As a consequence, shortly after Trump’s winning the White House race, the outgoing administration under POTUS Joe Biden finally allowed the Ukrainians to attack Russian territory with American long-range ballistic missiles (ATACMS), which allegedly came in as a response to the North Korean decision to send its troops to support Russian soldiers against Ukraine (Entous, Schmitt and Barnes, 2024). Next, in counter-response, President Putin of the Russian Federation signed a new nuclear Doctrine into power. Chillingly, it declares that Russia may use its nuclear weapons against any nuclear state, even in case of a conventional attack (Associated Press, 2024). As of the beginning of December 2024, the media are full of reports of an alleged concentration of Russian troops near the Ukrainian border, fueling speculation about an imminent mass invasion, this time with cities such as Kyiv being targeted in a conventional terrain operation (Bodner, De Luce and Smith, 2024).  One can only speculate what all this means and how far we are from the outbreak of the III World War (Sky News, 2024). Some things are, however, more or less evident. Firstly, the current escalation of war in Ukraine is likely a direct effect of Trump's winning and his declaration to end the war as soon as possible. The more the Russian troops advance in the field, the higher they can bid once the peace talks begin. Similarly, the more complex the situation in the field (Biden’s decision regarding the use of ATACMS), the more challenging it will be for Trump and his administration to achieve peace. Knowing the radically different approach to conflict with Russia of President Trump, the outgoing administration and national security advisors most likely wanted to achieve militarily as much as possible before they were ousted from their jobs. Secondly, Trump declared on numerous occasions that if European members of NATO want to continue their support for Ukraine, they should take the whole responsibility. He singled Germany, France, and Poland out. Poland, for that matter, enthusiastically agreed to carry on the baton and declared that it was ready to bear the heavy burden. In the words of Deputy Foreign Minister Andrzej Szejna, when participating in a radio broadcast, “We [Poland] are ready to take over the large part of the costs of supporting Ukraine” (Nczas Info, 2024). At the same time on the 3rd of December, the new Secretary General of NATO – Mark Rutte, during his meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, openly declared: “The immediate priority must be to provide more arms to the country's forces as Russia gains territory along the battlefront in eastern Ukraine.The [Ukrainian] front is not moving eastwards. It is slowly moving westwards. So, we have to make sure that Ukraine gets into a position of strength, and then it should be for the Ukrainian government to decide on the next steps in terms of opening peace talks and how to conduct them." (VoA, 2024). To sum up, it looks like the current escalation, according to theoretical models such as those proposed by Herman Kahn in 1965 – a Cold War physicist - we are at stage 12 of 44 steps on the escalation ladder. As comforting as one might think it is, let us remember that according to Kahn’s theory, a local nuclear war takes place as early as at step 21 (Tinline, 2023). As history has proved many times, it is difficult, if impossible, to wage a systemic war on two fronts at the same time. Given the economic and military challenges perceived by Trump during his first tenure as U.S. President (See: A New National Security Strategy for a New Era, 2017), China is the challenger number one for the position of the United States in the international system and especially in the Indo-Pacific region. Accordingly, China wants to reorder the area in its favour. Would it be too much of a stretch of the imagination to claim that most likely, given the context above, Trump will probably arrange for peaceful talks with Russia over Ukrainian political and military leadership heads’? What will he want? Probably Russia’s neutrality in the face of the coming escalation of the conflict between the U.S. and China. What can he offer? Probably a big part of Ukrainian territory and the amendment to the Ukrainian constitution, according to which the country should forever be neutral militarily and politically. At the same time, the American withdrawal from Europe will most probably create a void that is most likely to be filled by Germans. The vision of the current German cabinet was elaborated on August 24, 2022, by Chancellor Olaf Scholz at Charles University in Prague. It paints a broad picture of the future of the EU at the beginning of the 3rd decade of the 21st century against the backdrop of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Among the four ‘revolutionary’ ideas mentioned by Scholz, two stand out in particular. Firstly, given the further enlargement of the European Union for up to 36 states, a transition is urged to majority voting in Common Foreign and Security Policy. Secondly, regarding European sovereignty, the German Chancellor asserts that Europeans grow more autonomous in all fields, assume greater responsibility for their security, work more closely together, and stand yet more united to defend their values and interests worldwide. In practical terms, Scholz indicates the need for one command and control structure for European defence efforts (The Federal Government, 2022).  The leadership is not always openly claimed, at least verbally. Instead, the German National Security Strategy of 2023 mentions Germany's ‘special responsibility’ for peace, security, prosperity, and stability and the Federal Government’s ‘special responsibility’ for establishing the EU Rapid Deployment Capacity. (German National Security Strategy, 2023). In the same vein, German leadership posits their country as a leader in European Security, declaring the importance of becoming the ‘best equipped armed force’ in Europe (Euronews, 2022). Let us also remember that Berlin vigorously supported the latest proposal for a European army, which presumably might serve as a vehicle for further European integration towards the federalization of Europe.  At the same time, the prospect of federalization will face two major challenges: firstly, the future of transatlantic relations is less than certain, especially the economic competition between the EU and the U.S. European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen signalled the possibility of an economic war with the U.S. as a response to Trump declared protectionism of the American economy (Berg, Meyers, 2024). Secondly, the EU is highly inefficient in energy, so the question of future energy security becomes a priority. The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia and the redirection of Russian gas to China will profoundly affect the future of European economic development amid the so-called ‘Fit-for-55’ -  a set of proposals to revise and update EU legislation to achieve a target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 (Fit for 55, 2024). - Middle East As of the writing of this paper, one sees the escalation of the war in Syria. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), “ongoing hostilities in northern Syria continue to expand to other parts of the country, endangering civilians and humanitarian workers, causing severe damage to critical infrastructure and disrupting humanitarian operations. As of 5 December, at least 178,000 people have been displaced due to the recent escalations in northern Syria, including 128,000 newly displaced and 39,000 displaced at least twice. Figures are still being reconciled, noting that UNHR and NGOs operating in the northeastern part of Syria estimate that between 60,000 and 80,000 people have been newly displaced there, including more than 25,000 currently hosted in collective centers”. (OCHA, 2024). According to international media (CBC News, 2024): ”Syria's long-running civil war came to a head Sunday when opposition forces entered the capital city of Damascus and the government of President Bashar al-Assad collapsed. Russian state media later reported that Assad and his family had fled to Moscow. Crowds gathered in Damascus to celebrate the fall of Assad's government with chants, prayers and occasional gunfire, marking the end of a regime that, between the ousted President and his father, had ruled over Syria for half of a century.” […] "At long last, the Assad regime has fallen," President Biden said Sunday afternoon at the White House after convening his national security team to discuss the developments. He said the fall of Assad presented a "historic moment of opportunity" and pledged support for Syria and its neighbours against any threats” (Ott, 2024). Syria seems to be just another litmus test of the so-called regional security complex in the Middle East. As such, the war in Syria is obviously but a puzzle in a much bigger jigsaw that includes all major powers that operate in the region: the U.S.A, Israel, Russia, Turkey and Iran to name the most obvious ones. All of the above are deeply engaged in Middle East politics for the sake of their national interests and international security strategies. All of the above deserve separate analyses. For the sake of this paper, however, the author will focus only on the U.S. According to Douglas Macgregor and Dave Ramaswamy, “The fear in many nations’ capitals is that President Donald Trump’s return to Washington might make Israel feel more confident in attacking Iran. According to Mike Evans, founder of the Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem, “There is no world leader Trump respects more than Netanyahu.”  The evangelical leader also confides that President Trump would support an Israeli attack before his inauguration on the assumption that the destruction of Iran’s oil production facilities would devastate Iran’s economy, inducing Iran to end the war with Israel before President Trump assumes his office. This thinking by no means excludes an Israeli decision to strike Iran’s nuclear development sites as well.” (Macgregor & Ramaswamy, 2024). In their article, they state that “If America joins Israel in its war against Iran, the outcome will be a geopolitical showdown that could dramatically alter the world as we know it. It is the storm of the 21st century and, for the moment, the American ship of state is sailing right into it. “ They consequently pose four fundamental questions:  1. What is the American purpose in waging war against Iran? Is Washington’s purpose to destroy the Iranian state? To destroy its capability to wage war against Israel? To eliminate Iran’s developing nuclear capability? Or to decapitate the Iranian state in the hope that the Iranian people will overthrow their national government? 2. How will U.S. military power achieve the objectives? 3. What is the desired end state? What does the President want Iran and the region that surrounds it to look like when the fighting ends? 4. What is the strategic cost to the American people if Washington declines to participate in a regional war begun by Israel?  They conclude by asking yet another, perhaps the most crucial question: what do Netanyahu’s goals mean for the health of the American economy and the stability of the international system? Can Israel survive without attacking its numerous enemies?  The next couple of months are likely to bring at least some answers to some of these questions. Importantly, expert voices concerning the future of Israel seem to be abounding more and more (Teller, 2024). - China and the Far East Finally, there is a question of China. As mentioned before, Trump sees China as a major challenger to the role and position of the U.S. in the international system. The Republicans and the Democrats may be divided by numerous issues, but there is at least one regarding which they stay united. The true bipartisanship revolves around the Chinese challenge. Both parties, therefore, claim that the possibility of a systemic conflict with China is not a science fiction scenario. On November 20, 2024, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. Congress heard that the U.S. had to prepare for a potential conflict with China by raising its defence spending to more than 3 per cent of GDP. (South China Morning Post, 2024). The recommendation came during an interactive exercise for members of the House Select Committee on China, based on a scenario predicted for 2026 and hosted by Washington-based think tank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The report titled: The First Battle of the Next War Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan, authored by Mark F. Cancian, Matthew Cancian and Eric Heginbotham opens with a chilling question: “What would happen if China attempted an amphibious invasion of Taiwan? CSIS developed a wargame for a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan and ran it 24 times. In most scenarios, the United States/Taiwan/Japan defeated a conventional amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan. However, this defence came at a high cost. The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of service members. Taiwan saw its economy devastated. Further, the high losses damaged the U.S. global position for many years. China also lost heavily, and failure to occupy Taiwan might destabilize Chinese Communist Party rule. Victory is, therefore, not enough. The United States needs to strengthen deterrence immediately.” (The First Battle of the Next War, 2023). They go on to claim that: “China’s leaders have become increasingly strident about unifying Taiwan with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).1 Senior U.S. officials and civilian experts alike have expressed concern about Chinese intentions and the possibility of conflict. Although Chinese plans are unclear, a military invasion is not out of the question and would constitute China’s most dangerous solution to its “Taiwan problem”; it has therefore justly become a focus of U.S. national security discourse.” China has grown increasingly assertive over the last decades and sees no reason to continue accepting a dominated world that facilitates the benefits of Western powers, especially the U.S.A. At a recent G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil (November 2024), the President of China openly called for a multipolar world (Xinhua, 2024). In his words: “China and Brazil stay committed to peace, development, fairness and justice. We have similar or identical views on many international and regional issues. Both are staunch defenders of the basic norms of international relations and multilateralism, coordinating closely and consistently within the United Nations, G20, BRICS and other international organizations and multilateral mechanisms on crucial issues, including global governance and climate change. Not long ago, China and Brazil jointly issued a six-point common understanding on political settlement of the Ukraine crisis. Our initiative has received a positive response from the international community. China and Brazil, embracing our roles and responsibilities as major countries, have contributed to a multipolar world, conduced to greater democracy in international relations and injected positive energy into global peace and stability.” (Xinhua, 2024 b).  Conclusion Taiwan has long been a global security issue and a point of concern on the geopolitical maps of the national security planners of great powers. It is not the only one, though. The war between the Koreas is formally not over (recently, North Korea allegedly sent soldiers to back Russia in its Special Military Operation in Ukraine); the American military presence in the Far East and South East Asia is likely to remain an issue, especially from the point of view of Beijing. Central Asia, with its geopolitical environment, religious activism and economic challenges, is likely to rise in importance as a chessboard for great powers. As the weight and focus of International Relations is relocating back to Asia (Euroasia rather than the North Atlantic Area), China and Russia are more likely to hold the keys to international peace and security than the United States. On top of that, one needs to look out for North Africa as a source of continuing instability and massive migration, especially to Europe. All in all, Trump’s next presidency will surely bring a lot of interesting developments, which are likely to fuel a new world order.  References - A New National Security Strategy for a New Era, 2017. NSS_BookLayout_FIN_121917.indd - Agenda 47. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform - Associated Press, Nov. 8, 2024. “The Kremlin has revised its nuclear policy. Does that make the use of atomic weapons more likely?” https://apnews.com/article/russia-nuclear-doctrine-putin-ukraine-war-b5ee115aa2099fa247f630e16da861d8- Bahari, Diana Mutiara, and Ahmad Sahide. 2022. “The Comparison of The United States Foreign Policy Against The Islamic World Under President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump Administration.” Journal of Islamic World and Politics 6 (2): 270–97. https://doi.org/10.18196/jiwp.v6i2.13060. - Berg, Aslak and Meyers, Zach. Oct. 3, 2024. “Surviving Trump 2.0: What does the US election mean for Europe's economy?” https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2024/surviving-trump-20-what-does-us-election-mean-europes-economy - Bodner, Matthew, Luce, Dan De and Smith, Alexander. Dec. 2, 2024. “Russian troops mass on Ukraine's border. West worries this isn't like the last time.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-troops-mass-ukraines-border-west-worries-isnt-last-time-rcna7203 - Carreras, Miguel, Giancarlo Visconti, and Igor Acácio. 2021. “The Trump Election and Attitudes toward the United States in Latin America.” Public Opinion Quarterly 85 (4): 1092–1102. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab055. - Election Centre 2024, CNN Politics. https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024 - Entous, Adam, Schmitt, Eric and Barnes, Julian E. Nov. 17, 2024. “Biden Allows Ukraine to Strike Russia With Long-Range U.S. Missiles.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-atacms-missiles.html- Fit for 55, European Council. Council of the European Union. European Green Deal. Accessed March 8, 2023. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/ - Germany must become 'the best equipped armed force in Europe', Scholz says. Euronews, September 16, 2022. Accessed March 8, 2023. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/09/16/germany-must-become-the-best-equipped-armed-force-in-europe-scholz-says- Hansler, Jennifer. Nov. 6, 2024. “Trump’s victory could mean US withdraws support for Ukraine in war with Russia.” https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/06/politics/trump-election-ukraine-war-russia-intl/index.html- James, Toby S. 2021. “The Effects of Donald Trump.” Policy Studies 42 (5–6): 755–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2021.1980114. - Kawashima, Shin. 2017. "Japan–US-China Relations during the Trump Administration and the Outlook for East Asia." Asia-Pacific Review 24 (1): 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2017.1328800. - Liptak, James. Sept. 23, 2014. “Countries bombed by the U.S. under the Obama administration.” CNN Politics. https://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/countries-obama-bombed/index.html - Macgregor, Douglas & Ramaswamy, Dave, Nov. 19, 2024. “Trump and the Storm of the Century. The U.S. is sleepwalking into disaster in the Middle East.” The American Conservative. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/trump-and-the-storm-of-the-century/ - Mansbach, Richard W. 2021. "America’s Foreign Policy under Donald Trump.” In, 201–34. oxford university. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197618721.003.0010. - National Security Strategy. Robust. Resilient. Sustainable. Integrated Security for Germany (2023). Federal Foreign Office, Werderscher Markt 1, 10117 Berlin. - Nczas Info. Nov. 12, 2024. “Szokujące słowa wiceszefa MSZ. Oddamy jeszcze więcej Ukrainie? „Jesteśmy gotowi przejąć dużą część kosztów” [VIDEO]”. https://nczas.info/2024/11/12/szokujace-slowa-wiceszefa-msz-oddamy-jeszcze-wiecej-ukrainie-jestesmy-gotowi-przejac-duza-czesc-kosztow-video/ - Newman, Benjamin, Jennifer L. Merolla, Sono Shah, Danielle Casarez Lemi, Loren Collingwood, and S. Karthick Ramakrishnan. “The Trump Effect: An Experimental Investigation of the Emboldening Effect of Racially Inflammatory Elite Communication.” British Journal of Political Science 51, no. 3 (2021): 1138–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000590. - OCHA, Dec. 5, 2024. “The Whole of Syria Flash Update No. 2 - Recent Developments in Syria (As of 5 December 2024)”. https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/syrian-arab-republic/whole-syria-flash-update-no-2-recent-developments-syria-5-december-2024 - Ott, H, Dec. 9, 2024. “What to know after Syrian rebels force Bashar al-Assad from power in a rekindled civil war”. CBC News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-war-assad-ousted-what-to-know/ - Pew Research Centre, The biggest problems and greatest strengths of the U.S. political system. Sept. 19, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/the-biggest-problems-and-greatest-strengths-of-the-u-s-political-system/ - Pew Research Centre, Top Problems Facing the U.S., May 23, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/23/top-problems-facing-the-u-s/ - Sahide, Ahmad, Misran Misran, and Ali Maksum. 2024. “Indonesian Media Framing against Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election.” Multidisciplinary Reviews 7 (5): 2024097. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2024097. - Sky News. April 16, 2024. “Are we heading for World War Three? Experts give their verdicts.” https://news.sky.com/story/are-we-heading-for-world-war-three-experts-give-their-verdicts-13116540 - South China Morning Post, Nov. 21, 2024. “China war scenario calls for US boost in defence spending to more than 3% of GDP. China’s projected military industrial base cannot be matched without increased spending, lawmakers hear”. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3287467/china-war-scenario-calls-us-boost-defence-spending-more-3-gdp?module=top_story&pgtype=homepage- Teller, Neville, June 28, 2024. “'The End of Israel': Building a case against Netanyahu – review. The End of Israel is undeniably thought-provoking and, in a world where exchanges of differing views is being increasingly inhibited, to be welcomed.” The Jerusalem Post. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-808080- The Federal Government (2022) Speech By Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz at The Charles University In Prague On Monday, August 29 2022. Available at: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/scholz-speech-prague-charles-university-2080752 - The First Battle of the Next War, Jan. 2023. A Report of the CSIS International Security Program. Centre for Strategic and International Studies. https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/230109_Cancian_FirstBattle_NextWar.pdf?WdEUwJYWIySMPIr3ivhFolxC_gZQuSOQ- Tinline, Phil. July 19, 2023. “Imagining Armageddon: the mad and dangerous ideas of Herman Kahn”. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/policy/defence-news/62117/imagining-armageddon-herman-kahn-nuclear-ladder- USA FACTS, How is the U.S. economy doing? https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/economy/ - VoA, Dec. 3, 2024. „West pushes for more Ukraine military aid, not NATO membership”. https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-support-in-focus-as-nato-foreign-ministers-meet/7885166.html - Xinhua, Nov. 18, 2024 b. “Full Text of Chinese President's signed article in Brazilian media”. https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/597977#Full-Text-of-Chinese-president's-signed-article-in-Brazilian-media--2024-11-18 - Xinhua, Nov. 19, 2024. “G20 Summit: Xi calls for multipolar world, inclusive globalization”. https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/newsletter/top_headlines/article/581033

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Last week Donald Trump made a bizarre threat on his Truth Social site that he would impose 100 percent taxes on the imports (tariffs) from any country that doesn’t take a pledge to not move away from the dollar as its reserve currency.  Donald Trump’s Big Fear Exists Only in His Imagination  The threat was bizarre for several reasons. First, he seemed to imagine that the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and their allies are in the process of setting up an alternative currency to the dollar.  This would be very hard to imagine since this group of countries has little in common other than feeling marginalized by the United States, West Europe, and the international institutions they have established. Agreeing on rules for a common currency involves considerable haggling and is difficult even among countries that are similar in their economies, history, and culture. Ask the countries in the euro zone. Bringing this group together in a common currency seems a long shot even one or two decades out. So, Trump was making some grand threat against a development that will almost certainly not happen. Oh well, always good to be cautious. Who Cares If They Establish Their Own Currency? Trump’s ignorance of trade and finance issues really shines through on this one. Paul Krugman has been working hard trying to educate the public on the meaning of a reserve currency.  First of all, there is not a single reserve currency. There is no law that requires all international payments be made in dollars, and many in fact are not. If businesses find it more convenient to sell in euros or yen, there is nothing that prevents them from doing so. It’s not clear if Donald Trump is unaware of this fact or thinks that he somehow will police all the transactions in the world and require them to be done in dollars. Central banks also hold currencies in reserve to cover international payments and to support their own currency in the event of a crisis. The dollar is the predominant reserve currency, but not the only one. Central banks also hold euros, British pounds, Japanese yen, and even Swiss francs. Perhaps Trump wants to monitor the currency holdings of central banks and start raising the tax on imports from any country where dollar holdings fall below a certain level. That seems a pretty whacky way to set trade policy (it would violate most of our trade agreements), but about par for Donald Trump economic policy. The Dollar as a Reserve Currency Undermines Donald Trump’s Dream of Balanced Trade  Insofar as having the dollar as the world’s leading reserve currency matters, its main benefit would be increasing demand for the currency and thereby driving up its value relative to other currencies. This would be good in the sense that it makes it cheaper for people in the United States to buy items imported from other countries.  The effect is not likely to be very large. The overwhelming reason for wanting to hold dollars is to invest in US financial assets, like stock and bonds, both public and private. As long as investors think the United States has a strong and stable economy, they will want to have dollars to be able to invest here.  If the United States were just another reserve currency, like the euro, then fewer dollars would be held as reserves and for carrying through transactions. This would likely mean the dollar was valued somewhat less against other currencies, but it is unlikely that the drop would be more than 5-10 percent. This is the sort of movement in the dollar we see all the time over the course of a year or two. It usually does not get much attention. For example, the dollar rose by more than 5.0 percent against the euro between May of 2021 and the end of the year, and it seems no one noticed. More importantly for this issue, insofar as being the leading reserve currency raises the value of the dollar, it goes the wrong way in terms of Donald Trump’s goals on trade policy. Donald Trump seems to want the United States to have balanced trade or even a trade surplus.  A higher valued dollar directly undermines the effort to achieve this goal. If the dollar is higher valued against other currencies, it makes imports cheaper for people in the United States. That means we will buy more imports.  If the dollar is higher valued against other currencies it means that foreigners will have to use more of their own currency to buy a dollar. That makes our exports more expensive for them. If our exports are more expensive, people living in foreign countries will buy less of exports. If we buy more imports, and sell fewer exports, then our trade deficit will be larger. This means that Donald Trump’s quest to preserve the dollar’s status as the premier reserve currency goes completely against his goal of reducing the trade deficit. Donald Trump’s 100 Percent Tariff Will Hurt Us Much More Than It Will Hurt China The United States provides a valuable export market for China, but it would require some very strange arithmetic to imagine that China somehow needs the US market for its prosperity. First, it is worth getting an idea of the volume of exports at stake. The US had imported $322 billion in goods from China through September of this year, which puts it on a course to import roughly $430 billion for the year. By comparison, China’s GDP on a purchasing power parity basis is projected to be $37.1 trillion this year using a purchasing power parity (PPP) measure of GDP, while it would be $18.3 trillion using an exchange rate measure. This means that its exports to the US would be equal to 1.2 percent of its GDP using the PPP measure, and 2.3 percent using the exchange rate measure. The difference between these two measures is that the PPP measure uses a common set of prices across countries for all goods and services. It means that it prices a haircut and a heart operation at the same price in the United State and China, as well as every other country. By contrast, the exchange rate measure takes the country’s GDP calculated in its own currency and then converts it to dollars at the current exchange rate. The large difference between the two measures is explained by the fact that many services cost much less in China than in the United States and other wealthy countries. For example, renting a comparable apartment or getting a doctor’s exam would cost far less in China than it would in the United States. While for many purposes, such as comparing living standards, the PPP measure is appropriate, in this case the exchange rate measure is probably the right one. We are asking how much demand China would lose in its economy if it is cut off from the US market. Since the goods sold internationally are likely priced in China close to their prices internationally, the demand loss would be larger than would be indicated by their share of its GDP measured in PPP terms.  This means that in the extreme case where China loses its entire US export market, demand in its economy would fall by 2.3 percent, before taking account of any multiplier effects. This is far from trivial, but it is not likely to lead China’s economy to collapse. By comparison, when the housing bubble collapsed in the United States in 2006-2008, the share of residential construction in GDP dropped by 4.0 percentage points.  That drop gave the US a severe recession, but it is important to keep in mind the economic problem we are describing. This would be a story of inadequate demand in the economy. This can be counteracted by the government spending more money, which we did to some extent with the stimulus package enacted under President Obama in 2008-09 and with an even larger package under President Biden in 2021-22.  There may be political considerations that act as obstacles to large-scale stimulus in China, as there are here, but there is no economic reason that China could not boost its economy in a way that replaces the demand lost from the U.S. export market. If China’s government chose, it could even borrow a trick from the US playbook and send $2,000 checks to everyone in the country and put Donald Trump’s name on the check. That would hardly be a crisis from China’s standpoint. The picture looks much worse from the US standpoint. We will be paying substantially more for the $430 billion in goods that we had been buying from China. It would be necessary to look at possible substitutes for these imports on a sector-by-sector basis, but let’s say on average that the additional cost for the replacement its is 40 percent of the price of the goods from China. In that case, we would be paying an extra $170 billion a year, roughly $1,400 per family, to cover the additional cost.  The reason this looks worse from the US standpoint than the Chinese standpoint is that China just needs to create a new source of demand, which its government can do directly by giving people money. On the other hand, the United States is seeing the cost of a number of items rise, in effect seeing a shortage of supply comparable to what happened with the supply chain crisis during the pandemic.  Most governments would not deliberately inflict this sort of pain on its population without a good cause, but Donald Trump prides himself on being unorthodox. This threat over the dollar’s status as a reserve currency certainly is unorthodox.

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The removal of a despised dictator brings a moment of euphoria for Syrians. But the future is uncertain as relations between rebel factions and external actors remain complicated. Things only recently unimaginable are now happening in Syria. After 50 years of domination the Assad regime has been ousted, a transitional government has convened in Damascus, and Syrian refugees are approaching the border to enter—rather than leave—their homeland. Nonetheless, uncertainty lies ahead. Some harbour concerns about the intentions of Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS), which spearheaded the march on Damascus and was once linked to al Qaeda. The actions of external actors may also be difficult to predict. The Syrian civil war dragged on so long mainly due to foreign involvement as regional players supplied, funded, and urged on a diversity of militia and political groups. External intervention is likely to continue shaping events and political processes. Iran and Russia, Bashar al Assad’s main supporters, proved unable to prop his regime up any longer and after his demise will have less impact and influence. This means that Türkiye has become cemented as a central player in the affairs of its southern neighbour. Türkiye: a key player in Syria Türkiye has played a sizeable role in Syria since the outbreak of the war. Ankara demonstrated enormous generosity in hosting Syrian refugees, which only a month ago numbered around three million, but against which Turkish public opinion has gradually shifted. Very early in the conflict, Türkiye also began supporting anti-Assad political and military forces. Such was his confidence in an opposition victory that then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan remarked in 2012 that he would soon pray in the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. This proved premature, but Türkiye continued to host and support a range of rebel militia, also allowing foreign fighters across its border. Some allege that in its eagerness to see the downfall of Assad, Türkiye turned a blind eye to some of the more unsavoury elements of the opposition, and at times even supported them. More recently, Ankara has shaped the Syrian National Army (SNA) into a force that pursues Turkish interests, and in 2020 it brokered the peace that allowed HTS to consolidate in Idlib, where it established its governance structure and began its march on Damascus. Türkiye has also been involved in Syria due to its concerns about the political and military emergence of the Syrian Kurds. Early on in the war, Assad’s forces withdrew from northern Syria to fight off rebels closer to Damascus. Local Kurds stepped into the breach, declaring autonomy, and writing a constitution and establishing a governance structure that became the Autonomous Administration of North East Syria (AANES). Türkiye watched this with trepidation as it regards the administration and its military arm, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), as extensions of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has long been in conflict with Ankara. Complicating matters, the SDF became the boots-on-the-ground in the international campaign to defeat ISIS in Syria. This began after the United States supplied munitions and aid to Kurdish YPG and YPJ militias besieged in the Syrian town of Kobani in late 2014. Thereafter, with US support Kurdish militias rolled back ISIS, expanding their area of control. In doing so, they incorporated other rebel groups, Sunni Arab, Syriac, Armenian, and Yezidi, to become the SDF, but Türkiye continues to view the SDF as solely Kurdish and to classify it as a “terrorist” organisation due to its links with the PKK. The US maintains a military presence in northeast Syria, ostensibly to monitor ISIS, but also to forestall further Turkish encroachment. Ankara, for its part, rails against US support of the SDF. A Turkish-Kurdish flashpoint? Turkish-Kurdish dynamics now arise as one of the potential flashpoints in post-Assad Syria. Already things have turned sour. Even as Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan was urging opposition forces in Syria last week to remain united, SNA militias, backed by Turkish air power, were attacking SDF positions in Manbij, on the west bank of the Euphrates. Intense fighting was only brought to an end following a US-Turkish agreement to allow the withdrawal of Kurdish forces. It has subsequently been reported that the SNA, again with Turkish backing, is advancing towards Kobani and the Tishreen Dam east of Aleppo. Türkiye would no doubt see the taking of Kobani as a major strategic victory. It would also likely be the death knell of any Turkish-Kurdish reconciliation, within Türkiye or elsewhere. It was in Kobani that Kurdish forces first came together to defeat ISIS, despite being on the verge of defeat, thus the city is of enormous symbolic importance to Kurds of all political stripes. If Türkiye, through its proxy the SNA, were to capture the city, it would create enormous resentment among Kurds throughout the region. Ankara insists that the Kurdish-led administration in north-east Syria is a “terrorist organisation” that threatens Türkiye and is intent on secession from Syria. Kurds insist the very opposite, saying that AANES is a distinctly Syrian entity that opposed Assad but harbours no further territorial ambitions. External observers also note that, although not without faults, Kurdish control in northeast Syria established a relatively tolerant and distinctly multicultural order when the rest of Syria was wracked by sectarianism and violence. Kurds fearful Kurdish sources I have spoken with are fearful of what lies ahead and suspicious of Türkiye’s intentions in light of the SNA take over of Manbij and further attacks on SDF positions. Türkiye has previously entered northern Syria on three occasions to push SDF forces away from the border, and has continued to conduct air strikes against infrastructure. Türkiye now controls several pockets of territory in northern Syria. Yet in contrast to SDF units, Türkiye-supported Sunni Arab militias in these areas have been widely accused of human rights abuses against Kurds and others. In these circumstances, diplomacy becomes paramount. Sinam Mohamad, a SDF representative in America, has sought assurances from Washington that the Kurds will not be abandoned. US President Joe Biden stated that US troops will remain in northeast Syria, yet Kurds are mindful of Donald Trump’s declaration that he will bring Americans home. They recall events in 2019 when Trump was outsmarted by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and allowed a Turkish incursion, resulting in numerous civilian deaths and the murder of Kurdish politician Hevrin Khalaf. US-Turkish diplomatic channels are currently open, with Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin in contact with Ankara and Secretary of State Antony Blinken travelling to Türkiye to discuss regional developments. Meanwhile the EU’s Ursula von Leyden has reported on “substantial exchanges” with Turkish officials. It is to be hoped that common ground can be established so that Syria’s newly found peace can be extended. Türkiye undoubtedly has an important role to play in post-Assad Syria, but it remains to be seen if it can envision new realities that curtail hostilities between and create space for its Sunni Arab allies and the Kurdish-led administration in Syria’s northeast. If it were to do so, the benefits would ripple out across both sides of the border.

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Biden has treacherously shown what his real legacy is: bringing back perpetual wars, creating chaos through bribery and corruption, financing coups, unfreezing dormant conflicts and playing one against the other. Within two weeks of the election of Donald Trump, outgoing US President Joe Biden took an extremely disruptive step in international relations, pushing the conflict in Ukraine to a much more dangerous level by authorising Kiev to use American long-range missiles against Russian territory, a rogue move certainly intended to hinder the détente his successor had announced.As if that weren’t enough, a week later, Turkey (the largest NATO army in Europe) launched an offensive in neighbouring Syria through intermediaries led by HTS*, the former Al-Nusra Front*, effectively tearing up the Astana agreements with Moscow and Tehran on its role in Syria. Towards the end of the Biden administration, two major escalations took place in the two largest military conflicts taking place today, in Ukraine and the Middle East, both geographically separated by Turkey, which has now entered the scene. At whose behest? It would be naive to think that Erdoğan took the initiative to stage the invasion of Syria without the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the Americans, the British, the Israelis and the Europeans. Organising, training and arming tens of thousands of men on Syrian territory under his authority or in Turkey itself is an operation that requires logistical and intelligence coordination between various state and non-state entities. Anatolia is the Eurasian axis par excellence, where three tectonic plates meet (the Eurasian, the African and the Arabian). Geographically, Turkey has always been an asset to NATO, particularly in the Caucasus and Central Asia. This is where the natural spaces of Turkish projection and influence collide with those of Russia. For decades, NATO has tolerated Turkey’s neo-imperial ambitions, especially during the Erdoğan era, even if they have historically been anti-Western. This is a strategic asset that the Atlanticists are saving for the right moment. In reality, Turkish nationalism has been expressed in these regions since the early 1980s, and in the 1990s, with the vacuum left by the post-Soviet chaos, its influence spread and the Turan project was revived, which is now very visible in the form of the Organisation of Turkic States. But Turanism isn’t Ankara’s only asset. On the one hand, the Turkish diaspora in Europe, on the other hand the Islamic charity and educational network that Turkey manoeuvres in Africa, and on the other hand the military expansion with several bases in a good dozen countries in Europe, Africa, the Caucasus and the Middle East, shape Turkey’s aspirations to project power in the world. The crossroads of the Levant The reactivation of the Syrian civil war, or even the dismemberment of the country, is full of contradictions, unlikely alliances and unclear objectives, but also the hidden but known interests of a number of external actors who have been trying to take over the country since 2011. It serves Israel well, after more than 40 years of occupation of the Golan Heights, which are legally Syrian. Tel Aviv could extend its dominance in the area in the face of a Syria that is likely to be dysfunctional and without an army. Netanyahu’s regional escalation is also his way out of the mess he got himself into over a year ago in Gaza and Lebanon, while he waits for the new US administration, full of Zionists in foreign policy positions. Coincidentally or not, the hordes of jihadists took over Syria the day after the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah was announced. It should come as no surprise that behind this episode lies a tacit pact between Ankara and Tel Aviv to eliminate Iranian influence from the region. The US role is more nebulous. Officially, it didn’t make a statement until the final fall of Assad. But it’s also a role that doesn’t need clarity because it’s the only power that has allowed itself to occupy Syria since 2014, especially with clandestine military bases in the centre-south and east of the country, justifying this blatant international illegality with the flimsy excuse of being able to “fight ISIS*”. In reality, the US is ensuring a strategic military presence with an eye on Iran and Russia, which will certainly be formalised with the next phase in Syria. In addition, Washington has several major players on the ground, such as the Kurds of the SDF, who control the north, and the Free Syrian Army, which confronts them. On the other hand, the leader of the HTS, Abu Muhammad al-Julani, who now controls most of the territory, spent five years in US prisons in Iraq (including the notorious Abu Ghraib). Al-Julani will surely be the most important and valuable asset for American interests in this proxy war. But what have the Western powers given Erdoğan to make him take the initiative to conquer Syria? What is the bargaining chip? Is the new Syrian government willing to give up the Russian base in Tartus, or is its removal one of NATO’s conditions for Erdoğan? What about Palestine and the genocide in Gaza? Will Lebanon follow the possible fragmentation of Syria? Who will form the new government, and what will be its vision for the future? Will there be an energy agreement between Ankara, Baku and Brussels? What will happen to trade, energy and infrastructure relations between Turkey and Russia? Will Turkey still be a candidate for the BRICS? Many big questions have been asked. Syria and Ukraine, the same conflict The most worrying aspect of the current scenario is that the two ongoing conflicts, surrounded by volatile regions, are moving closer together. The HTS, brought to Syria by Ankara, has been in Ukraine learning new combat tactics and night attacks from Kiev troops using advanced drones supplied by Qatar. Unlike the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, Qatar has never sympathised with the Assad government after it took over Aleppo. Among the members of the Arab League, Qatar, an ally of Turkey (which has a naval base in Doha), is the only Arab country that has consistently sided with the Syrian Salafist opposition since 2011. After Erdoğan’s move, Russia will not be able to accept a freeze in military activity on its borders, lest it see the enemy rearm. It is therefore impossible to expect a ‘Minsk 3’ for the Trump era. In any case, an understanding between Russia and the US is necessary. After such a dark four years of the Biden administration, which brought war again to Europe and the Middle East, there is certainly hope for better relations between the world’s two largest military powers. An escalation of the conflict in Ukraine is unthinkable. More immigration for a Europe in recession For Europe, the current situation in Syria is terrible because it opens up new prospects for hundreds of thousands more refugees, depending on how the situation in Syria develops. Assad’s Syria was a dictatorship, just like Gaddafi’s Libya, but it provided a stability that is no longer guaranteed. The ‘melting pot’ that Europe’s major cities have become after 20 years of perpetual US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria also has the potential to bring the inter-community and interethnic problems of the Middle East onto European soil at a time of recession, as is the case in Germany. With this move, Turkey has opened the game and shown that it wants to compete with Russia for its sphere of influence. Erdoğan has taken on the destabilising role his external superiors have assigned him. Erdoğan’s alignment with Western designs in Syria opens a rift in relations with Moscow and should be seen as a declaration of intention. War on multipolarism The Syrian war, which has all the makings of a protracted affair, is also a far-reaching move against the BRICS, since Turkey was one of the main candidates for membership of the organisation. The control of this strategic region, which is increasingly in the domain of the Silk Roads and the BRICS, is now entering a period of predictable instability. Indeed, the very strange Hamas attack in October 2023 took place in the middle of the new members of the group (Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran), and launched a war on the region along the lines of the ‘creative destruction’ advocated by the neoconservative think tanks. Just when everything was getting ready for a new US administration that seemed at least minimally pragmatic and willing to engage in dialogue and put an end to the Ukrainian conflict, and to the joy that for the first time in three years a Western statesman was uttering the word ‘peace’, Biden has treacherously shown what his real legacy is: bringing back the eternal wars, creating chaos through bribery and corruption, financing coups d’état, unfreezing dormant conflicts and playing one against the other. An old practice of those who can’t compete with economics, trade and diplomacy and think they can with wars. *- banned in the Russian Federation

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The fall of President Bashar al-Assad has left a critical question: After a half-century of brutal dynastic rule has come to an end, who speaks for Syrians now? One group staking a major claim for that role is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which, under the leadership of Abu Mohammad al-Golani, spearheaded the opposition advance that toppled Assad. But what does the group stand for? And who is al-Golani? The Conversation turned to Sara Harmouch, an expert on Islamist militant groups, for answers. What is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham? Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has its roots in the early stages of the Syrian civil war, which began in 2011 as a popular uprising against the autocratic government of Assad. The group originated as an offshoot of the Nusra Front, the official al-Qaida affiliate in Syria. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was initially recognized for its combat effectiveness and its commitment to global jihadist ideology, or the establishment of strict Islamic rule across the Muslim world. In a shift in 2016, the Nusra Front publicly cut ties with al-Qaida and adopted the new name Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, which means “Front for the Conquest of the Levant.” The following year, it merged with several other factions in the Syrian war to become Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or the “Organization for the Liberation of the Levant.” This rebranding aimed to move away from al-Qaida’s global jihadist agenda, which had limited the group’s appeal within Syria. It allowed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to focus on issues specific to Syrians, such as local governance, economic issues and humanitarian aid. Despite these changes, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s core ideology continues to be rooted in jihadism, with the primary objective of overthrowing the Assad government and establishing Islamic rule in Syria. Who is al-Golani? How central is he to the group’s success? Abu Mohammed al-Golani was born Ahmed al-Sharaa in 1982 in Saudi Arabia. Al-Golani spent his early years in Damascus, Syria, after his family returned from Saudi Arabia in 1989. His jihadist career began in Iraq, where he joined fighters aligned with al-Qaida after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. In 2011, under the direction of Iraqi militant and then-al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, al-Golani was tasked with establishing the Nusra Front in Syria. The group quickly became a formidable force within the Syrian civil war. It was under al-Golani’s leadership that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham sought to portray itself as pragmatic, less focused on global jihad and more on governance issues in the region of Idlib, Syria’s largest rebel stronghold. This shift in strategy forms part of al-Golani’s effort to transform his national and global image from that of a jihadist leader to a more politically viable figure in Syrian politics. Al-Golani’s shift toward a more pragmatic approach, particularly post-2017, has been crucial in helping Hayat Tahrir al-Sham control territories and assert itself as a regional governing force. His recent moves, like adopting a more moderate persona and engaging in traditional public service, reflect al-Golani’s central role in the military and the political evolution of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham – underpinning the group’s hold on power and its efforts at gaining legitimacy both locally and internationally. How did the group rise to become a major force in Syria? To keep power over the territories it controlled, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham employed a mix of strategies that includes establishing governance systems that could provide stability and services while legitimizing their control in the eyes of local populations. Aiming to expand and take more territory, the group’s leaders concluded that it needed to win over the international community to minimize international opposition and effectively work with the broader Syrian revolutionary movement. This involved working with other actors in Syria, aiming to present a united front that could be more palatable to international observers and potential allies. To do that locally, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham brought many groups within Syria under its control. Regionally and internationally, it reshaped its image through public relations campaigns, such as engaging in social services. Since 2017, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has been the prevailing force in Idlib, which, after government forces retook control of Aleppo in December 2016, emerged as the last major bastion for various rebel groups. Over the years, the group has solidified its control in the region by functioning as a quasi-governmental entity, providing civil services and overseeing local affairs – such as controlling highways and collecting duties on commercial trucking – despite reports of human rights abuses. In recent years, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s propaganda has emphasized protecting Syrian territory and its people from the Assad government. This has helped the group enhance its position among local communities and other rebel groups. In an effort to further burnish its image, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ramped up its public relations efforts, both at home and abroad. For example, it has engaged with international media and humanitarian organizations to negotiate – and film – aid deliveries to the areas it governs. Doing so helped Hayat Tahrir al-Sham gain some local support, positioning itself as a defender of Sunni Muslim interests. Meanwhile, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham bolstered its military capabilities by establishing a military academy, reorganizing its units into a more conventional military structure and creating specialized forces adept at executing coordinated and strategic attacks. The recent advance appears to be proof that this strategy has paid off. What does the US think of the group and al-Golani? The U.S. has long listed al-Golani as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and the Nusra Front as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. In May 2018, the U.S. State Department expanded this designation to include Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. As a result of these designations, the group and its members face legal restrictions, travel bans, asset freezes and banking restrictions. Additionally, the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program is offering up to US$10 million for information on al-Golani. However, news has been circulating that the U.S. is considering removing the $10 million bounty on the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham leader, while the United Kingdom is thinking of removing the group from its terror list. What happens if al-Golani emerges as a post-Assad leader? First, we should note that these are very early days, and it remains unclear what Syria will look like post-Assad. But based on my years researching Islamic history and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, I’m willing to venture a few educated guesses. Historically, Islamic empires have used distinct governance frameworks to drive their expansion and administration, which might inform Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s approach to mirroring these successful strategies. First, I think al-Golani is likely to strive for authentic religious leadership, positioning himself as a leader whose personal piety and adherence to Islamic principles align with the religious sentiments of the population at large. This could be complemented by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham emphasizing the role of Sunni Islam in Syria’s state functions and integrating religious legal practices into the nation’s laws. Just as it has established on a localized scale, effective administration might become a cornerstone of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham governance. In Idlib, for example, the group established systems for taxation and community engagement. This is essential for building trust, especially among previously marginalized groups. Additionally, by allowing some autonomy for regions within Syria, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham could mitigate the risk of unrest, balancing strict Islamic law enforcement with Syria’s cultural and ethnic diversity. Overall, should Hayat Tahrir al-Sham under al-Golani try to steer the formation of Syria’s new government, we might expect a governance approach that aims for a blend of traditional Islamic governance and modern statecraft, striving to stabilize and unify the diverse and war-torn country. However, the group’s controversial status and history of militant activities could pose significant challenges in gaining widespread international recognition and internal support. Sections of this article were first published in an article for The Conversation on Dec. 2, 2024.

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The victory of the “non-systemic” Donald Trump in the presidential election this time may not have been a surprise, but, as in 2016, it leaves no one indifferent. The world can be roughly divided into those who welcome the Republican's success and those who see the election results as bad news.   The first group includes the leadership of Israel, Georgia, Hungary, and Slovakia. The second group comprises Ukraine, Germany, France, China, and Iran. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan falls into the jubilant camp—he places high hopes on bilateral relations and joint solutions to global crises.  Does R. T. Erdoğan have grounds for optimism? “Chemistry” and Non-Interference in Internal Affairs Looking back at Donald Trump’s previous four years in office, it becomes clear that the results for Turkey were ambiguous. On the one hand, a personal chemistry developed between Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Donald Trump — the American leader has a natural affinity for strong leaders, as Angela Merkel recently noted in her book.   Even as a presidential candidate, Trump praised Erdoğan in an interview with The New York Times for successfully suppressing the attempted coup. In the same interview, given a week after the failed coup attempt, Trump suggested that the U.S., not being a model of democracy itself, has no right to demand Ankara adheres to civil liberties. Furthermore, he indicated that he would not prioritize ideological issues in relations with a NATO ally. Overall, Donald Trump largely fulfilled his campaign promises. The White House refrained from emphasizing human rights issues or openly supporting the opposition — despite having plenty of reasons to do so. During Trump’s first term, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan cracked down on the organizers of the coup attempt and conducted mass purges within the military, law enforcement, judiciary, and education systems. He also arrested Kurdish politicians, including the founder of the Peoples' Democratic Party, Selahattin Demirtaş, and consolidated his power by transitioning from a parliamentary to a presidential system.At the time, the U.S. liberal press was particularly concerned that Trump was “ignoring Mr. Erdoğan's authoritarian repression of his own people”. Four months after Donald Trump's inauguration, he welcomed his Turkish counterpart to the Oval Office and acknowledged Turkey's efforts in the fight against ISIS (a terrorist organization banned in Russia). Shortly thereafter, in August 2016, the Turkish Armed Forces launched Operation Euphrates Shield to clear the Syrian city of Al-Bab of terrorists. Under Donald Trump, Ankara-Washington relations had their contentious issues, but many of them were largely inherited from Barack Obama's administration. The attempted coup in Turkey occurred during the Democratic administration in the U.S., and none of the Western leaders, except the British Prime Minister, condemned the coup. It was under Obama that Turkish-American relations entered a genuine crisis.   Recep Tayyip Erdoğan began turning away from NATO and the EU, strengthening ties with Russia by negotiating the Turkish Stream pipeline, purchasing S-400 missile systems, and constructing the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant. At the same time, the Obama administration refused to extradite preacher Fethullah Gülen, whom the Turkish leadership considers the mastermind behind the coup attempt. The Apple of Discord — Syria   The primary, though not the only, sticking point between Trump and Turkey was Syria. On one hand, U.S. support for the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in the fight against ISIS began under Barack Obama, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan criticized him for supporting terrorism. However, under Donald Trump, the U.S. continued supplying weapons to the YPG, which became part of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) under Pentagon patronage.  At the same time, Trump welcomed Turkey's fight against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), even though Ankara views the YPG as the PKK’s Syrian offshoot. In November 2017, however, the White House announced it would halt arms supplies to the Kurdish militias. The logic was that ISIS had been defeated, and the U.S. needed to focus on resolving the Syrian conflict and containing Iran. To achieve these goals, allies were essential, and Turkey, as a long-standing NATO member with the region’s most powerful army, clearly outweighed the YPG in strategic importance. Under Donald Trump, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had the opportunity to address the negative legacy of Barack Obama in Syria. In 2018, he launched Operation Olive Branch, seizing control of the Kurdish canton of Afrin alongside the Syrian armed opposition. In October 2019, Turkey conducted Operation Peace Spring.  Before its commencement, Turkey hoped that the U.S. would facilitate the withdrawal of Kurdish forces to the southern part of the country. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Erdoğan warned that if the Pentagon failed to achieve this, the Turkish Armed Forces would unilaterally establish a so-called “safe zone” along the Turkish border. This zone would involve pushing out the YPG and their political wing, the Democratic Union Party (PYD). On October 7, two days before the operation, Trump applied pressure on Turkey, threatening to “destroy and obliterate” its economy. Ultimately, Turkey carried out its operation. While the U.S. did not officially approve it, they withdrew their troops from the combat zones. On October 17, the U.S. and Turkey reached an agreement to pause the operation, allowing Kurdish forces to leave a 30-kilometer zone in northern Syria.   Details of the conflict resolution were finalized on October 22, when Erdoğan and Putin signed a memorandum in Sochi. According to the agreement, YPG members were required to withdraw 32 kilometers south from the entire Syrian-Turkish border. Turkey, along with the Syrian armed opposition, maintained control over the areas it had captured, stretching from Tel Abyad to Ras al-Ayn.  Meanwhile, Russia and Turkey agreed to conduct joint patrols in territories cleared of YPG, extending “up to 10 kilometers from the border to the west and east of the Peace Spring operation zone, excluding the city of Qamishli”. Relations between the American and Turkish presidents were further strained by Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 air defense systems. Under Donald Trump, Turkey was removed from the F-35 fighter jet development program as punishment for the deal.   Another point of contention arose in July 2018, when Trump threatened Turkey with “major sanctions” over the detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson. Erdoğan suggested exchanging Brunson, who was accused of ties to Gülenists, for Fethullah Gülen.   In the end, Brunson was released in October the following year, but Ankara made it clear that the court’s decision was not a result of Trump’s pressure but rather an independent ruling by a democratic state. Donald Trump’s Pragmatism  Despite points of divergence inherited from Barack Obama and new conflicts that emerged, Donald Trump consistently sought to remain pragmatic. He acted from a position of strength, but avoided alienating his partner.  On October 15, Trump imposed 50% tariffs on Turkish steel, and just two days later, he called Erdoğan a “hell of a leader” and thanked him for halting military actions in Syria.   Toward the end of his term, Trump attempted to ease tensions with Turkey. During a White House meeting on November 13, 2019, he openly admitted to being a “big fan” of the Turkish leader, describing their relationship as “wonderful”. In return, Erdoğan referred to the Republican president as a “dear friend”.   At the same meeting, Trump expressed hope to resolve disagreements over the S-400 and F-35 issues “through dialogue”. What Are the Expectations?  Donald Trump’s first term left a lasting impression on Turkish society. The Republican’s threats in 2018 triggered the first collapse of the lira, and now, with Turkey’s economy in deep crisis, similar incidents are even more dangerous.  Economist Fatih Ozatay fears that a new trade war initiated by Trump could provoke retaliatory actions from other players, including China. A reduction in global trade volumes would impact Turkey’s economy by shrinking its export opportunities and further increasing pressure on the lira. Optimism from Turkish Leadership The Turkish leadership remains optimistic. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was among the first world leaders to congratulate the Republican on his return to the Oval Office. As soon as the U.S. election results were announced, Erdoğan posted on the social media platform “X”: “Congratulations to my friend Donald Trump, who won the U.S. presidential election after a hard-fought battle and was re-elected as president”. The following day, Erdoğan called Trump, expressing hope for future cooperation. An invitation for Trump to visit Turkey has already been sent. Peace in Ukraine Turkey has invested significant effort into resolving the Ukrainian conflict. Notably, the first and only successful attempt at addressing the conflict was made in Istanbul in March 2022. Turkey also acted as a mediator in the “grain deal”, the exchange of Ukrainian and Russian prisoners, and the largest prisoner swap between Russia and the West since the Cold War.   Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan warned that the war in Ukraine is heading either toward a frozen conflict or escalating into a global war. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly criticized the West for escalating the conflict. He recently described the decision to approve long-range strikes as “fueling the war” by Joe Biden.   “You won't achieve anything by following the principle 'after us the deluge'” Erdoğan cautioned. The Turkish leadership understands that no matter how much Erdoğan attempts to mediate between Kyiv and Moscow, all efforts will come to nothing without a shift in the White House’s stance. Under Joe Biden, Ankara grew disillusioned with the West’s willingness to negotiate, but with Donald Trump, things could change.  “If we see that the U.S. administration under Donald Trump approaches this issue from a settlement perspective, we can easily bring this war to an end”, Erdoğan stated. He emphasized that Turkey remains committed to pursuing peace, and if Trump’s peace-oriented rhetoric becomes reality, the chances of success will significantly increase. Gaza – Under Question, Hope for Syria When it comes to the Middle East, the main “issues” remain Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. In Lebanon, peace was achieved at the end of November — Joe Biden secured a ceasefire. The current head of the White House has promised to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well, but so far, no progress has been observed. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan believes that under Donald Trump, the Middle East could see “lasting peace and stability”, with the Republican exerting “significant influence on the political and military balance” in the region. Trump's skills as a businessman to impose his will and negotiate could lead to agreements. It is worth recalling that the Abraham Accords — Israel's agreements with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco — were reached under his administration, and for Palestine, he developed the “Deal of the Century”. At the same time, Turkey understands Donald Trump and his team have a pro-Israel stance — this is evident from his previous decisions regarding Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the nuclear deal. In the new administration, Secretary of State Mark Rubio aims to eliminate Hamas rather than negotiate with it. The future Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, an evangelical, considers the construction of the Third Jewish Temple on the site of one of Islam's holiest sites, the Dome of the Rock, to be acceptable. Hakan Fidan highlighted Trump’s pro-Israel team at the end of November: “If you look at [Trump’s] cabinet, it signals that his pro-Israel team will support all of Netanyahu's expansionist ambitions. However, if we rely on Trump's own words, 'I did not come to start new wars but to end them,' we might see an opposing trend. We will observe how these two contradictory signals balance with each other and how this will impact the region soon”. In an earlier statement, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan suggested to the newly elected U.S. President that halting arms supplies to Israel would help resolve the situation in the region. However, it is unlikely that this request will be heeded, especially considering that even Joe Biden, who has been critical of Benjamin Netanyahu, did not dare to take such a step. Cooperation in Syria appears more realistic for Ankara, albeit with reservations. Speaking at the COP29 conference in Baku, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan once again stated that the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) might resume fighting against Kurdish militias in Syria and complete Operation “Peace Spring”, advancing both westward and eastward from already controlled territories.  In his “analysis of Trump”, Hakan Fidan expressed hope that Trump would withdraw 800 American soldiers from all of northeastern Syria, which would enable the TAF to carry out the operation. However, the minister expressed doubts that President Trump would agree to such a step immediately: “My impression of Donald Trump is this: despite his statements on various issues, he tends to postpone decisions on critical matters”. “A Trusted Ally” in the White House  While the situation with Israel is relatively clear—Donald Trump is surrounded by anti-Iran and anti-Palestinian hawks—Turkey has fewer allies in the new administration. One notable exception is political strategist Susie Wiles, who will serve as the Chief of Staff at the White House. Wiles is a veteran of politics and a trusted adviser to Trump, having worked on his presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020. She has strong ties to lobbying networks and a deep understanding of the president's interests.   Wiles has extensive experience working with prominent lobbyist Brian Ballard, who represented Turkey's interests in Washington. A key moment in this relationship was the 2017 meeting between Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and Brian Ballard, which advanced the lobbying of Turkish business interests in the United States. Susie Wiles, leveraging her connections and influence, successfully conveyed Turkey's priorities to Donald Trump and his administration, resulting in significant actions — such as attempts to close legal cases against the Turkish bank Halkbank, whose executives were accused of illegally transferring billions of dollars to Iran. Wiles' ties to Brian Ballard suggest that she will continue to advocate for Turkey's interests in her new role, particularly in the context of strategic trade between the two countries. The political strategist's influence could potentially soften the “America First” stance when it comes to Turkey, possibly leading to compromises in areas like Syria. For the finalization of Operation “Peace Spring”, Ankara requires a “green light” from the U.S., which currently backs the YPG. Wiles' position may play a pivotal role in facilitating this agreement. Optimism for the Future? The Erdoğan administration's hopes for improved relations with the U.S. under Donald Trump are not solely based on prior positive experiences with him and his encouraging statements on various issues. Turkish leadership had a highly unpleasant experience interacting with Joe Biden's team. Early in his presidency, Biden officially recognized the mass deaths of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide. His administration exerted pressure on Turkey over its stance on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and anti-Russian sanctions, even imposing sanctions on Turkish companies.   The State Department and the White House frequently criticized Turkish authorities for human rights violations and the erosion of democratic principles in the country, almost openly supporting the opposition bloc during the 2023 presidential elections. Additionally, largely due to Pentagon opposition, Turkey refrained from completing its operation in Syria. Just days before Donald Trump and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's meeting in 2019, the House of Representatives approved sanctions against Turkey for its military operation in Syria. While many issues during Trump’s previous presidency could be attributed to an anti-presidential Congress, this time, the Republican president will face fewer restraining mechanisms, as his party dominates both the Senate and the House of Representatives.   It is also worth noting that the anti-Turkish Armenian and Greek lobbies wield greater influence over the Democratic Party than over the Republicans. Donald Trump's pragmatism, combined with his support from Congress and the presence of a “trusted ally” within his administration, provides grounds for improving Turkish-American relations. However, systemic issues between the two countries remain, imposing limitations even on a “dear friend” like Trump.  Turkey continues to diversify its foreign policy. Ankara is unwilling to sacrifice key economic, energy, and infrastructure projects with Russia and China as it integrates into the SCO and BRICS. The Syrian case could become a factor of either convergence or antagonism, particularly if Trump refuses to compromise on the Kurdish issue.  At the same time, potential escalation in Idlib, which could hinder normalization between Damascus and Ankara, would enhance U.S. influence in Turkish politics. Lastly, if Trump fails to bring peace to Palestine, Turkey is likely to intensify its policies and rhetoric against Israel, further straining relations with the newly elected president.

Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Ladies and Gentlemen, Today marks a truly historic milestone. Let me begin by thanking the Chief Negotiators for their dedication and determination. They worked tirelessly, over many years, for an ambitious and balanced agreement – and they succeeded. The bond between Europe and the Mercosur countries is truly one of the strongest in the world. It is a bond anchored in trust, enriched by a shared heritage, that spans centuries of mutual learning and growth. In fact, exactly 30 years ago, in 1994, my predecessor Jacques Delors stood here in Montevideo. He met with your father, dear Luis, who was then President of Uruguay. Together they shared a bold vision. A vision of deeper integration, not only within Europe and Mercosur, but also between them. Today, in Montevideo, we are turning that vision into reality. We are strengthening this unique partnership as never before. And in doing so, we are sending a clear and powerful message to the world. First, in an increasingly confrontational world, we demonstrate that democracies can rely on each other. This agreement is not just an economic opportunity, it is a political necessity. We are like-minded partners. We both believe that openness and cooperation are the true engines of progress and prosperity. I know that strong winds are blowing in the opposite direction – towards isolation and fragmentation. But this agreement is our clear response. We stand together on the global stage, as partners. Second, we are sending a message to our people and businesses in our regions: This agreement was designed with your interests at heart. It is made to work for you. It means: more jobs – and good jobs – more choices and better prices. The European Union and Mercosur create one of the largest trade and investment partnerships the world has ever seen. We are taking barriers down and we are allowing investments in. We are forming a market of over 700 million consumers. This partnership will strengthen entire value chains; it will develop strategic industries; it will support innovation; and it will create jobs and values, on both sides of the Atlantic. Third, we are showing the world that trade can – and must – be guided by values. Trade agreements are more than economic frameworks. They are a way to build communities of shared values. The EU-Mercosur agreement reflects our steadfast commitment to the Paris Agreement and to the fight against deforestation. President Lula's efforts to protect the Amazon are welcome and necessary. But preserving the Amazon is a shared responsibility of all humanity. This agreement ensures that investments respect Mercosur's extraordinary yet fragile natural heritage. My fourth message is that, economically, this is a win-win agreement. Europe is already a leading investment and trade partner for Mercosur. So you know how we do business together. We are focused on fairness and mutual respect. EU-Mercosur will bring meaningful benefits to consumers and businesses, on both sides. It will facilitate European investments in strategic industries across all Mercosur countries: like sustainable mining, renewable energy and sustainable forest products, just to name a few. It will also make it easier to invest in sectors that directly impact the people's daily lives. For example, expanding the electricity grid to rural and remote areas and advancing digitalisation across the region. Finally, let me address my fellow Europeans: This agreement is a win for Europe. 60,000 companies are exporting to Mercosur today – 30,000 of them are small and medium-sized enterprises. They benefit from reduced tariffs, simpler customs procedures and preferential access to some critical raw materials. This will create huge business opportunities. To our farmers: We have heard you, listened to your concerns and we are acting on them. This agreement includes robust safeguards to protect your livelihoods. EU-Mercosur is the biggest agreement ever, when it comes to the protection of EU food and drinks products. The agreement protects 350 EU geographical indications. In addition, our European health and food standards remain untouchable. This is the reality – the reality of an agreement that will save EU companies EUR 4 billion worth of export duties per year while expanding our markets and opening new opportunities for growth and jobs on both sides. I want to thank President Lacalle Pou for hosting this Summit and for bringing us together in Montevideo. This is a good day for Mercosur, a good day for Europe and a landmark moment for our shared future. A whole generation dedicated their effort, vision and determination to bring this agreement to life. Now, it is our turn to honour that legacy. Let us ensure that this agreement delivers on its promises and serves the generations to come. Thank you very much.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Who could have predicted that after nearly 14 years of civil war and five years of stalemate, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria would collapse in just a week? With Assad’s departure, the pressing question now is what lies ahead for Syria’s immediate future. When opposition fighters led by the group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seized the major city of Aleppo in late November with minimal resistance, commentators widely believed it marked the beginning of the Assad regime’s downfall. Many anticipated a bitter fight to the end. Assad was caught off guard, and his forces were clearly unprepared. He withdrew his remaining troops from Aleppo to regroup and gain time for reinforcements to arrive from Russia and Iran, and hope the opposition fighters would stop there. It wasn’t to be. Emboldened by their swift success in Aleppo, HTS fighters wasted no time and advanced on Hama, capturing it with ease. They quickly followed up by seizing Homs, the next major city to the south. Russia provided limited air support to Assad. But Iran, having depleted its forces in Hezbollah’s defence against Israel in Lebanon, was unable to offer significant assistance and withdrew its remaining personnel from Syria. Meanwhile, Assad’s frantic calls for support from Iraq did not go anywhere. Seeing the writing on the wall, the morale of Assad’s forces and leadership plummeted. Fearing retribution in the event of the regime’s collapse, defections began en masse, further accelerating Assad’s downfall. And on the last day, Assad fled the country, and his prime minister officially handed over power to HTS and its leadership. It marked the end of 54 years of Assad family rule in Syria. The Assad legacy The Assad family, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez al-Assad, will likely be remembered by the majority of Syrians as brutal dictators. The modern state of Syria was established in 1920 following the Sykes-Picot Agreement in the aftermath of the first world war. Syria became a League of Nations mandate under French control, only gaining independence in 1944. Following a tumultuous period, including a failed unification with Egypt, the Ba'ath Party seized control in 1963 through a coup that involved Hafez al-Assad. In 1966, Hafez al-Assad led another coup alongside other officers from the Alawite minority. This ultimately resulted in a civilian regime, with Hafez al-Assad becoming president in 1970. Hafez al-Assad established himself as an authoritarian dictator, concentrating power, the military and the economy in the hands of his relatives and the Alawite community. Meanwhile, the Sunni majority was largely marginalised and excluded from positions of power and influence. Hafez al-Assad is most infamously remembered for his brutal suppression of the opposition in 1982. The uprising, led by the Islamic Front, saw the opposition capture the city of Hama. In response, the Syrian army razed the city, leaving an estimated 10,000 to 40,000 civilians dead or disappeared and decisively crushing the rebellion. Hafez al-Assad died in 2000, and, the least likely candidate, his younger son, Bashar al-Assad, assumed the presidency. Having been educated in the West to become a doctor, Bashar al-Assad projected a moderate and modern image, raising hopes he might usher in a new era of progress and democracy in Syria. However, Bashar al-Assad soon found himself navigating a turbulent regional landscape following the September 11 2001 terror attacks and the US invasion of Iraq. In 2004, after the United States imposed sanctions on Syria, Assad sought closer ties with Turkey. He and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became friends, removing visa requirements between their countries and making plans to establish economic zones to boost trade. Erdoğan and Assad then had a falling out during a series of events in 2011, a year that marked a turning point for Syria. The Arab Spring revolts swept into the country, presenting Assad with a critical choice: to pursue a democratic path or crush the opposition as his father had done in 1982. He chose the latter, missing a historic opportunity to peacefully transform Syria. The consequences were catastrophic. A devastating civil war broke out, resulting in more than 300,000 deaths (some estimates are higher), 5.4 million refugees, and 6.9 million people internally displaced. This will be Assad’s legacy. Syria’s immediate challenges Syria now has a new force in power: HTS and its leadership, spearheaded by the militant leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. They will face immediate challenges and four key priorities: 1) Consolidating power. The new leadership will now try to ensure there are no armed groups capable of contesting their rule, particularly remnants of the old Assad regime and smaller factions that were not part of the opposition forces. Critically, they will also need to discuss how power will be shared among the coalition of opposition groups. Al-Jolani is likely to become the founding president of the new Syria, but how the rest of the power will be distributed remains uncertain. It seems the opposition was not prepared to take over the country so quickly, and they may not have a power-sharing agreement. This will need to be negotiated and worked out quickly. The new government will likely recognise the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the territories it controls as an autonomous region within Syria. An independent Kurdish state, however, will be strongly opposed by Turkey, the main external backer of the opposition. Yet, history seems to be moving in favour of the Kurds. There is now the eventual possibility of an independent Kurdish state, potentially combining northern Iraq and northeastern Syria into a single entity. 2) International recognition. Syria is a very complex and diverse place. As such, the new government can only be sustained if it gains international recognition. The key players in this process are Turkey, the European Union, the United States and Israel (through the US). It is likely all of these entities will recognise the new government on the condition it forms a moderate administration, refrains from fighting the Kurdish YPG, and does not support Hezbollah or Hamas. Given their unexpected success in toppling Assad so quickly, the opposition is likely to accept these conditions in exchange for aid and recognition. 3) Forming a new government. The question on everyone’s mind is what kind of political order the opposition forces will now establish. HTS and many of the groups in its coalition are Sunni Muslims, with HTS having origins linked to al-Qaeda. However, HTS broke away from the terror organisation in 2016 and shifted its focus exclusively to Syria as an opposition movement. Nevertheless, we should not expect a democratic secular rule. The new government is also unlikely to resemble the ultra-conservative theocratic rule of the Taliban. In his recent interview with CNN, al-Jolani made two key points. He indicated he and other leaders in the group have evolved in their outlook and Islamic understanding with age, suggesting the extreme views from their youth have moderated over time. He also emphasised the opposition would be tolerant of the freedoms and rights of religious and ethnic minority groups. The specifics of how this will manifest remain unclear. The expectation is HTS will form a conservative government in which Islam plays a dominant role in shaping social policies and lawmaking. On the economic and foreign policy fronts, the country’s new leaders are likely to be pragmatic, open to alliances with the regional and global powers that have supported them. 4) Rebuilding the country and maintaining unity. This is needed to prevent another civil war from erupting — this time among the winners. A recent statement from HTS’s Political Affairs Department said the new Syria will focus on construction, progress and reconciliation. The new government aims to create positive conditions for displaced Syrians to return to their country, establish constructive relations with neighbouring countries and prioritise rebuilding the economy. Syria and the broader Middle East have entered a new phase in their modern history. Time will tell how things will unfold, but one thing is certain: it will never be the same.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Special Keynote Address by HH Prince Faisal Bin Farhan Al SaudDelivered at the 20th Regional Security Summit The IISS Manama Dialogue on 7th of December 2024 in Bahrain. This text is a verbatim transcript of the speech (As Delivered) HH Prince Faisal bin Farhan al Saud, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: “In the name of God, all merciful, may you have a very blessed morning. Firstly, I would like to express my elation for joining the 20th Manama Dialogue while reiterating my thanks and appreciation for the Kingdom of Bahrain, two last decades, for hosting the most prominent Manama Dialogue, that is of increasing importance as a main dialogue platform, gathering officials from all over the world in order to discuss the most important issues that touch the security of the area at a time we need it, mostly towards security solutions, facing mutual solutions. Not to mention, I thank the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and the chairman for so kindly inviting me. This is convened at a critical time that the global system is going through, an accelerating crisis and polarisation with increased mutual threats. Our area is not separated from the global arena, and vice versa is true, given the conflict that is crossing borders, affecting global security, creating risks for the global economy. Hence, the framework for the 20th Dialogue is leadership in the Middle East to create prosperity, which is increasing in importance – to attain prosperity, which is correlated to security and peace, that are based on permanent peace, that is sustainable and not on the basis of interests. For the Kingdom, it has forever been earnest in its political overcoming of crises, responding to economic development, not to mention that we have been committed to regional tolerance, cooperation and dialogue, a strengthening of partnerships and creation of new integration on the basis of economy. But the crises and the wars are deviating us towards a dangerous crossroad. Hence, it is upon us, in cooperation with the global community, to mutually mobilise ourselves effectively to correct the path, going back to tolerance and cohabitation in peace, ridding ourselves of wars [that are] leaving thousands of victims, void of attainment of strategic goals. Hence, our pivotal goal for political security is to focus on the challenges standing in the way of perpetrators towards a better future, not to mention that we have seen that this reality is achievable, but it calls for commitment and effort by everyone with a political will, even courage, steering away from personal or self-interest. Peace needs enabling to face all those standing in the way of achieving it and realising it, and above all, it needs earnest partners from all sides. Dear ladies and gentlemen, the continuity of war in Gaza is touching the region and global security and is standing in the way, as Israel has impunity and is getting away without punishment. One stand is important to preserve the peace and the global security. Otherwise, it will deteriorate all efforts to remedy the situation. Hence, the global community should intensify their efforts in order to have a ceasefire and entry of humanitarian aid to Gaza, release of all the detainees. We warn against speech of hatred that is feeding victims’ inclusive declarations, that are threatening Gaza settlements, and against the twostate solution.  When it comes to the Kingdom, the path to peace is clear but has obstacles. And if we look at the reality of crises, we find out that peace is a common denominator based on the two-state solution. Should the global community care to protect what credibility is left, they have to put their hands in the hands of the Kingdom and earnest countries in order to translate words into actions and realise the two-state solution based on responding to the needs and security. Everybody has to follow, including Israel. The Kingdom believes … the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is earnest to follow the peace followed by the Arab Peace summit and the two last summits. Not to mention, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with its alliance [inaudible] for the two-state solution, based on pragmatic steps to materialise the Palestinian state, ending occupation, based on the rights of selfdetermination by the Palestinian people void of any other obstacles from other parties. It is high time, in order for us to overcome the freeze of peace efforts, to move from speech to industry of peace. Not to mention, the Kingdom is going to continue its efforts in that way to have two states, Israel and Gaza, going back to the original borders, with Jerusalem as its capital. Dear ladies and gentlemen, the Kingdom reiterates, it is important to be earnest against acceleration and escalation to avoid bad results, hence welcoming ceasefire in Lebanon, hoping that international exerted efforts to meet the 701 Resolution of the United Nations to empower Lebanon, ridding them of humanitarian suffering. As the rest of the crises – in Sudan, Libya, etc. – calls for shunning violence and military action towards political solution, void of external intervention, towards sovereignty, void of accelerating humanitarian and risk of collapse of national systems. Dear ladies and gentlemen, the Kingdom’s vision is a cornerstone to support socio-economic development on a sustainable basis with a foreign policy reflecting the priority of the vision towards creating a brighter reality that will seep into the entire area, hence invested all efforts for regional stability and mutual security by empowering unity among the brothers based on dialogue among countries of the region while mediating peace efforts. The events today call for worry, yet the Kingdom looks at an interactive future of the Middle East given our ample resources, geographical proximity amid three continents, rich resources, reiterating that the area continues to have importance globally – not to mention the popular call for peace in order to realise economic integration while being sure that lack of security is not inevitable, but due to political feuds, calling for political solution and ridding ourselves of the zero formula that is not a win–win situation. We look forward to an alternative path [that] falls into interests that are wide-ended as opposed to self-interest, towards hope and a better future for the people of the area. Thank you very, very much.” As Delivered Disclaimer:This speech is published under the principles of press freedom, with no commercial intent, and solely for the purpose of informing interested individuals. The speech was publicly delivered by HH Prince Faisal Bin Farhan Al Saud at the 20th Regional Security Summit The IISS Manama Dialogue. This publication aims to provide access to the content for informational purposes and does not imply endorsement or official authorization by the event organizers. Public Information:This speech addresses critical global and regional security issues and is therefore of significant public interest. Its publication aims to make these important topics accessible to a broader audience, fostering awareness and understanding. Transparency and Accessibility:Providing the speech in written form enhances access to key political and security-related information, making it easier for readers to engage with the content.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Subsequent U.S. administrations, except for brief moments of relative calm, have persisted in demanding that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) abandon its nuclear program and, moreover, have made extensive efforts to destabilize its political and economic system. Meanwhile, the successive leaders of the DPRK have persisted in advancing their defensive capabilities until reaching their preferred deterrent: nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, a guarantee of survival. This persistent situation reached an unprecedented moment when, during his previous presidency, Donald Trump made a surprising shift in U.S. policy toward the DPRK, temporarily unraveling, although without the expected results, the "Korean Gordian Knot." This led to successive summits in 2018 and 2019 (Singapore, Hanoi, and Panmunjom) with Kim Jong Un, the leader of a state that, throughout its history, has maintained sharply confrontational relations with the United States. The world witnessed the transition from exchanges of insults and threats—Trump calling Kim "Little Rocket Man" and Kim referring to Trump as "old senile man"—and threatening the latter with "fire and fury" if the North Korean leader continued missile tests, to becoming "pen pals" and holding three unprecedented summits. No U.S. president has managed relations with the DPRK like Donald Trump did, and no North Korean leader in history has sat face-to-face, as equals, with a sitting U.S. president as Kim Jong Un did, which granted him prestige on the global stage. Due to reasons associated with its strategic ambiguity, the Biden Administration made no diplomatic progress with Pyongyang. Even though at the beginning of his term he committed to a "new strategy toward North Korea," over the past four years, his actions have only promoted sanctions in the Security Council, which have clashed dramatically with Russia's veto, struggled with the dissolution of the DPRK Expert Group in the Sanctions Committee, and observed the exponential increase in its arsenal of intercontinental, hypersonic, and short-range ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear warheads capable of targeting the continental U.S. and U.S. military bases in the region. Furthermore, the DPRK has resumed uranium enrichment and reopened its nuclear test center. In the end, the outgoing president has been unable to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table, much less contain it. So, one must ask: Will Trump's return to the White House mark continuity or a change from his previous term? An analysis of the future position of the Trump administration toward the DPRK should consider that, compared to his previous term, the circumstances have radically changed. 1. DPRK’s nuclear and missile programs have made new and significant advances. At the same time, its foreign policy has undergone a reorientation due to the sustained increase in distrust toward Washington from Pyongyang.2. By order of its leader, the DPRK has severed all its ties and symbols of relations with the Republic of Korea, which it classifies as the "main and unchanging enemy," and as it has no intention of avoiding war, it has instructed the People's Armed Forces to accelerate preparations to "occupy, subjugate, and fully reclaim" South Korea, in response to the confrontational attitude and increasingly close military and intelligence ties between Washington and Seoul.3. There has been a tightening of ties between Pyongyang and Moscow. The two summits between Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, and Kim's description of Putin as the "closest comrade," have shown the high level of understanding and commitment between the two, which has materialized in the DPRK's unwavering support for Russia's special military operation in Ukraine and the signing of a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, ratified by both legislatures. This treaty includes a clause for "mutual military assistance," while Russia provides diplomatic and economic backing to the DPRK, opposing multilateral and unilateral sanctions, and expanding its exports, mainly oil, raw materials, and food, as well as assistance in various fields.4. An emerging anti-U.S. and anti-Western axis is taking shape between China, Russia, the DPRK, and Iran, which has become so significant that Washington and its allies are labeling it the "new axis of evil." In this interconnected relationship, the DPRK holds significant advantages in three strategic dimensions: economic, military, and diplomatic. At least these four factors will significantly impact Donald Trump's decision to return, or not, to diplomacy with Kim Jong Un, raising doubts about whether the former would be willing to revisit it. However, if he tries, it is unclear what Kim Jong Un's response would be, clearly more determined and militarily more powerful in the eyes of Washington, which at first glance seems unwilling to renew its offers related to denuclearization. The ironic jest by Trump at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, when he said that Kim Jong Un "missed him," that they "got along very well," and that "he misses me" and "wants me back in the White House" and "it's good to get along with someone who has a lot of nuclear weapons," was met with a response from North Korean media, stating that "they don't care" who assumes office in the U.S. This suggests that Pyongyang's official stance is that, regardless of what happens, it will not abandon its nuclear deterrent. Considering the visible changes in the geopolitical and geostrategic landscape that differ from those in 2018-2019, any type of negotiation aimed at reaching compromises between the parties on the denuclearization of North Korea will be even more challenging. Trump may seek alternative approaches to encourage the DPRK to freeze nuclear and missile tests, but he will need to weigh several options. These include: which side should take the first step toward engagement; whether it is necessary to "rattle sabers" to create influence; the possibility of "unilateral conciliatory gestures"; and whether he should stick to the goal of "complete denuclearization" (Chad O’Carroll and Shreyas Reddy, 2024). Donald Trump exhibits an unpredictable, egocentric personality and is a fan of diplomatic spectacle, with a penchant for reality shows. Given this, he might be tempted to revisit diplomacy, possibly considering the absence of John Bolton, who, alongside Michael Pompeo, led the Hanoi Summit to failure. Many agree with what was stated by Moon Chung In, emeritus professor at Yonsei University and former special advisor for foreign affairs and national security during the previous Moon Jae In administration, when he admitted: "It is possible that, in his second term, Trump will prioritize solidifying his political legacy. His foreign policy would be heavily influenced by media attention and personal ego, as he cares about how history will remember him. Achieving a major deal with Pyongyang and contributing to peace on the Korean Peninsula could serve to fulfill that ambition, potentially allowing him to win a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. While resolving the Ukraine war or the Gaza crisis could also improve his chances of receiving the prize, negotiations with Kim Jong Un are likely to be a key agenda for Trump. In that sense, Trump could actively engage with the North Korean leader, and might even consider a visit to Pyongyang for a summit, where he could make surprising offers. However, the success of such efforts ultimately depends on Kim's response" (Lee Hyo Jin, 2024). It is necessary to build some scenarios: 1. The influence of personal friendship could encourage Kim Jong Un to engage in communication with Trump, turning the page on the Hanoi failure and minimizing distrust toward the U.S.2. Recognition by the Trump Administration of the DPRK as a de facto nuclear power and easing of sanctions to promote progress toward the partial normalization of relations.3. Strong U.S. demands for denuclearization and the promotion of further sanctions, leading to increased tensions. Given Trump’s volatility and the unpredictability of the DPRK leadership, there are currently no conditions to determine the most likely scenario. The campaign team has not commented on whether Trump will seek new meetings with Kim Jong Un, but his statements prior to his victory suggest that he might seek to revive talks, possibly sooner rather than later. Now, it is unpredictable what roadmap Trump will implement, as his opinions during the campaign may differ from the decisions he makes officially when in office. It is not accurate to assume that his demeanor during the first term will be indicative of his future conduct. It is worth dedicating a brief space to the designated Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. As a staunch anti-communist, he is one of the promoters of the term "axis of evil," which includes the DPRK, and considers China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as aligned against the US. He has advocated concrete actions and plans against these states. It is expected that, initially, he will oppose any commitment from the incoming administration with the DPRK. As John Bolton and Michael Pompeo did at the time, Rubio could attempt to limit Donald Trump’s maneuvering room with Kim Jong Un. However, there is also the possibility that the next U.S. president’s assertive and authoritarian character, who, despite previous disagreements, appointed Rubio, will lead him to align with Trump’s decisions or, alternatively, suffer the same fate of being ousted with a “tweet and a punch,” as happened to Rex Tillerson and John Bolton. Regarding the Republic of Korea, it is important to specify that the most critical foreign policy issues for Donald Trump’s new administration will be its relationship with the European Union, the Middle East conflicts, the war in Ukraine, the China-Taiwan dispute, and relations with the DPRK. It is precisely the latter that concerns South Koreans the most, as their security largely depends on the presence of U.S. troops in their country and Washington’s support for South Korea’s defense against the imminent “North Korean threat.” The conservative government of Yoon Suk Yeol has marked a clear distinction from his predecessor Moon Jae In by significantly strengthening his alliance with the U.S., driven by his growing animosity towards the DPRK and his pro-American stance. This situation presents little likelihood of encouraging Trump to engage in talks with Kim Jong Un, especially without a clear indication from Pyongyang toward denuclearization. This is likely, as all signs point to Pyongyang not making significant concessions regarding its nuclear deterrent and showing a strong aversion towards the Republic of Korea. After Donald Trump's victory, the South Korean president had a phone conversation with him to extend his congratulations and quickly express his desire for the alliance to continue under his leadership. Although both agreed to hold a summit as soon as possible, the issue of the DPRK, which was already addressed in this initial dialogue, will certainly be on the agenda. It is said that Trump plans for his government to work with South Korea on several bilateral issues, but one of the key aspects will be South Korea’s contribution to Washington for hosting U.S. bases on its territory. Let's remember that during Trump's first term, this was a hot topic in his military relations. It is worth mentioning that due to Donald Trump's transactional approach to international relations, his perception that many of the U.S. allies are "taking advantage" of its military power, and the pressure he exerted on Seoul when he was in office, with Trump's victory, national security against the DPRK is placed at the forefront. Many are concerned that his return to the White House could mean that Washington will no longer be a reliable partner, making it necessary for South Korea to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Han Dong Hoon, leader of the ruling People Power Party, said at a seminar organized to discuss the future of South Korea's nuclear policy that Trump's victory had positive aspects. "Acquiring nuclear potential — meaning having the right to enrich and reprocess uranium — does not inherently equate to possessing nuclear weapons," he said, according to The Korea Herald. "But we would be able to move to that phase at any time if North Korea intensifies its nuclear threats," he added. "I believe we should be prepared for such a scenario amid the changing dynamics of global power and order." Meanwhile, retired Army General Han Ki Ho went a step further and suggested that South Korea may no longer have a choice. "Nuclear armament may be the only path left for South Korea's survival," he stated (Julian Ryall, 2024). However, whether the Republic of Korea acquires nuclear weapons will depend on how the Trump administration approaches the alliance and relations with North Korea, that is, whether it abandons or restricts the "extended deterrence" and whether it pursues an agreement with Pyongyang that halts its development of long-range missiles that could reach the continental United States in exchange for accepting North Korea as a de facto nuclear power. This type of agreement would affect Seoul, located just 48 kilometers from the border, and therefore within the range of North Korea's short-range missiles. We are facing an uncertain situation, and therefore, expectant, where the expectations regarding Donald Trump's stance on DPRK are uncertain. Whether the denuclearization of DPRK is a priority for the Trump administration depends on the approach and methods with which the president and his team address an increasingly complex scenario. DPRK, in terms of its economic performance and national defense potential, is not the same as before, which gives Kim Jong Un greater effectiveness in his military deterrence and diplomatic maneuverability, especially when his reliable conduct with Moscow and the appropriate handling of relations with Beijing strengthen his position vis-à-vis the U.S. Trump will have to deal with these realities. And while he may intend to continue his legacy, he will necessarily have to reframe his policy towards DPRK, considering that DPRK is no longer the same, that its main contenders (Russia and China) are precisely the closest to DPRK, and that the country itself is no longer the same, either militarily or socioeconomically, as it was when he engaged in talks with Kim Jong Un in 2018-2019. References - Simone McCarthy (2024) Trump claims Kim Jong Un “isses him. But he faces a very different North Korea leader this time around. Disponible en: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/asia/trump-kim-jong-un-north-korea-intl-hnk/index.html- Keith Johnson (2024) Could Trump Rekindle Diplomacy With North Korea? Disponible en: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/13/trump-north-korea-diplomacy-putin-russia/- Joel S. Wit (2024) Blame Donald Trump for North Korea´s sable-rattling. Disponible en: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/blame-donald-trump-for-north-koreas-sabre-rattling/- Rubén Criado (2024) Así afecta la victoria de Trump a Corea del Norte. Disponible en: https://as.com/actualidad/politica/asi-afecta-la-victoria-de-trump-a-corea-del-norte-n/- Josh Smith (2024) Donald Trump se enfrenta a un Kim Jong Un envalentonado, cercano a Rusia y con un arsenal de misiles más grande. Disponible en: https://www.infobae.com/america/mundo/2024/11/07/donald-trump-se-enfrentara-a-un-kim-jong-un-envalentonado-cercano-a-rusia-y-con-un-arsenal-de-misiles-mas-grande/- Julian Ryall (2024) Regreso de Trump atiza debate nuclear en Corea del Sur. Disponible en: https://amp.dw.com/es/el-regreso-de-trump-atiza-el-debate-nuclear-en-corea-del-sur/a70798786#amp_tf=De%20%251%24s&aoh=17317231276140&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com- Chad O´Carrol y Shreyas Reddy (2024) Why North Korean denuclearization will likely take backseat in second Trump term | NK Disponible en: https://www.nknews.org/2024/11/why-north-korean-denuclearization-will-likely-take-backseat-in-second-trump-term/- Miguel Jiménez (2024) Donald Trump planea elegir a marcos Rubio como secretario de Estado. Disponible en: https://elpais.com/internacional/elecciones-usa/2024-11-12/donald-trump-elige-a-marco-rubio-como-secretario-de-estado.html?outputType=amp#amp_tf=De%20%251%24s&aoh=17317890370552&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com