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

Rarely in the history of the European Union has it faced challenges comparable to the ones it faces today. Since the end of the Cold War, the EU has been on the rise. Its membership has expanded quantitatively and qualitatively. Pan-European institutions and European law have been strengthened. Diplomacy and security policy have been taking shape. The EU has gradually become more like a confederation or a federation. However, it has lacked the centralized security structures to truly become a full-fledged state or even a super-state — primarily the armed forces. The EU has remained a junior partner of NATO and part of Euro-Atlantic security architecture, where the US has played a leading role. However, the question of the EU's strategic autonomy has gradually departed from purely theoretical considerations. While maintaining its role as an economic giant, Brussels has long remained a political dwarf. The Ukraine conflict has become a powerful political stimulus for expanding political opportunities, although the preconditions for such a dynamic existed earlier. Similar incentives are emerging in other areas as well. The European Union has been forced to provide immediate answers to the eternal question of "what to do," playing on several chessboards at once. What to do with the United States? A year ago, such a question would have rarely occurred to anyone. Brussels and Washington were closely aligned on the issue of containing Russia. There was also common ground on the issue of growing competition with China. The level of economic ties remained high. Military-political integration has been revived. NATO has welcomed two new EU members — Finland and Sweden. Surprises were expected from Donald Trump. But the experience of his first term still served as an indicator of their predictability. Moreover, the European allies themselves had been moving toward Trump's demands during his previous term — increased defense spending, energy purchases from the US, a rejection of Russian raw materials and so on. However, the US president has exceeded expectations, disconcerting the EU on several fronts. These include a special position on Ukraine, territorial ambitions for Greenland (formally part of Denmark, a member of the EU and NATO), a trade war affecting EU countries, criticism of the Old World in doctrinal documents and speeches by senior officials, as well as an overt policy of force. A close ally and key guarantor of security has transformed, in a matter of months, into a cold, calculating, and unpredictable player. The EU's actions regarding the American issue have so far revealed a wait-and-see tactic. In the medium term, the plan is to "outlast" Trump. His term will expire in three years. With that, a shift in foreign policy can be expected from the new administration. That is, if the Democrats come to power. In the short term, the plan is to avoid angering the American leader, to play on his personality traits (praising his achievements, avoiding criticism), to concede on certain issues, or to present as concessions what is inevitable. These include arms and energy purchases from the US and a trade balance adjustment in Washington's favour. The Greenland issue could be resolved using the same logic. The US military has de facto controlled the island for decades. Moreover, the United States formally remains an ally of Denmark and other EU countries. Why not concede? Especially if the procedure is carried out democratically. Of course, the Danish king or prime minister is unlikely to be kidnapped by American special forces, and they are unlikely to face charges in a US federal court. But Denmark risks being outvoted in the democratic process. The EU's perception of Donald Trump could be compared to the perception of the Russian Emperor Paul I among the Russian aristocracy and nobility. Paul was renowned for his eccentricity and was extremely unpopular. He fell victim to an inevitable conspiracy by his inner circle. But the expectation that problems with the United States will be resolved after a change of leadership, similar to the case in Russian history, rests on a fragile foundation. Unlike the Russian emperor, who became a lone figure on the throne, the American president is backed by a vibrant and young team, widespread support, and a consistent ideology. Donald Trump's departure is unlikely to resolve the EU's American problem. Moreover, his young successors could cling to their ally with an even tighter grip. What to do with Russia? In EU political rhetoric, Russia occupies the position of its most important and dangerous adversary. This approach took hold after February 2022, but had been brewing since the events in Crimea in 2014. Compared to the United States, maintaining a confrontational approach to Russia in a semantic sense is easier, as the identity structures of both sides already contain established, centuries-old patterns of mutual perception as a "significant other." (Neumann, I. (1999) Uses of the Other: "The East" in European Identity Formation. University of Minnesota Press.) Regarding the United States, such patterns have either not yet been developed or have been lost. The EU's approach to Russia over the past four years has been characterized by a fairly active policy of containment. This includes the consistent severing of trade and economic ties, even at the cost of economic damage to itself; large-scale military and political support for Ukraine; remilitarization and the restoration of the military-industrial complex; and attempts to influence third countries in their trade with Russia, not to mention information and ideological warfare. The problem for the EU is that the results have largely been negative. Yes, Brussels is doing its part to keep Ukraine afloat. Yes, Russia has suffered economic damage. Yes, defense spending is rising and the military-industrial complex is slowly recovering. Yes, third countries are wary of secondary sanctions. Yes, the information machine is working. But Russia hasn't gone anywhere. Its economy has been reoriented towards other areas, and its market for EU companies has been lost. Hostilities with Ukraine continue. Russia's military-industrial complex has been deployed, and its nuclear potential makes any Yugoslavia – or Libya-style solutions futile. Russia has its own financial and informational network, which has become more difficult, or significantly more difficult to influence. The good news for the European Union is that Moscow is unlikely to be planning military expansion against the EU countries themselves. War with them makes neither political nor practical sense for Russia, although the issue of responding to hypothetical military aggression by NATO or individual member states against Russia is likely to be addressed. Moscow cannot harm the Union with trade wars, and it simply lacks the desire to seriously fight for public opinion support. Ultra-conservative forces may at first glance seem convenient for Russia. But experience shows that conservatives and populists in power are hardly helpful in close foreign policy circles. Poland is a paragon of traditional values, but it is at the forefront of Russia's adversaries. In other words, Russia is a convenient foe. It can be fought through Ukraine and pinned on it the answer to the question of "who is to blame?" But at the same time, doing all this is relatively safe for the Europeans. The tactic toward Russia is loud and wait-and-see. Loud in terms of rhetoric. Wait-and-see in the hope that the Russian side will not withstand and collapse. Fortunately, there are many who support the theory of Russia's imminent decline. The problem for the EU is that not only Donald Trump, but also Vladimir Putin differs from the aforementioned Emperor Paul I. While Brussels hopes for the fatal blow with the snuffbox, Russia lives its own life. Apparently, Washington was the first to realize this. What shall be done with Ukraine? The answer to the Ukraine question is also seemingly simple: support Kiev by all means possible. In the short term, the practical policy here is more or less clear: continue financial and military support for Ukraine in order to restore it and prevent military defeat. In the medium term, there is greater uncertainty. The key issue is resources. The confiscation of Russian sovereign assets is still theoretically possible. But even if Brussels bears the full costs of such confiscation, it will not fundamentally solve the problem. The EU faces the prospect of becoming the main donor to a large and warring state with a very specific political system. The benefits of its integration into the EU are ambiguous. Furthermore, the problem of security guarantees and the material backing of such guarantees remains. Unlike the US, the EU is unlikely to be able to demand that Kiev repay its debts through enslaving agreements and then quickly distance itself from the problem. Regarding the Ukrainian issue, the EU may try to leave things as they are, while simultaneously awaiting a change of power in the US and potential problems in Russia. Brussels apparently has sufficient resources to keep Kiev afloat for a couple of years. The EU is likely prepared to accept further material losses for the sake of political principles, just as it did when it severed economic ties with Russia. At the same time, an agreement on Ukraine would also be in the EU's interests. Yes, Kiev is losing territory, but Ukraine remains a fairly large state. It will inevitably remain within the EU's political and economic orbit. An end to hostilities with a ceasefire along the line of contact would likely be more acceptable to the EU than the large-scale, legally binding agreement Moscow is insisting on. If US policy changes and problems escalate in Russia, a ceasefire would be more convenient for a new round of the Ukraine conflict. However, experience shows that even such agreements can be violated, so a binding agreement in itself is not a major problem for Brussels. It is important for the EU that Ukrainian losses in the negotiations are minimized, and that security guarantees do not expose the EU to the threat of military escalation directly with Russia. In answering the question of what to do with Ukraine, the EU will likely have to acknowledge the "realities on the ground." If the US continues to distance itself from the Ukraine issue, and the Russian army continues to advance, delaying such recognition will increasingly devalue Brussels's course. However, a willingness to adhere to this course at any cost cannot be ruled out. What to do with China? Compared to the United States, Russia, and Ukraine, China hardly poses a pressing problem for the EU. China remains a major trading partner and market. Secondary sanctions against Chinese companies for their cooperation with Russia have not yet led to complications. On the Taiwan issue, the EU has avoided taking a leading role in anti-China mobilization. Attempts by individual member states (such as Lithuania) to assert themselves on the Taiwan issue have not found much support in Brussels, and Chinese sanctions have further dampened their efforts. The EU has generally supported the long-standing US policy of curbing China's global economic projects and Beijing's high-tech capabilities. But in reality, there is no rush to undermine the foundation of economic cooperation with China in the western part of Eurasia. Within China itself, there is a countermovement. They don't generalize the US and EU into a single West and, apparently, proceed from the idea that the interests of Washington and Brussels differ. This means that relations with the EU are not identical to relations with the US. The complexities of transatlantic relations are likely to contribute to a situational rapprochement between the EU and China. In the political sphere, this is unlikely to be excessive, but rivalry is still a long way off. Anti-Chinese voices in the EU are likely to become quieter in the near future, despite Beijing's active cooperation with Moscow. China, with its predictable political course in the current turbulent conditions, is becoming an attractive partner for the EU. There are no immediate threats from it, but the benefits are more than sufficient. It's possible that Donald Trump will pressure the EU to adopt a more coordinated course toward China. Brussels could use such demands as a trump card. However, EU diplomacy will be unable to influence Russian-Chinese relations, and the conflict with Russia will be secondary in answering the question "what to do with China." What to do with the EU? It appears that the issue of internal transformation, taking into account external challenges, remains paramount for the EU. The logic of relations with China allows for no changes for now. However, here too, the prospect of intense competition over technological security remains under the rug. This will likely require more stringent regulatory measures. Political consolidation was required in relations with Ukraine, and it has the potential to gain more ground if necessary, seeking additional reserves. In relations with Russia, even clearer demands for increased levels of control have come to the fore. The change in the procedure for applying sanctions against Russia's sovereign assets is symptomatic. Now, it will be more difficult for individual countries, such as Hungary or Slovakia, to use their veto power in EU Council votes with regards to this issue. Finally, the US maneuvers raise a fundamental question: how do Europeans ensure their own security? For now, NATO remains an ironclad structure. But NATO's mere existence is unlikely to block deeper defense cooperation within the EU. Brussels has incentives to play a more significant role in NATO, and in the long run, the alliance itself could become a US-EU pair, rather than a conglomerate of European allies centered on the US. Resolving security issues will inevitably require the EU to become increasingly centralized and directive in its decisions, and thus, to reduce the effective sovereignty of its member states. The big question is whether the EU itself and its member states are ready for such a scenario, especially given the disparity in their potential and capabilities. Could the Franco-German tandem, for example, serve as the framework for such centralization? Does Brussels have the resources and legitimacy to align member states around a unified and firm political line? Is Greece, for example, ready, and what is Estonia ready for? Will it be possible to controllingly package their approaches into a single policy line where defense and specific military risks, including the risk of a clash with a nuclear power, are at stake, not just in words but in deeds? To simplify the question even further, is the European Union ready to devolve from a confederation/federation into a de facto empire? The unification of disparate states for military-political purposes will sooner or later raise the question of an imperial component, despite the seeming impossibility of such a development, if judged through the eyes of the post-Cold War era. Moreover, beyond the US, Russia, Ukraine, and China, there are other areas of common policy. Such a structural evolution could have a far greater impact on relations with other centers of power than situational issues. "What to do with the EU" could become a fundamental question for other participants in international relations.

The United States has employed different geopolitical strategies to maintain its status as a dominant power vis-à-vis rival countries such as China and to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Since his return to the White House, President Donald Trump has announced tariff increases on 60 countries, issued ultimatums to Russia to end the War in Ukraine, and recently intervened in Venezuela by capturing Nicolás Maduro. In this way, a rise in the use of hard power by the United States can be observed, aimed at forcing other countries to behave in a particular manner in order to achieve its geopolitical objectives. The foreign policy process of a state is the most important means through which it formulates and implements the policies that determine its interactions with other actors in the international system. Hans Morgenthau (1949) argued that self-preservation is the primary duty of a nation; in this regard, the choice of foreign policy objectives and means is predetermined in two ways: by the goals to be pursued and by the power available to achieve them. For his part, Joseph Nye (1999) argued that a state’s interests are not revealed solely through power or security considerations, since they also include economic concerns. Thus, countries also focus on economic relations, which may entail interdependence effects among states. Consequently, both national security and economic well-being are important to states’ interests. Within this framework, it is possible to discern the geopolitical landscape that the United States is developing through its foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that they would not allow the Western Hemisphere to become a base of operations for adversaries, competitors, and rivals of the United States. “This is our hemisphere,” he affirmed, “and President Trump will not allow our security to be threatened” (The White House, 2026). This warning, together with the National Security Strategy and the recent intervention in Venezuela, represents a new form of the Monroe Doctrine. In his address to Congress in 1823, President James Monroe articulated the United States’ policy regarding the new political order that was developing in the Americas and Europe’s role in the Western Hemisphere. The Monroe administration warned the European imperial powers not to interfere in the affairs of the newly independent Latin American states. In this way, it sought to increase U.S. influence and trade throughout the southern region (Office of the Historian, n.d.). Likewise, the Trump administration’s geopolitical objective is to consolidate its hemisphere of influence in the face of rival powers, primarily China. Marco Rubio indicated that it is important to secure the national interest in the region and stated: “we have seen how our adversaries are exploiting and extracting resources from Africa. They are not going to do it in the Western Hemisphere” (The White House, 2026). In addition to Latin America, the United States has sought to increase its presence in Africa to counterbalance China. China’s main foreign policy strategy is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched by President Xi Jinping in 2013 with the aim of strengthening global connectivity through infrastructure initiatives such as roads, ports, and railways. As a result, China’s economic and political influence expanded by linking Asia, Europe, and Africa. By early 2025, more than 150 countries had joined the BRI, representing approximately 75% of the world’s population and more than half of global GDP. China’s Ministry of Commerce reported that the cumulative value of BRI investments and construction contracts has exceeded one trillion dollars across all participating countries (Ulubel, 2025). In Africa, one example of Belt and Road infrastructure is the Mombasa–Nairobi railway in Kenya, which was financed by Chinese banks under the framework of the agreements. As a result, more than 2 million passengers and around 6 million tons of goods are transported annually, allowing transportation costs to be reduced by 40%. In addition, the expansion of the line toward Uganda, Rwanda, and South Sudan is planned, with the aim of integrating the economies of East Africa into a common railway system (Ulubel, 2025). Figure 1 illustrates the countries that have partnered with the Belt and Road Initiative, by year of accession. The geographic areas where China is consolidating its presence can be observed, especially on the African continent. Source: Lew et al., 2021, p. 14. The Belt and Road Initiative, with the support of state-owned banks and Chinese companies, is displacing U.S. exports and challenging American firms in BRI countries. Consequently, the United States has increasingly moved closer to African countries to counter China’s influence. Recently, the House of Representatives voted to continue trade programs such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which protect and strengthen U.S. strategic, economic, and national security interests, including access to critical minerals found outside the country. In this way, AGOA seeks to challenge the economic coercion and exploitation of African nations by China and Russia (Ways & Means, 2026). This approach has also been pursued during the foreign policy of former President Joe Biden. In 2022, the Secretary of State of the Biden administration, Antony Blinken, launched the U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa, which reinforced the view that African countries are geostrategic actors and key partners on urgent issues, ranging from promoting an open and stable international system to shaping the technological and economic future (U.S. Department of State, 2022). In this context, Blinken stated: “Africa is a major geopolitical force. It has shaped our past, it is shaping our present, and it will shape our future” (US Africa Media Hub, 2022). In 2022, Blinken indicated that even as President Putin’s war continues, they remained focused on the most serious and long-term challenge to the international order: the People’s Republic of China. This is because it is the only country with both the intention to reshape the international order and has the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do so. Consequently, Blinken stated: “China is a global power with extraordinary reach, influence, and ambition. It is the second-largest economy, with world-class cities and public transportation networks. It is home to some of the world’s largest technological companies and seeks to dominate the technologies and industries of the future. It has rapidly modernized its military and aims to become a top tier fighting force. And it has announced its ambition to create a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and to become the world’s leading power” (Blinken, 2022). Consequently, the United States has sought to consolidate its bilateral relations in regions where China has a greater presence. However, U.S. power in the international system relies on the strength of the dollar. The petrodollar system helps sustain the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. In 1974, Saudi Arabia and other regional oil suppliers agreed to accept only dollars for the sale of oil in exchange for military aid and equipment from the U.S. In addition, the Saudis invested the surpluses from that production in U.S. Treasury bonds, thereby financing U.S. spending (Wong, 2016). This process, commonly called “petrodollar recycling,” is beneficial for the parties involved: oil-producing countries have a reliable destination to invest the income from their exports, while the United States ensures a source of financing to cover its fiscal deficit. Consequently, countries seeking to purchase oil must do so using U.S. dollars, which drives demand for this currency in international markets (Grant, 2018). Since that time, the oil market has been trading in dollars, increasing demand for the currency. The predominance of the dollar as the world’s reference currency gives the United States enormous geopolitical influence, with the ability to impose sanctions on countries it considers adversaries, freeze dollar-denominated assets, or exclude a country from the international financial system, paralyzing its foreign trade or complicating the import of raw materials priced in that currency, such as oil. This mechanism represents one of the foundations of U.S. power and allows it to maintain its status as a hegemonic power. However, if oil trade were to begin taking place in another currency, it would affect the dominant position of the United States. Within this framework, the United States has prevented rival countries from attempting to displace the supremacy of the dollar, such as the members of BRICS. This bloc has sought to reduce dependence on the dollar by using local currencies for trade. One example is the BRICS Pay initiative, a cross-border digital payment system being developed by the BRICS countries. This means that trade among its members could be settled directly in reais, rubles, rupees, yuan, or rand, with the system managing conversion, clearing, and settlement without routing transactions through the U.S. dollar. The initiative is part of a broader strategic effort to reduce dollar dependence, strengthen financial sovereignty, and create alternative global payment infrastructures outside systems controlled by the West (BRICS, 2026). With the creation of the BRICS New Development Bank, there has been speculation that they could launch a common currency as a strategy for de-dollarization. Given this possibility, many market operators advocate for the currency to be digital, backed by gold or other resource assets. If the project materializes, the implications for the international monetary system and financial markets would be significant (Lissovolik, 2024). The United States was aware of this possibility. When the BRICS 2025 summit was held, Trump stated that the bloc is not a serious threat, but that they are attempting to destroy the dollar so that another country could take control. “If we lose the dollar as the global standard,” he declared, “it would be like losing a great world war; we would no longer be the same country. We will not allow that to happen” (Messerly et al., 2025). Later, on his Truth Social account, he wrote: “Any country that aligns with the BRICS’ anti-American policies will receive an additional 10% tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy” (Reuters, 2025). Although there is still no BRICS currency, the United States has anticipated its potential effects. Dollar supremacy also gives the U.S. the power to sanction or economically isolate certain countries, such as Russia in 2022. In response to the invasion of Ukraine, the European Union, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom agreed to exclude several Russian banks from the international payment messaging system SWIFT. This decision was one of the most forceful sanctions within a set of measures aimed at economically isolating Russia and, consequently, weakening its financial system, with the goal of pressuring Vladimir Putin’s government to end its military operations in Ukraine (Pérez, 2022). Therefore, Russia has conducted its commercial transactions in another currency, such as the Chinese yuan. In this context, the growing weight of the Chinese currency in financial markets could erode the primacy of the dollar, a trend that began to concern Washington. In this scenario, Venezuela announced in 2017 that the country was prepared to sell oil to China and receive payments in yuan, thus making international agreements using a currency other than the dollar (Valladares & Medina, 2017). In 2023, Petróleos de Venezuela Sociedad Anónima (Pdvsa) announced that PetroChina International Corp purchased one million barrels of Venezuelan crude, a transaction carried out in digital yuan through the Shanghai International Energy Exchange. In this way, a trend is marked toward abandoning the dollar as the currency for transactions in the energy market (CIIP, 2023). When the United States intervened in Venezuela this year and captured Nicolás Maduro, it was not only seeking oil but also preventing the displacement of the petrodollar system. As a result, this operation directly affects China, since part of Venezuela’s oil exports to China is used to pay debts, estimated between 10 and 12 billion dollars. The U.S. intervention endangered the flow of discounted Venezuelan oil to China’s teapot refineries and will likely affect the role of Chinese oil companies in Venezuela’s upstream business. The Trump administration has declared that all Venezuelan oil will now flow through legitimate and authorized channels, in accordance with U.S. law and national security. This strategy seeks to prevent any influence over natural resources in the region. Consequently, the U.S. president’s approach of directing all oil flows from Venezuela will negatively impact China, Venezuela’s largest oil customer and a major creditor (Downs & Palacio, 2026). However, it is not only rival countries that have been affected by the U.S. attempt to maintain its hegemony; its allies and strategic partners have also been impacted. In January 2025, Trump posted an image of the map of Canada with the U.S. flag, hinting at a possible annexation. On other occasions, Trump referred to his neighbor as the 51st state. In February of that year, the White House announced an additional 25% tariff on Canadian imports and a 10% tariff on its energy resources (The White House, 2025). As a result, Prime Minister Mark Carney negotiated trade agreements with China, allowing for a mutual reduction of tariffs (Yousif, 2026). On the other hand, Trump generated tensions within NATO when he threatened to annex Greenland by force and warned those who did not support him of increased tariffs. He later declined both measures and assured that a framework agreement had been reached (Holland & Hunnicutt, 2026). Nevertheless, the political damage was already done. Trump’s plan for territorial expansion destroyed an important post-World War II norm: that borders cannot be redrawn by force of arms. Mark Carney stated at this year’s Davos Forum that “great powers have begun using economic integration as a weapon, tariffs as leverage, and financial infrastructure as coercion.” In this way, he indicated that the world order is “in the middle of a rupture, not a transition” (World Economic Forum, 2026). Consequently, the United States, as a hegemonic power, has acted unilaterally, disregarding the rule-based world order, and has even accelerated its breakdown. Therefore, from this background, it can be concluded that the United States has developed geopolitical strategies to remain a global power vis-à-vis rival countries, primarily China. Two strategies can be discerned. First, the U.S. emphasizes national security by securing the Western Hemisphere, reviving the Monroe Doctrine. Second, economic interdependence is intensified through the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, preventing financial alternatives. Moreover, the attention the United States has directed toward Africa responds to the intention to balance China’s growing influence in the region gained through the Belt and Road Initiative. Finally, it can be observed that the Trump administration has set aside soft power (attraction and persuasion) and has relied on hard power mechanisms, such as military threats to annex Greenland, ultimatums to Russia, intervention in Venezuela, and economic sanctions and tariff increases on countries that do not comply with its directives. These measures demonstrate that the United States has lost its capacity for attraction and has had to resort to threats to influence the behavior of other states. In summary, the frequent use of hard power shows that the status of the United States as the leading power has begun to decline, and it is striving to maintain its global hegemony by force, regardless of the consequences for the international order. References Blinken, A. (2022). The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China. Department of State. https://2021-2025.state.gov/the-administrations-approach-to-the-peoples-republic-of-china/ BRICS. (2026). What Is BRICS Pay and How Does It Work?What Is BRICS Pay and How Does It Work? BRICS. https://infobrics.org/en/post/77791/ CIIP. (2023). Compra de petróleo venezolano en yuanes afianza desdolarización del mercado energético global. Centro Internacional de Inversión Productiva. https://www.ciip.com.ve/compra-de-petroleo-venezolano-en-yuanes-afianza-desdolarizacion-del-mercado-energetico-global/ Downs, E. y Palacio, L. (2026). US Action Threatens Venezuela-China Oil Flows, Debt Repayment, and Investments. Center on Global Energy Policy al Columbia SIPA. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/venezuela-china-oil-ties-severely-impacted-by-us-action/ Grant, J. (2018). The end of the petrodollar? American Foreign Policy Council. https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/the-end-of-the-petrodollar Holland, S. y Hunnicutt, T. (2026). Trump backs down on Greenland tariffs, says deal framework reached. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/davos/determined-seize-greenland-trump-faces-tough-reception-davos-2026-01-21/ Lew, J., Roughead, G., Hillman, J. y Sacks, D. (2021). Task Force Report N° 79: China’s Belt and Road: Implications for the United States. Council on Foreign Relations. Lissovolik, Y. (2024). Changing the Global Monetary and Financial Architecture: The Role of BRICS-Plus. BRICS Journal of Economics, 5(1). https://brics-econ.arphahub.com/issue/4634/ Messerly, M., Hawkins, A. and Bazail-Eimil, E. (2025). ‘The president is pissed’: Trump's Brazil tariff threat is part of a bigger geopolitical dispute. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/10/trumps-brics-fueled-anger-sparked-50-percent-tariff-threat-on-brazil-00447814 Morgenthau, H. (1949). The Primacy of the National Interest. The American Scholar, 18(2), 207–212. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41205156 Nye, J. (1999). Redefining the National Interest. Foreign Affairs, 78(4), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/20049361 Office of the Historian. (s. f.). Monroe Doctrine, 1823. Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/monroe Pérez, C. (2022). What Does Russia’s Removal From SWIFT Mean For the Future of Global Commerce? Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/08/swift-sanctions-ukraine-russia-nato-putin-war-global-finance/ Reuters. (2025). Trump says alignment with BRICS' 'anti-American policies' to invite additional 10% tariffs. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-says-alignment-with-brics-anti-american-policies-invite-additional-10-2025-07-07/ The White House. (2025). Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/ The White House. (2026). RUBIO: This Is Our Hemisphere — and President Trump Will Not Allow Our Security to be Threatened. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/01/rubio-this-is-our-hemisphere-and-president-trump-will-not-allow-our-security-to-be-threatened/ Ulubel, Y. (2025). 12 years, over 150 countries: Inside the Belt and Road Initiative's global legacy. China Daily. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202509/17/WS68ca22caa3108622abca13d4.html US Africa Media Hub. (2022). [@USAfricaMediaHub]. X. https://x.com/AfricaMediaHub/status/1604782790029049858 U.S. Department of State. (2022). Travel to Cambodia, the Philippines, South Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda, August 2-12, 2022. U.S. Department of State. https://2021-2025.state.gov/secretary-travel/travel-to-cambodia-the-philippines-south-africa-the-democratic-republic-of-the-congo-and-rwanda-august-2-11-2022/ Valladares, D. y Medina, J. (2017). Venezuela venderá petróleo a China en yuanes. Ministerio del Poder Popular de Economía y Finanzas. https://www.mppef.gob.ve/venezuela-vendera-petroleo-a-china-en-yuanes/ Ways & Means (2026). House Advances America’s Strategic Interests in Africa and Haiti, Eliminates Payments to Dead People. United States House Comittee on Ways and Means. https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2026/01/12/house-advances-americas-strategic-interests-in-africa-and-haiti-eliminates-payments-to-dead-people/ Wong, A. (2016). The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia’s 41-Year U.S. Debt Secret. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret World Economic Forum. (2026). Davos 2026: Special address by Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/davos-2026-special-address-by-mark-carney-prime-minister-of-canada/ Yousif, N. (2026). Canada's deal with China signals it is serious about shift from US. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm24k6kk1rko

In August 2024, Bangladesh witnessed a seismic political upheaval when mass student-led protests forced Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to flee the country after 15 years in power. What began as demonstrations against a controversial government job quota system quickly evolved into a movement against authoritarianism, corruption and human rights abuses. As protests intensified and security forces responded with deadly force, killing hundreds of demonstrators, Hasina’s grip on power collapsed. Sheikh Hasina fled to India in August 2024 after mass protests toppled her government. While thousands of families in Bangladesh were still searching for their disappeared loved ones. The interim government, led by Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus, has since established the International Crimes Tribunal to investigate crimes committed during Hasina’s Tenure. In a landmark decision, the tribunal sentenced her to death in absentia for crimes against humanity. Bangladesh has formally requested her extradition from India, setting the stage for a diplomatic standoff. The case has become a test of whether regional powers prioritize justice for victims or political convenience. India’s decision on Hasina’s extradition will determine whether the South Asia region moves towards accountability for state crimes or continues protecting fallen autocrats, and New Delhi must recognize that genuine regional stability comes not from shielding allies who have committed atrocities, but from supporting the democratic transitions their own people have fought for. South Asia has a long history of leaders escaping accountability by fleeing across borders, creating a culture of immunity and reinforcing a free pass to everyone. Whether it be Gotabaya Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka, who fled during the economic crisis in 2022 or Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan, who left in 2021 as the Taliban took control of Kabul. The pattern is recurrent, destabilizing regional stability of South Asian countries. Nonetheless, the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh has issued death sentences based on documented evidence against Sheikh Hasina. India could break this cycle without simply handing Hasina over. A conditional extradition can be sought out, one that ensures fair trial standards, and would address both countries’ concerns. India could request the assistance of international observers from the UN or the Commonwealth monitoring the proceedings, ensuring the trial meets global standards. New Delhi could also negotiate for the death penalty to be commuted to life imprisonment, a condition many European countries insist on before extradition. Political scientist Ali Riaz, who has extensively studied Bangladesh’s democratic transitions, argues that “accountability isn’t about revenge, it’s about building institutions strong enough to prevent future abuses.” His research on transitional justice shows that countries which address past crimes, even imperfectly, create more stable democracies than those that sweep them under the rug. Another point to note is that India positions itself as the world’s largest democracy and a champion of human rights, yet protecting Hasina undermines these claims. India has been vocal about human rights abuses in Pakistan and Myanmar. Yet when its ally commits similar crimes, India provides sanctuary. Many predict that India would not extradite Sheikh Hasina due to vested interests. Many Bangladeshis have gone on to adopt anti-India sentiments, creating resentment in many people's hearts. India could address this issue by allowing an independent judicial review of the extradition request rather than making it purely political. Currently, extradition cases in India go through the courts. However, the final decision rests with the executive, it could mean that the government blocks extradition for political reasons. In Hasina’s case, India could publicly commit to letting its own judiciary evaluate the evidence without political interference, then abide by whatever the courts decide. This approach has been seen recently. In January of 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled on an extradition request involving former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s associates, allowing the judicial process to run its course rather than the government making a unilateral decision. Late Legal Counsel to the World Bank, Ibrahim Shihata, stated famously that this “Depoliticized what could have been a diplomatic crisis” between Britain and Pakistan. India could follow a similar path. Furthermore, another point of view is that refusing extradition undermines Bangladesh’s fragile democratic transition and could push the country toward instability. The new government needs to deliver justice to maintain legitimacy. If India protects Hasina, it could further fuel conspiracy theories about Indian interference. Creating an anti-India sentiment, potentially pushing Bangladesh towards China or Pakistan for a new regional alliance. Historically, when people feel that justice is denied, they lose faith in democratic institutions. Political Scientist Ali Riaz’s research shows that countries that failed to address past crimes, for instance, Pakistan after military rule or Sri Lanka post-civil war, continue to face cycles of authoritarianism within the nation. If extradition proves too complicated diplomatically, India could support an alternative that still delivers justice. It could push for a truth and accountability commission. This model has worked in countries emerging from authoritarian rule, such as South Africa used it after apartheid, and Peru established one after Alberto Fujimori’s dictatorship. The focus shifts from punishment to documentation, as well as acknowledgement and institutional reform. Under this arrangement, Hasina would provide testimony, either in person or through live transmission from India to Bangladesh’s commission. She would have to answer questions about disappearances, extrajudicial killings and other alleged abuses. Victims' families would finally get acknowledgement and answers to their losses. Priscilla Hayner, a Human rights activist, in her research shows that truth commissions can help societies move forward when criminal trials become politically impossible. It is a way for the Victims’ families to finally be heard and acknowledged. India’s strategic interests in Bangladesh, trade routes, security cooperation and connectivity projects depend on maintaining trust with whoever governs in Dhaka. The interim government under Muhammad Yunus has recently gained popular legitimacy and international credibility. Starting this relationship but dismissing their primary demand for accountability will have consequences that outlast any short-term benefit of sheltering Hasina. Real regional stability does not come from protecting fallen leaders; it comes from supporting the democratic processes that brought new governments to power and from promoting solidarity. India understood this principle when it brought new governments to power. India understood this principle when it supported democratic movements elsewhere. Bangladesh deserves the same consideration. The extradition question is ultimately about India's foreign policy and whether it's guided by consistent principles or convenient exceptions.

Bolivia, an Andean country, historically battered by economic, social, and political tensions, has experienced one of its most decisive moments in recent decades. The victory of Rodrigo Paz, the Christian Democratic Party candidate, has brought an end to a political cycle lasting nearly 20 years, initiated by Evo Morales, which resulted in the hegemony of the Movement for Socialism (MAS). Paz's victory has not only changed Bolivia's course but also opens a new phase, signaling a clear shift to the right, a rearrangement of its international relations, and a rethinking of its foreign policy in a volatile American context. The Decline of MAS and the Rise of Paz To understand the magnitude of this change, it is necessary to look back. Since Evo Morales came to power in 2006, MAS consolidated itself as the dominant force in Bolivia, promoting a nationalist, statist agenda and strong state intervention in strategic sectors such as hydrocarbons and natural resources. Furthermore, during the MAS period, an anti-imperialist discourse marked Bolivia's foreign policy. In this tone, Bolivia aligned itself with left-wing governments in Latin America, notably Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, within the ALBA framework, and distanced itself significantly from Washington. However, after two decades in power, internal divisions and power struggles within MAS caused deep wear within the party and its supporters. Bolivia's economy faced its worst crisis in decades: a recession marked by a decline in gas production — a key source of fiscal income and exports for the country — high inflation levels, and a shortage of foreign currency that limited the functioning of the state apparatus. Faced with this scenario, and with a frustrated citizenry over economic and social management, the Bolivian electorate opted for a radical change in October 2025. Rodrigo Paz, a centrist politician with a pragmatic message, secured a surprising 54.5% of the votes in the second round, ultimately defeating rival candidate Jorge Quiroga, marking the end of almost two decades of MAS governments. Although Paz was considered a less significant candidate by polls and analysts, he comes from a more orthodox and moderate political tradition, and his rhetoric has been seemingly conciliatory toward social sectors. His father, Jaime Paz Zamora, was president of the country, and Paz has a solid political career, making him no stranger to the responsibilities of leadership. His campaign slogan, loosely translated as "capitalism for all," aimed to inspire some economic openness while still addressing the social demands traditionally favored by MAS. A Shift to the Right... but with Nuances Although it is referred to as a “shift to the right,” Bolivia’s reality is not monolithic. It could be more accurately described as a shift toward a pragmatic center-right, seeking to balance economic openness with the protection of certain social programs. MAS was defeated not so much due to a complete rejection of its ideological proposals, but because of an economic crisis that weakened and divided its political base and its dominant discourse. This nuance is key. Paz's victory was not solely due to a traditional conservative vote but also to the mobilization of sectors disillusioned by MAS's unmet promises. In this sense, his proposal positioned itself as a hybrid fusion: a moderate economic liberalization, while maintaining a minimal social protection network. However, although MAS has become an almost irrelevant opposition — receiving very low support and reduced to a symbolic presence in the first round — Paz's new government inherits a fragmented internal political landscape, which will require negotiating alliances with various legislative blocs in order to govern. Relations with Neighbors: Rebuilding What Had Been Dismantled Bolivia's foreign policy over the past two decades was marked by its alignment with left-wing governments and regional movements such as ALBA, which included Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other governments with anti-U.S. or at least skeptical stances toward Washington. Under Evo Morales, Bolivia strengthened ties with China, Iran, and Russia, diversifying alliances outside of the traditional Western bloc. With Paz’s victory, this framework seems to have been dismantled. The president-elect has been explicit in not inviting leaders from Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua to his presidential inauguration, citing differences concerning democracy and governance. This gesture, although symbolic, signals a shift in foreign policy: moving away from pre-configured ideological positions and prioritizing relations based on democratic criteria and economic cooperation. Bolivia’s exit from the ALBA bloc and its suspension by the organization for “anti-Bolivarian and pro-imperialist behavior” reflects the diplomatic impact of this shift. Furthermore, the presence of leaders such as Javier Milei, president of Argentina, at Paz's inauguration ceremony consolidated Latin American representations more aligned with free-market economic policies and oriented toward cooperation with the United States and Europe. Another relevant factor is the relationship with traditional South American neighbors such as Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Although political orientation may vary regionally, there is consensus on the need to strengthen trade and cooperation in infrastructure and energy, especially considering Bolivia’s economic challenges. Paz himself mentioned that Bolivia’s “cooperation” with its “five borders” — Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Peru — “will be essential” for his new administration. He has even already held meetings and encounters with Boric (Chile), Milei (Argentina), and Noboa (Ecuador). The Relaunch of Relations with the United States Perhaps the most symbolic and geopolitically significant element of Bolivia's new direction is the resumption of relations with the United States. Bilateral relations had been fractured since the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador in 2008 under Evo Morales’ presidency, following years of tensions over mutual accusations of interference and conspiracy. Paz's announcement to restore diplomatic ties and reopen the U.S. embassy in La Paz represents a drastic shift in approach. This reopening not only restores formal political dialogue but also opens opportunities for cooperation in trade, investment, and security — especially at a time when Bolivia faces currency problems, a fiscal deficit, and a fuel shortage. In addition, the United States and several Latin American countries issued a joint statement of support for Paz after the elections, emphasizing the willingness to collaborate in stabilizing the economy, strengthening democratic institutions, and boosting international investment. This relaunch is not without political conditions. Cooperation could focus on the fight against drug trafficking, corruption, and other transnational challenges, areas in which Washington has shown strategic interest. The involvement of agencies like the DEA and other security organizations could intensify once again. The DEA issue has been controversial, with both former presidents Evo Morales and Luis Arce expressing concerns, as they consider both the DEA and U.S. cooperation agencies to be conspirators, something the White House has always denied. The openness to cooperation with the United States may also have a tangible economic component: investment flows, access to international financing, and support for macroeconomic stabilization. Given the foreign currency crisis that has suffocated Bolivia, these relations could translate into crucial financial relief. The Stance on Venezuela and the New Regional Context Another geopolitical axis that has changed drastically with the rise of Paz is his stance on Venezuela and its political crisis. Under the MAS, Bolivia historically maintained close ties with Nicolás Maduro’s regime, aligning itself with anti-imperialist rhetoric and supporting governments considered ideological allies. However, Paz has adopted a critical stance toward the Venezuelan government, especially after recent events — including the capture of Maduro by U.S. forces in January 2026. In his public statements, the Bolivian president has emphasized that the way out for Venezuela is to "respect the vote and democracy," positioning Bolivia alongside a narrative of democracy and institutionalism that contrasts with the country’s previous alignment with Chavismo. This approach places Bolivia on the opposite side of traditional left-wing governments in the region, such as Brazil under Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Gustavo Petro in Colombia, or Mexico under Claudia Sheinbaum, who have condemned the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela and called for peaceful solutions based on international law. In contrast, Paz has preferred to emphasize the importance of democracy as the guiding principle of Bolivia's foreign policy. The invitation to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado to the Bolivian inauguration also underscores this renewed focus on democracy and human rights, marking a clear break with La Paz's previous political ties to Caracas. Economic Implications and Future Prospects The new Bolivian phase faces enormous economic challenges. The transition to a more market-oriented model and the opportunities to attract foreign investment offer prospects for recovery, but they are not without risks. The country is dealing with high inflation, fuel shortages, a fiscal crisis, and an urgent need for foreign currency. In this context, the opening to the United States and international markets could boost key sectors like lithium, where Bolivia holds some of the world’s largest reserves. Bolivia's mining sector could also benefit from the country's opening. Cooperation with external investors, including Americans and European allies, could transform Bolivia’s productive capacity and position it as a strategic player in the global critical minerals supply chain. In fact, recently, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) visited Bolivia, and with a message to the nation, Paz announced “[…] 7 billion dollars for infrastructure works, employment, and labor, which we need so much in Bolivia.” At the same time, Paz’s government will need to carefully manage internal tensions. Social sectors traditionally aligned with MAS may feel displaced or fear the loss of social assistance programs, posing challenges for internal cohesion — a critical issue is the elimination of fuel subsidies. On the other hand, although the legislative situation is not as complicated, the need to form legislative alliances and engage in political dialogue will be crucial to avoid institutional conflicts that could weaken his ability to implement necessary economic reforms. Conclusion Rodrigo Paz’s victory not only symbolizes the end of MAS's dominance after nearly two decades, but it also represents a profound reconfiguration of Bolivia’s political, economic, and diplomatic course. This new chapter is characterized by pragmatism focused on the economy, a shift towards strategic relations with the United States and other Western partners, and a stance based on defending democracy in the face of regional crises such as the Venezuelan one. However, this path is not without internal tensions and structural challenges that could determine whether Bolivia manages to consolidate a sustainable development model or if social and political fractures reappear on the horizon. The country's contemporary history, in this sense, continues to be written with the uncertainty of whether this pragmatic center-right experiment will be a definitive solution or a prelude to new turns in the future. From a broader geopolitical perspective, Bolivia finds itself on a new hemispheric stage where the competition between the United States and China, as well as tensions between right-wing and left-wing governments in the region, shape the agenda. Paz's election can be seen as part of a broader trend in Latin America towards governments that prioritize macroeconomic stability, diplomatic pragmatism, and international cooperation beyond rigid ideological alignments. References Buenos Aires Times. (2025, November 11). Argentina's Javier Milei to attend new Bolivia president Rodigo Paz’s inauguration. Retrieved from Buenos Aires Times: https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/latin-america/argentinas-javier-milei-to-attend-new-bolivia-president-rodigo-pazs-inauguration.phtml?utm_source=chatgpt.com CiberCuba Editorial Team. (2025, October 21). The elected president of Bolivia will not invite Díaz-Canel, Maduro, or Ortega to the inauguration: “They are not democratic.”. Retrieved from CiberCuba: https://en.cibercuba.com/noticias/2025-10-21-u1-e207888-s27061-nid313318-presidente-electo-bolivia-invitara-diaz-canel-maduro?utm_source=chatgpt.com#google_vignette Flores, F. (2025, Octubre 21). Bolivia: Los desafíos del próximo gobierno de Rodrigo Paz. Retrieved from Latinoamérica21: https://latinoamerica21.com/es/bolivia-los-desafios-del-proximo-gobierno-de-rodrigo-paz/ Guevara Condore, M., & Pimentel Huerto, R. (2025, Octubre 27). Bolivia regresó a la derecha tras casi más de 20 años gobernado por el MAS y en medio de una crisis económica. Retrieved from La República: https://larepublica.pe/mundo/2025/10/19/bolivia-regreso-a-la-derecha-luego-de-mas-de-20-anos-gobernado-por-el-mas-y-en-medio-de-una-crisis-economica-1455609?utm_source=chatgpt.com Jara, R. (2025, Octubre 16). Segunda vuelta en Bolivia: País se prepara para dar un giro a la derecha tras dos décadas de dominio izquierdista. Retrieved from emol: https://www.emol.com/noticias/Internacional/2025/10/16/1180557/bolivia-segunda-vuelta-candidatos.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com Orlando Peralta, J. (2025, Noviembre 13). De lo ideológico a lo pragmático: se mueve el péndulo en Bolivia. Retrieved from Latinoamérica21: https://latinoamerica21.com/es/de-lo-ideologico-a-lo-pragmatico-se-mueve-el-pendulo-en-bolivia/ Romero Ballivian, S. (2025, Noviembre 24). Fin de ciclo: el MAS cede el poder tras veinte años de hegemonía en Bolivia. Retrieved from Latinoamérica21: https://latinoamerica21.com/es/fin-de-ciclo-el-mas-cede-el-poder-tras-veinte-anos-de-hegemonia-en-bolivia/ RTVE.es. (2025, Noviembre 09). Estados Unidos restablecerá las relaciones con Bolivia a nivel de embajadores, interrumpidas hace 17 años. Retrieved from RTVE.es: https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20251108/estados-unidos-restablecera-relaciones-con-bolivia-a-nivel-embajadores-interrumpidas-hace-17-anos/16807541.shtml#:~:text=Estados%20Unidos%20restablecer%C3%A1%20las%20relaciones%20a%20nivel%20de%20embajadores%20con,emb Stabroek News. (2025, October 20). Centrist Rodrigo Paz wins Bolivian presidency, ending nearly 20 years of leftist rule. Retrieved from Stabroek News: https://www.stabroeknews.com/2025/10/20/news/regional/centrist-rodrigo-paz-wins-bolivian-presidency-ending-nearly-20-years-of-leftist-rule/?utm_source=chatgpt.com urgente.bo. (2026, Enero 03). Bolivia expresa respaldo a Venezuela en medio de ataques de EE.UU. Retrieved from urgente.bo: https://www.urgente.bo/noticia/bolivia-expresa-respaldo-venezuela-en-medio-de-ataques-de-eeuu urgente.bo. (2026, Enero 12). Rodrigo Paz recibe la visita más importante; el Presidente del BID trae respaldo financiero. Retrieved from urgente.bo: https://www.urgente.bo/noticia/rodrigo-paz-recibe-la-visita-m%C3%A1s-importante-el-presidente-del-bid-trae-respaldo-financiero Velasco-Guachalla, X., & Hummel, C. (2025, October). Why Bolivia Voted for Change—And Continuity. Retrieved from Journal of Democracy: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/why-bolivia-voted-for-change-and-continuity/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Visión 360. (2026, Enero 03). Bolvia apoya la ruta iniciada en Venezuela "para recuperar la democracia". Retrieved from Visión 360: https://www.vision360.bo/noticias/2026/01/03/37852-bolivia-apoya-la-ruta-iniciada-en-venezuela-para-recuperar-la-democracia

Upon gaining independence from British colonial rule on 26 June 1960, Somaliland received full recognition from 35 states, including all permanent members of the UN Security Council. On 1 July 1960, it merged with Italian Somalia. After a decade-long armed struggle, Somaliland withdrew from the union and unilaterally restored its sovereignty. Following the dissolution of Somalia’s central state in early 1991, all communities in Somaliland voluntarily entered negotiations, ceased hostilities, and ultimately forged an inclusive democratic state. Between 1991 and 1997, seven major peace conferences were held across Somaliland. All key decisions, except for the selection of the president, were reached by consensus. Somaliland’s peace and state-building trajectory was entirely locally driven, with no external involvement in the political process. By contrast, Somalia became an UN-led experiment in Post-Cold War peace and state-building. Despite – or perhaps because of – the extensive external intervention that shaped Somalia’s externally driven process, repeated efforts to construct a viable and legitimate state have failed. The first municipal elections since the 1960s were held in Mogadishu earlier this year. Even these were highly contested, confined to the capital, and boycotted by the opposition. In contrast, since 2001 Somaliland has conducted four free and fair multiparty general elections, characterized by peaceful transfers of power. In early 2024, a memorandum of understanding between Somaliland and Ethiopia was announced, granting the latter access to the Red Sea in return for formal recognition of the former. Reigniting hopes for recognition, prominent Republicans have expressed support for Somaliland. Notably, on 14 August, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz released a press brief urging President Trump to recognize Somaliland. For Cruz, recognizing Somaliland – a close ally of Taiwan – is vital to counter China’s influence. On 26 December 2025, Israel became the first state to formally recognize Somaliland, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announcing that Somaliland would join the Abraham Accords. While the specific details of the deal between Israel and Somaliland remain unclear, it is unlikely that Israel’s actions are driven by a desire to reward Somaliland’s democratic record. More plausibly, Israel is motivated by concrete geostrategic interests, such as securing a foothold in Somaliland from which it could counter the threat posed by the Iran-aligned Houthi rebels in Yemen. Israel’s move also fits a broader trend in which global and regional powers prioritize security competition and project influence beyond their borders. Somaliland sits in the Horn of Africa, boasts an 800-kilometer coastline, and possesses proven oil reserves and deposits of rare minerals. Although Somalia has condemned Israel’s move as a violation of sovereignty and international law, it has itself entered an oil and gas exploration agreement with Turkey and hosts a major Turkish base. According to sources in Somaliland, additional countries are expected to follow Israel in formally recognizing Somaliland. Although the United States has yet to issue a definitive statement, U.S. military and diplomatic delegations are currently in Somaliland, and Washington has long shown interest in establishing a base in the port city of Berbera. Some commentators argue that recognizing Somaliland could destabilize the Horn of Africa, undermine counterterrorism efforts, and encourage separatist movements across the continent, rather than positively contributing to Somaliland’s development and stability. These claims, however, do not withstand scrutiny. Numerous Muslim and Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, have developed strong economic and diplomatic ties with Israel without experiencing a surge in extremism. The absence of terrorist groups such as Al-Shabab and ISIS in Somaliland is principally due to the presence of a functioning state. Al-Shabab continues to control large portions of southern Somalia, making it imprudent for Mogadishu to sever ties with the United States in retaliation for recognizing Somaliland or for supporting Israel’s move. In reality, there is little Mogadishu can do beyond issuing condemnations. The claim that recognizing Somaliland would embolden secessionist movements across Africa overlooks the fact that Somaliland enjoyed de jure recognition of sovereignty prior to merging with Somalia. Recognizing Somaliland is therefore a restoration of the borders established during colonial rule, making Somaliland a unique legal case. Commentators have asserted that China has previously sought to destabilize Somaliland due to its pro-Western and pro-Taiwan strategic orientation. Meanwhile, Egypt, Turkey, and Djibouti have voiced strong support for Somalia, condemning Israel’s move. Djibouti, which controls a near monopoly on the import and export trade for over a hundred million landlocked Ethiopians through its ports, faces a strategic challenge from a recognized Somaliland. Additionally, Djibouti wields considerable influence in Somaliland’s far western region, home to the Issa sub-group, which also dominates the political landscape in Djibouti. In sum, Israel’s move to spearhead the re-recognition of Somaliland is a watershed moment that marks a potential point of no return in Somaliland’s quest for de jure sovereignty. However, Somaliland faces both immediate and long-term challenges that will be critical to how its recognition efforts unfold. In the short term, it must carefully balance the pursuit of diplomatic recognition with deterring hostile external meddling. In the long term, it will face the consequences of having alienated China and the potential Security Council and recognition roadblocks this may signal.

In Part I of this article, a brief historical overview was presented, spanning from the Venezuelan presidential crisis of 2019 to the tensions in the Caribbean — between the United States and Venezuela — and the total economic blockade imposed on Venezuela. The article also left several questions open, which, considering recent events, have now been resolved, although at the same time new ones have emerged. U.S. Operation in Venezuela and the Capture of Maduro The situation between the United States and Venezuela ended in 2025 with a total U.S. economic blockade and the “seizure” of a Venezuelan oil tanker. However, the situation changed dramatically when, on January 3, 2026, Nicolás Maduro was captured in Caracas by U.S. forces. Preceded by threats and sustained military and economic pressure on Venezuela, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, carried out an operation to capture and remove Maduro and his wife from Venezuela. The operation was surgical — lasting approximately two hours — and although successful, it also resulted in human losses (80 fatalities according to The New York Times — an unofficial figure — including 32 Cuban combatants confirmed by Havana) and damage to military infrastructure in Caracas, as well as in Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira. As was already known, the U.S. government had classified Maduro as a member or leader of the Cartel of the Suns. In addition, a reward of $50,000 had been offered for his capture, and since 2020 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York had charged Maduro with drug trafficking and conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States. In this context, Maduro’s capture was followed by his transfer to New York, where he will face trial. Venezuela: an uncertain present? Following Maduro’s detention, Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice ordered Vice President Delcy Rodríguez to assume the role of head of state due to Maduro’s “temporary” absence. After the U.S. attacks, Rodríguez spoke out strongly against what she called “foreign aggression,” describing Maduro’s capture as an “illegal and illegitimate kidnapping.” However, after being sworn in, she softened the tone of her statements and even invited the Trump administration to “work jointly on an agenda of cooperation, aimed at shared development, within the framework of international legality and to strengthen a lasting community coexistence.” Rodríguez likewise emphasized the principles of sovereignty and non-interference. All of this stems from the imperialist rhetoric of Trump and Rubio. Trump made it very clear that he will “govern” Venezuela “until we can achieve a safe, appropriate, and prudent transition.” Everything indicates that, although under the threat of “doing the right thing,” Trump plans to give Rodríguez an opportunity; if it does not work or if she fails to meet Trump’s expectations, the United States will intervene again. On the other hand, both Edmundo González — who on January 4 released a video declaring himself the “president of Venezuela” and calling for a “peaceful and clear” transition — and María Corina Machado have been practically sidelined by the U.S. government, citing a lack of internal support, referring to the fact that those who support them are “outside” Venezuela. On the social front, reactions have been mixed, ranging from celebrations over Maduro’s capture to demonstrations against U.S. interventionism. The current situation is very delicate: with Rodríguez’s appointment and no clear short-term roadmap — plus the threat of U.S. intervention and interference — and the snubbing of the opposition, Venezuela’s social reality appears not to have changed, nor is it likely to change much in the near future. However, Rodríguez’s stance — her invitation to the United States to work together, albeit under threat, practically placing oil and resources on a silver platter — could become the social fuel capable of generating real change in Venezuela in the near future. International reactions The events in Venezuela took many by surprise, and international reactions were quick to follow. South Africa issued a press release stating that the actions of the United States constituted “a violation of the United Nations Charter,” and called on the UN Security Council to urgently address the situation. Indonesia also underscored the importance of “respect for international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter.” Similar statements were issued by Japan, India, South Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, New Zealand, and Australia. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs likewise emphasized the violation of “Venezuelan sovereignty and the threat posed to peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean.” It also called for the release of Maduro and his wife. With a stronger tone, Iran condemned the U.S. attacks and likewise appealed to the United Nations. In a very similar vein, North Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also condemned the U.S. attack, denouncing acts of U.S. hegemony and calling on the international community to recognize the “catastrophic” situation in Venezuela and to denounce the United States’ “habitual acts of violating the sovereignty of other countries.” On the other hand, Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gideon Sa’ar, posted on X: “Israel praises the United States operation, led by President Trump. […] Israel stands with the freedom-loving Venezuelan people, who have suffered under Maduro’s illegal tyranny. Israel celebrates the removal of the dictator […].” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel supported the actions of the United States in Venezuela. In Europe, most countries supported the decision behind the actions of the United States, underscoring the illegitimacy of Maduro’s government and the importance of de-escalation and dialogue, always within the framework of international law. When asked about Maduro, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded that the United States “knows what to do now,” referring to dictators. Other countries such as Norway, Serbia, Slovenia, and Spain also expanded their criticism of the U.S. military operation, arguing that it was not in accordance with international law. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Belarus and Russia, in varying tones, condemned the U.S. attacks, describing them as “direct threats” to international peace and security. For his part, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico strongly criticized U.S. actions and the UN, emphasizing that “international law is not applied, military force is used without the consent of the UN Security Council, and whoever is big and powerful will do whatever serves their interests…” In the Americas, Mexico condemned and rejected the U.S. military intervention and urged the United States to adhere to international law. Honduras did the same, describing the capture of Maduro as an act of kidnapping. Cuba condemned the “criminal act,” calling it “state terrorism against the brave Venezuelan people and against our America.” Nicaragua also condemned the U.S. intervention and expressed its support for Delcy Rodríguez. Argentine President Javier Milei posted, “Freedom advances, long live freedom, damn it!” celebrating the capture of Maduro and his wife. In Bolivia, Rodrigo Paz also referred to freedom, stating that “the only way out for Venezuela is respect for the vote.” Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa stated that “for all narco-Chavista criminals, their time has come. Their structure on the continent will completely collapse.” Paraguay and Peru also celebrated Maduro’s removal. In contrast, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva condemned the attacks and Maduro’s capture, describing them as “very serious […] and extremely dangerous as precedents for the international community.” Chilean President Gabriel Boric also criticized the attacks and called for a peaceful resolution under international law, while President-elect Antonio Kast said that Maduro’s capture “is good news for the region.” Colombian President Gustavo Petro also rejected the “aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America,” while calling for a meeting at the UN and the OAS. Finally, Uruguay’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also condemned the U.S. intervention in Venezuela and called for respect for the UN Charter. The UN, the OAS, and the EU also issued statements, using more cautious rhetoric and emphasizing respect for international law. The Don-roe Doctrine and the future of Venezuela In Part I of the article, Venezuela’s significance in terms of oil, biodiversity, water resources, rare earths, and more was presented. Based on this, and as mentioned earlier, the attack on alleged drug boats and the fight against drug trafficking became a pretext to promote the new Donald Trump–Monroe Doctrine, the “Don-roe Doctrine / Monroe Doctrine 2.0.” In December 2025, the United States published its new National Security Strategy, which emphasizes and promotes the United States as the sole actor or hegemon in the Americas, making any foreign presence outside of the United States unwelcome. The results of the application of this doctrine were immediate — and there is more. It is not only Venezuela: the Trump administration — particularly Secretary of State Marco Rubio — has already set its sights on Cuba, in addition to repeatedly raising the possibility of carrying out military activities against drug trafficking in Mexico and Colombia, and more recently, engaging in a dispute with Denmark over strategically important Greenland. Discussion The implications for Venezuela stemming from these events are profound. First, there is a crisis of legitimacy: although Delcy Rodríguez has assumed the presidency, Edmundo González has also raised his voice, leading to both internal and external questioning. Likewise, there are institutional challenges. In the end, only the head of the regime was removed; Maduro’s inner circle remains in power. Therefore, regardless of the change at the top, a transition toward a more democratic or stable system appears distant given the current conditions. This is independent of the existing social discontent — once again, the regime retains control, making a drastic change unlikely in the near term. Regarding the U.S. side, the Trump administration has been clear — and consistent with its foreign policy — in always prioritizing its national interests over those of any other country. The example is clear: by acting unilaterally and without adherence to international law, the United States has once again undermined the sovereignty of a state. The U.S. government could justify its actions in legal terms — Maduro is accused in the United States of drug trafficking and conspiracy — on health and security grounds — the Venezuelan regime facilitates drug trafficking into the United States — or even on geopolitical grounds — weakening an administration perceived as allied with rival powers and holding interests contrary to those of the United States. However, the validity of these arguments must be examined. Moreover, as Robert Fico pointed out, there was an absence of authorization from the UN Security Council or even from the U.S. Congress itself, which, for experts in the field, renders the operation legally unlawful. Ultimately, the debate remains open. Countries’ positions are divided, and, more importantly, this could become a dangerous precedent for national sovereignty and for the conduct of great powers toward independent states. There are also the potential consequences for the region: the act alters the balance of power in Latin America and redefines the narrative surrounding U.S. influence in the region. On the other hand, there is oil and what its control represents as a long-term strategic factor. Finally, there is the global tension over control and influence in regions — one in which Russia and China are far from pleased. Finally, Fico’s statements and the following quote from Mexican lawyer José Mario de la Garza are worth analyzing in order to understand the importance of international law and why we must live in a rules-based world — even if several reforms may be needed to improve it: “Overthrowing a dictator sounds morally right. No one mourns a tyrant. But international law was not built to protect the good, but to restrain the powerful. That is why it prohibits the use of force almost without exception: not because it ignores justice, but because it knows that if every country decides whom to ‘liberate’ at gunpoint, the world returns to the law of the strongest.” References @josemariodelagarza. (04 de January de 2026). @josemariodelagarza. Obtenido de Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/DTDmcSNgPmK/?hl=en&img_index=1 Caro, I. (05 de January de 2026). "Vengo con dolor, pero también con honor": Delcy Rodríguez juramenta como presidenta encargada de Venezuela tras la captura de Maduro. Obtenido de BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cd9exjjkvw8o Holcman, T. (05 de January de 2026). Maduro's rival in Venezuelan elections demands presidency, 'freedom to all political prisoners'. Obtenido de The Jerusalem Post: https://www.jpost.com/international/article-882323 Lozano, D. (05 de January de 2026). Delcy Rodríguez jura como presidenta de Venezuela "por Maduro y por Chávez". Obtenido de El Mundo: https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2026/01/05/695be102fc6c8323518b45a0.html Muggah, R. (03 de January de 2026). 5 scenarios for a post-Maduro Venezuela — and what they could signal to the wider region. Obtenido de The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/5-scenarios-for-a-post-maduro-venezuela-and-what-they-could-signal-to-the-wider-region-272675 Página 12. (06 de Enero de 2026). Aseguran que son más de 80 los muertos tras el ataque de Estados Unidos a Venezuela. Obtenido de Página 12: https://www.pagina12.com.ar/2026/01/05/aseguran-que-son-mas-de-80-los-muertos-tras-el-ataque-de-estados-unidos-a-venezuela/ Reuters. (04 de January de 2026). Trump says U.S. will run Venezuela after U.S. captures Maduro. Obtenido de Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/loud-noises-heard-venezuela-capital-southern-area-without-electricity-2026-01-03/ Urrejola, J. (06 de January de 2026). Venezuela tras Maduro: por qué el chavismo sigue en el poder. Obtenido de DW: https://www.dw.com/es/venezuela-tras-maduro-por-qu%C3%A9-el-chavismo-sigue-en-el-poder/a-75400562 Walia, G. (03 de January de 2026). Venezuela's President Nicholas Maduro captured by US forces: Where has he been taken? What we know so far. Obtenido de The Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/venezuelas-president-nicholas-maduro-captured-by-us-forces-where-has-he-been-taken-what-we-know-so-far-caracas/articleshow/126321249.cms?from=mdr "South Africa urges UN Security Council Session following unilateral military action in Venezuela" (Press release). Pretoria, South Africa: Department of International Relations and Cooperation. 3 January 2026. Archived from the original on 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "Dirco slams US efforts to 'run' Venezuela". TimesLIVE. 3 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026 "Foreign Ministry Spokesperson's Remarks on the U.S. Military Strikes on Venezuela" (Press release). Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3 January 2026. Archived from the original on 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "World reacts to US strikes on Venezuela". Reuters. 3 January 2026. Archived from the original on 3 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. 'Matter of deep concern': MEA reacts to US strikes on Venezuela; urges restraint, calls for dialogue". The Times of India. 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "Iran strongly condemns US attack on Venezuela". Iran International. 3 January 2026. Archived from the original on 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "Iran Condemns U.S. Attack on Venezuela". Foreign Policy. West Asia News Agency. 3 January 2026. Archived from the original on 3 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. Halpern, Sam (3 January 2026). "Israel commends US operation that led to capture of Venezuela's Maduro". The Jerusalem Post. Sa'ar, Gideon [@gidonsaar] (4 January 2026). "Israel commends the United States' operation, led by President Trump, which acted as the leader of the free world. At this historic moment, Israel stands alongside the freedom-loving Venezuelan people, who have suffered under Maduro's illegal tyranny. Israel welcomes the removal of the dictator who led a network of drugs and terror and hopes for the return of democracy to the country and for friendly relations between the states. The people of Venezuela deserve to exercise their democratic rights. South America deserves a future free from the axis of terror and drugs" (Tweet). Retrieved 4 January 2026 – via Twitter. "Netanyahu says Israel supports 'strong' US action in Venezuela". Al Arabiya English. 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. Sokolin, Anton (4 January 2026). "North Korea condemns the U.S.' military intervention in Venezuela". NK News. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "North Korea sends tough message to US after Venezuela attack, fires multiple ballistic missiles". Wion. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "Malaysia stands firm on UN principles, opposes foreign intervention in Venezuela". Malay Mail. 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "Pakistan urges restraint, peaceful resolution in Venezuela". The Express Tribune. 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "Thailand urges US to settle conflict with Venezuela peacefully". Bangkok Post. 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026 "Vietnam deeply concerned about reports on situation in Venezuela: spokesperson". Vietnamlawmagazine.vn. 4 January 2026. Retrieved 5 January 2026. "Venezuela latest: Trump says US is going to 'run' Venezuela after capturing President Maduro". BBC News. 3 January 2026. "World reactions to US operation in Venezuela". Le Monde. 3 January 2026 "Sviluppi sulla situazione in Venezuela, nota di Palazzo Chigi". www.governo.it (in Italian). 3 January 2026. Retrieved 3 January 2026. "Statement from Minister Eide on the Situation in Venezuela". Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Norway). 3 January 2026. Retrieved 3 January 2026. "Russia Condemns U.S. Military Strikes Against Venezuela". The Moscow Times. 3 January 2025. Retrieved 3 January 2025. Vlasova, Svitlana; Stockwell, Billy (3 January 2026). "Russia reaffirms solidarity with Venezuela after "act of armed aggression" by US, calls for dialogue". CNN. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "Вучић: После акције у Венецуели јасно је да међународни правни поредак не функционише; сачуваћемо мир али својом снагом". Radio-Television of Serbia. 4 January 2025. Retrieved 4 January 2025. "Slovakian Prime Minister Fico condemns US attack". Yahoo News. 3 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. Fico, Robert (3 January 2026). "STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC". Facebook (in Slovak). Archived from the original on 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "Spain will not recognize US intervention in Venezuela, PM says". Reuters. 3 January 2026. Retrieved 3 January 2026. "Zelenskyy reacts to US operation in Venezuela and hints at Putin". RBC-Ukraine. 4 January 2025. "Starmer won't be drawn on whether US strikes on Venezuela broke international law". BBC News. 3 January 2026. "Cuba's president denounces strikes on Venezuela as a "criminal attack by the U.S."". CBS News. 3 January 2026. Retrieved 3 January 2026. Alvarez, Carolina (3 January 2026). "Honduran President condemns US "military aggression" and "kidnapping" of Nicolás Maduro". De Último Minuto. Retrieved 4 January 2026. "Mexico Says Venezuela Strikes Breach U.N. Charter, International Law". The Wall Street Journal. 3 January 2026. Retrieved 3 January 2026. "Gobierno de Nicaragua exige liberación de Nicolás Maduro y defiende soberanía de Venezuela". SwissInfo. 1 March 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. Godsell, Oscar (3 January 2026). "Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responds to US President Donald Trump's attack on Venezuela". Sky News. Retrieved 3 January 2026. "Venezuela attack: New Zealand 'concerned', expects everyone to follow international law – Winston Peters". RNZ. 4 January 2026. Archived from the original on 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026. Romero, Juan (3 January 2026). "Intervención militar en Venezuela: así reaccionaron en América Latina a la operación militar de EE.UU. para extraer a Maduro y su mujer". Fobes (in Spanish). Retrieved 3 January 2026. "Rodrigo Paz dice que «salida para Venezuela es respetar el voto», tras captura de Maduro". SwissInfo. 5 January 2026. Retrieved 1 March 2026. Durães, Marina (3 January 2026). "Lula diz que ataques à Venezuela e prisão de Maduro são 'inaceitáveis'". UOL. Retrieved 3 January 2026 "World reacts to US bombing of Venezuela, 'capture' of Maduro". Al Jazeera. 3 January 2026. Retrieved 3 January 2026 "Kast califica la detención de Maduro como "una gran noticia para la región"". Diario y Radio Universidad Chile (in Spanish). 3 January 2026. Retrieved 3 January 2026. Taylor, Harry; Rogero, Tiago (3 January 2026). "Global outcry after US launches strikes on Venezuela and captures president". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 January 2026. Pannell, Alfie; Glade, Jim. "Colombia braces with alarm after Maduro's removal in Venezuela by US". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 3 January 2026 Quilca Catacora, Mariana (3 January 2026). "José Jerí se pronuncia tras captura de Maduro y situación de venezolanos en Perú: "Daremos las facilidades para su regreso"". infobae (in European Spanish). Retrieved 3 January 2026. "Uruguay rechazó la intervención militar en Venezuela y llamo a buscar una "solución positiva"" [Uruguay rejected military intervention in Venezuela and called for a "positive solution".]. Ámbito Financiero (in Spanish). 3 January 2026. Retrieved 3 January 2026. "Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General – on Venezuela | Secretary-General | United Nations". United Nations. 3 January 2026. Retrieved 3 January 2026. "US actions in Venezuela 'constitute a dangerous precedent': Guterres". Peace and Security. United Nations News. 3 January 2026. Archived from the original on 4 January 2026. Retrieved 4 January 2026 "Statement by OAS Secretary General Albert R. Ramdin on recent developments in Venezuela". Press Release E-001/26. Organization of American States. 3 January 2026. Hayden, Jones (3 January 2026). "EU urges respect for international law after US capture of Maduro". POLITICO. Retrieved 3 January 2026.

The Israel-Hamas War has calmed down. The events that preceded it – including the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack against Israel and the taking of Israeli and other hostages – and that resulted from it will be remembered for decades to come, especially the dead and wounded, the trauma and pain, the destruction of dreams and property. If there is any lesson to be learnt, it is that better ways must be found to resolve conflict. There is deep concern now that the West Bank is increasingly reaching a critical point. The weak governing structure of the Palestinian Authority, the contraction of the Palestinian economy, settler violence, and much more are causing serious distress and instability. What is preventing conditions from spiraling out of control are Israel’s strict security measures and Palestinian fear that the West Bank will turn into Gaza, even though both regions are different. Years of diplomatic inertia have been counterproductive. The status quo is untenable. Much is at stake and indecision is costly for all concerned. Why continued conflict? Israelis and Palestinians have become victims of their own exclusive national narratives and are speaking past each other. Many on each side are unable to go beyond their zero-sum mentality. They selectively highlight the rightness of their own cause, accuse the other side of bad intentions or misconduct, and fail to realize how their own rhetoric and acts cause aggravating conditions. While the obstacles in the way of progress to peace are numerous and real – power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians, one state reality with Israel dominant over the Palestinians, hardening of attitudes in Israel and Palestine, relative weakness of the Israeli and Palestinian peace camps, Israeli settler radicalization, Palestinian anti-normalization stance, terrorism – these must not delay or prevent the search for opportunities and positive outcomes. In this regard, simple facts present themselves. First, Israelis and Palestinians are neighbors forever. Their present and future are intertwined whether they choose this reality or not. Second, the longer Israelis and Palestinians wait to negotiate, the more complicated the issues become and the less room there will be for an agreeable peaceful solution. Third, the core issues that separate Israelis and Palestinians – borders, the separation wall, security, Israeli settlements, Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, water – are well-known, thoroughly debated, and resolvable. The challenge is to initiate negotiations and negotiate in good faith. Fourth, Israelis and Palestinians have proved to be both incapable and unwilling to restart negotiations on their own. The United States thus must go beyond managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to taking the lead to resolve it. It is indispensable for the promotion and sustenance of peace negotiations, as was recently shown in the diplomatic intervention to stop the Israel-Hamas War. Fifth, the inclusion of regional and international actors becomes key as peace requires assurances, follow-up, and support to take root and grow. As Gershon Baskin argues, “Protracted conflicts in which there is little or no trust and confidence require external mechanisms to verify implementation of the agreements, to ensure compliance, and to offer external dispute resolution” (Baskin, 2025). The prerequisites for peacemaking (e.g., context and timing, leadership and political will, societal strength and resilience, process, and content and creativity) are known (Kurtzer, 2020). US diplomacy must be credible, intentional, sustained, and transformative. This comprises not only making peace a priority, but also acting accordingly. The situation on the ground must change. A realistic plan and process of peacemaking must be prioritized. Israelis and Palestinians must be held accountable for their actions and inactions. The vital policies of Arab countries that have signed the Abraham Accords (especially United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco) and others that mediated (that is, United States, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey) or attended the Gaza “peace conference” in October 2025 should impel them to motivate Palestinians to make hard decisions to end conflict and reach a peaceful settlement. Israel needs to reciprocate. Circumventing the Palestinian issue or wishing it away will not advance Israel’s strategic goals, especially in the long run. Initiating unilateral moves and thinking of the Palestinian issue as a security matter only without addressing its political and territorial dimensions will not enhance Israel’s defense. If anything, they will continue to rile the Palestinians, particularly the youth among them. The two-state solution, the official United States policy since 2002, has become increasingly less viable. This is at a time when 157 out of 193 Member States of the United Nations have already recognized the State of Palestine. On July 28-30, 2025, a High-level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution was held at the United Nations. The conference, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, committed “not only to reaffirm international consensus on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine but [also] to catalyze concrete, timebound and coordinated international action toward the implementation of the two-state solution” (United Nations, 2025a). Follow-up work took place on September 22, and the commitment was made to continue the implementation of the conference’s outcomes. The US’s plan (Trump, 2025) to demilitarize the Gaza Strip and to reconstruct it for the benefit of its inhabitants is a good start, and the plan’s “Phase 2” was even endorsed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803 on November 17, 2025 (United Nations, 2025b). However, resolving all aspects of the Gaza issue will take years. Meantime, it is essential for the US to take a leading role in endorsing again the two-state solution, as it is in the best national interest of Israel, Palestine, and the US. Moreover, the US can facilitate the solution by urging Israel and the Palestinians to seriously consider the idea of confederation, which adjusts or introduces important modifications to the two-state solution. While there have been more than a dozen confederation models over the years – with some specific only to Israel and Palestine and others that encompass Jordan as well – a main goal of confederation, according to the proponents of the Holy Land Confederation (me included), is not to totally separate the Palestinians from the Israelis living in the Holy Land, i.e., “divorce,” but to empower them to “cohabitate” in the two respective sovereign states (Holy Land Confederation, 2025). This cohabitation would allow for greater cooperation and movement between them. “If properly implemented, confederation would enable Palestinians to advance their search for freedom, independence, and statehood without being anti-Israel, and it would enable Israelis to have their security and wellbeing without being anti-Palestinian” (Beilin and Sarsar, 2022). The Gaza crisis must be solved. However, the deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian relations must be broken as well. If past negotiations are any indication, there is middle ground between the positions of Israel and Palestine. The US possesses the vital capabilities to move both parties to take the necessary political risks by compromising and engaging in unavoidable tradeoffs on the path to peace. References - Baskin, Gershon. (2025) “Monitoring agreements and verifying implementation.” October 18, https://gershonbaskin.substack.com/p/monitoring-agreements-and-verifying. - Beilin, Yossi and Sarsar, Saliba. (2022) “Israeli-Palestinian confederation is a way forward for peace.” The Jerusalem Post, February 17, https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-696830. - Holy Land Confederation. (2025) “The Holy Land Confederation as a Facilitator for the Two-State Solution.” Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, https://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_hlc. - Kurtzer, Daniel C. (2020) “The Ingredients of Palestinian-Israeli Peacemaking.” Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Spring): 5-16. - Trump, Donald J. [@RapidResponse47]. (2025, September 29). “President Donald J. Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict.” X. https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1972726021196562494. - United Nations. (2025a) “High-level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution,” July 28-30, https://www.un.org/unispal/high-level-conference-two-state-solution-july2025/. - United Nations. (2025b) United Nations Security Council, November 17, https://docs.un.org/en/s/res/2803(2025).

Make American shipbuilding great again (Masga) may sound like an effort by the US to bolster its economic strength and project power internationally, but Masga is not an American policy. It is a South Korean initiative that emerged following trade talks with the US in June. Rather than responding to the Trump administration’s tariff threats solely through trade negotiations, Korean officials saw an opportunity to show their American counterparts that South Korea deserved better treatment. They suggested that South Korea bring its shipbuilding prowess to the US. South Korea is perhaps most famous as an exporter of K-pop, cars and semiconductors. But it is also a global powerhouse in shipbuilding. The shipyard in the south-eastern Korean city of Ulsan alone produces roughly ten times more ships annually than the entire US shipbuilding industry. And as the US tries to counter China’s rapidly growing naval fleet, Korean assistance is something that is clearly needed. The US navy secretary, John Phelan, declared earlier in 2025 that US shipbuilding programmes “are a mess”. He added: “I think our best one is six months late and 57% over budget … That is the best one.” Masga was launched in August, with South Korean conglomerates HD Hyundai and Samsung Heavy Industries signing a US$150 billion (£112 billion) deal to modernise US shipbuilding capabilities. It is a clear example of a middle power, a term for countries that lack the dominance of great powers but matter because they possess distinctive industrial, resource or diplomatic capabilities, using economic statecraft to punch above its weight. Economic statecraft has largely been used to describe actions taken by great powers like the US and China to enable and restrict access to their consumer markets, investment coffers and production capabilities. The aim is to achieve foreign policy goals or national security objectives by inflicting damage on or beating the capabilities of a rival power. One classic example is the US government’s use of sanctions against Russia over its war in Ukraine and Iran over its nuclear programme. The overt linking of economic tools like sanctions and tariffs to defence objectives in Washington’s recent national security strategy is another striking illustration of this. Middle powers have traditionally not actively pursued economic statecraft to achieve their objectives. They have instead looked to secure a seat at key tables through cooperative participation in regional and multilateral forums. But some of these countries are now asserting their power more explicitly, through preemptive moves like Masga. Using economic statecraft Taiwan is perhaps the most obvious case of a middle power engaging in economic statecraft. The country has used its critical role in global semiconductor supply chains as leverage to protect itself against Chinese invasion. Former Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen referred to international reliance on the island’s chip industry as a “silicon shield” in 2021. Taipei imposes strict controls on tech sales and screens investment, particularly from China, to protect its position. And Taiwan’s industry-leading firms, such as TSMC, also invest heavily to maintain their technological edge. Vietnam offers another example. Consistent with its “bamboo diplomacy” foreign policy model, Hanoi hosts leaders from China, Russia and the US, seeking flexibility rather than rigid alignment. The aim is clear: to maximise Vietnam’s national interests pragmatically and with autonomy. With the world’s sixth-largest reserves of rare earths, Vietnam is now looking to use critical minerals as a tool of economic statecraft. The government voted to ban rare-earth exports on December 11, citing the need to reorient the sector towards domestic processing and higher-value manufacturing rather than merely the export of basic raw materials. Rare earths are essential components in numerous products that are central to our daily lives, including smartphones, semiconductors and electric vehicles. By restricting foreign access to these essential inputs, Vietnam is striving to secure its long-term position in the supply chains of highly in-demand resources. Together, these cases show how economic statecraft is not only the preserve of great powers. Middle power states are selectively granting and restricting access to their economic strengths to reshape markets and security relationships. Korea’s shipbuilding, Taiwan’s chip production and Vietnam’s rare earths illustrate this more assertive approach. They are no longer confined to reactive measures or behind-the-scenes diplomacy in regional forums or multilateral negotiations. These states are proposing economic and military partnerships, as seen in initiatives such as Masga and Tsai’s assertion that everyone needs to care about Taiwan, given how essential chips are to the world economy. Great powers are taking notice. In October, HD Hyundai and US defence contractor Huntington Ingalls Industries announced they are together building next-generation navy vessels. This marks the first time a South Korean firm will build a US navy ship. And Washington has also reportedly been courting Hanoi with elevated diplomatic status and promises of mining support. For other middle powers, the lesson is clear: identify and leverage the strategic economic strengths that other countries depend on.

In a 2025 marked by punitive polls, fragmented systems, and democracies under pressure, Latin America confirmed that voting remains an instrument of change, but no longer a guarantee of stability or democratic strengthening. The year ends with a powerful image: a president, a president-elect, and a defeated candidate — with radically different ideas and political visions — showing respect for electoral results, the electoral authority, and one another in Chile. An act that should be ordinary in any democracy became something almost revolutionary. It may seem like a mere formality, but it is not. In a Latin America divided by hate speech and polarized politics, these gestures of institutional courtesy and democratic normality make a difference. An intense electoral cycle shaped 2025. Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, and Honduras held presidential elections that, in one way or another, redefined the regional political landscape. These were accompanied by numerous legislative elections, local contests, and referendums. Mexico, meanwhile, experimented with the unprecedented popular election of judges and magistrates, a reform meant to democratize the justice system but which, in practice, represented setbacks in electoral governance conditions that once seemed resolved. Holding elections that meet integrity standards is no minor matter at a time when the region is undergoing processes of democratic erosion. The quality of these elections determines whether alternation in power is possible, whether democracy can persist, resist, and remain resilient when facing multiple challenges such as political-criminal violence, citizen fatigue, institutional co-optation, affective polarization, and ideological radicalization. The ballot speaks: five regional patterns An assessment of the 2025 elections reveals five patterns that transcend national borders and illustrate key features of today’s regional political dynamics. First: protest voting has consolidated. From the overwhelming victory of the far right over the left in Chile on December 14 — when José Antonio Kast won 58% of the vote — to President Daniel Noboa’s failed referendum in Ecuador, the dramatic collapse of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) in Bolivia, and the governing Libre party’s third-place finish in Honduras, the message has been consistent: voters punish those in power, regardless of ideology. In Bolivia, MAS suffered a dramatic defeat after nearly two decades of dominance. The party of Evo Morales and Luis Arce, which won 75 of 130 seats in 2020, was reduced to just two in the August elections. For the first time, Bolivia held a presidential runoff on October 19, where Rodrigo Paz of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC) won with 54.5% of the vote. In Honduras, the ruling party’s candidate, Rixi Moncada, placed third, while conservative candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura of the National Party became president-elect following a highly contentious race marked by external intervention, numerous episodes of political violence, and 24 days of uncertainty before results were finalized. Noboa suffered a devastating defeat in the November 16 referendum: “No” prevailed on all four questions, including rejecting the authorization of foreign military bases (60% voted NO) and rejecting the call for a Constituent Assembly (61% NO). This outcome surprised many, as it came just seven months after Noboa won the presidency with 55.6% of the vote. Interpretations are still developing, but it suggests that citizens are unwilling to grant “blank checks” to their leaders. Second: pragmatism is replacing ideology. Paz’s centrist message of “capitalism for all” in Bolivia, Noboa’s security-focused campaign in Ecuador, and the rejection of ruling parties across the region show that many Latin American voters in 2025 are moving beyond ideological alignment. Voters seem less interested in long-term transformative projects and more in immediate responses to pressing problems: insecurity, economic crises, and corruption. This trend has benefited conservative forces. In Chile, a far-right candidate — openly nostalgic for Pinochet — won for the first time, promising drastic public spending cuts, tough “law and order” policies, opposition to abortion and marriage equality, and aggressive measures against crime and irregular migration. Kast’s victory adds to right-wing governments like Javier Milei in Argentina, Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, Santiago Peña in Paraguay, and Luis Abinader in the Dominican Republic. This new “blue wave” shapes the current political map, though with different tones and levels of radicalization. Third: party fragmentation, divided governments, and minority presidencies. Except in Ecuador, where polarization between correísmo and anticorreísmo shaped both the April presidential election and the November referendum, other countries experienced deep fragmentation. In Bolivia, seven competitive presidential candidacies contended in the first round. In Honduras, three candidates fiercely competed in one of the country’s most tightly contested elections. High fragmentation often produces minority presidents and divided governments. This year, Bolivia and Ecuador joined Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, and Peru, where presidents govern with weak congressional support. By contrast, two countries have extremely powerful presidents with unified governments: Mexico and El Salvador, where ruling parties hold supermajorities capable of passing constitutional reforms without negotiating with the opposition. Fourth: the hollowing of the political center and the crisis of moderate parties and leaderships. As previously argued with María Esperanza Casullo, “center-and-something” parties (center-left and center-right) have long struggled to attract votes from the middle. Moderate politics seems to lack electoral appeal in Latin America. This declining representative capacity of the political center has created a vacuum often filled by outsiders or new parties claiming to embody fresh demands and alternatives from the margins. This vacuum feeds polarization strategies. Fifth: institutional credibility crisis. With the exception of Chile — where results were announced two hours after polls closed and immediately accepted — electoral processes in Honduras and Ecuador faced serious challenges from political actors who refused to recognize the results. In Ecuador, after the April runoff, Luisa González of the Citizens’ Revolution questioned transparency. In Bolivia, accusations of irregularities persisted throughout the August elections. In Honduras, more than two weeks after the November 30 vote, the presidential result remained undefined. Trust in electoral institutions — the cornerstone of democracy — shows troubling cracks that deepened throughout 2025. Many countries now face governance crises alongside fragmented systems, hate speech, interpersonal and institutional distrust, and extreme polarization. Three lessons for the future This electoral year leaves lessons that will shape regional politics in coming years. First: political-criminal violence conditions democracy. Several elections took place amid criminal violence. Honduras recorded six politically motivated homicides during the campaign, four targeting candidates from the ruling Libre party. The NGO Cristosal documented 67 political violence incidents between September 2024 and November 2025, including assassinations, attacks, threats, and harassment. Ecuador held its referendum under a State of Emergency due to “internal armed conflict,” declared in response to escalating drug-related violence and loss of state control over prisons. Mexico continues to hold elections in violent contexts, particularly at the local level. The “Voting Between Bullets” project by Data Cívica and México Evalúa has documented rising political-criminal violence since 2018, with 2024 being the most violent year yet, especially locally. Second: external influence is redefining electoral sovereignty. U.S. involvement in the Honduran presidential election, as well as in Argentina’s legislative elections weeks earlier, raised alarms about political autonomy in the region. In Ecuador, Noboa actively sought to establish U.S. military bases, a proposal rejected by 60% of voters. This level of foreign intervention — openly supporting candidates, conditioning economic aid, pressuring electoral decisions, or warning of retaliation — sets a dangerous precedent that reshapes the regional political game. External actors become potential “balancers” of competition, creating tilted playing fields. Third: polarization can demobilize voters. Ecuador showed that even amid extreme polarization, voter mobilization is not guaranteed. The moderate vote, which could have tipped the balance in the referendum, simply vanished or dissolved between the two radical positions. This suggests polarization may demobilize sectors that feel unrepresented by either extreme, paradoxically weakening democratic participation. Democracies at risk Despite difficulties, elections are still being held with reasonable levels of integrity. Power alternation occurred in several countries. Most losing candidates — even reluctantly — accepted results. This shows that electoral institutions still retain some strength. However, democratic erosion comes not from the absence of elections, but from those elected through them. It arises from leaders who challenge democracy’s pluralistic foundations. Today’s central dispute is over what “true democracy” means: a system prioritizing rights and institutional checks, or one concentrating power in the name of the “popular will.” This debate cuts across countries as different as Venezuela, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Mexico. In 2025, Latin American democracies faced multiple threats: low institutional trust, persistent violence, co-opted electoral authorities, vulnerability to external actors, and illiberal governments fostering polarization. Protest voting was one of the year’s most visible patterns, but part of something broader: extreme electoral volatility, where citizens reject governments of any ideology in search of immediate solutions. The challenge for 2026 — when countries like Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia, and Brazil (municipal elections) head to the polls — will be to safeguard electoral autonomy and professionalism, strengthen pluralism, depolarize public life, limit external interference, and continue reinforcing democratic institutions without yielding to narratives that promise order at the expense of hard-won rights.

China’s policy paper supports the “Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace” — a pointed contrast to US twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy. On December 10, 2025, US forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.” That same day, on the other side of the world, China released its third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean (the first since 2016) outlining a vision of partnership “without attaching any political conditions.” The timing captures the choice now facing Latin America. Two documents released within a week — Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 5 and China’s policy paper five days later — lay bare fundamentally different approaches to the hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine returns Trump’s NSS makes no pretense of diplomatic subtlety. It declares a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting US opposition to “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” in the hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is now America’s “highest priority”, with three threats requiring military response: migration, drugs, and China. Countries seeking US assistance must demonstrate they are “winding down adversarial outside influence” — a demand that Latin American nations cut ties with Beijing. The strategy promises “targeted deployments” and “the use of lethal force” against cartels. It states that Washington will “reward and encourage the region’s governments … aligned with our principles and strategies.” Unsurprisingly, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio rushed to congratulate Chile’s Trump-inspired extreme right wing candidate José Antonio Kast, who won the presidency with 58% of the vote (the most right-wing leader since Pinochet). The tanker seizure shows what this doctrine looks like in practice. Since September, US strikes on boats have killed 95 people. The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group patrols the Caribbean. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro observed, Trump is “not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking” — only oil. After declaring that a new phase of attacks could include “land strikes on Venezuela”, Trump threatened the Colombian president that “he’ll be next” as well as invasion of Mexico. China’s alternative China’s policy paper operates from an entirely different premise. Opening by identifying China as “a developing country and member of the Global South,” it positions the relationship as South-South cooperation and solidarity rather than great power competition. The document proposes five programs: Solidarity, Development, Civilization, Peace, and People-to-People Connectivity. What distinguishes this paper from its 2008 and 2016 predecessors is its explicit call for “local currency pricing and settlement’ in energy trade to “reduce the impact of external economic and financial risks” — new language directly addressing the weaponization of the dollar. This trend has been underway, as highlighted by the R$157 billion (USD 28 billion) currency swap agreement between Brazil and China, signed during Brazilian president Lula’s visit to the Asian country in May this year. China’s policy paper supports the “Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace” — a pointed contrast to US twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy. And it contains a line clearly responding to Washington’s pressure: “The China-LAC relationship does not target or exclude any third party, nor is it subjugated by any third party.” The historical pattern Of course, the focus on the “China threat” to “US pre-eminence” in the region is not new. In August 1961, progressive Brazilian Vice President João Goulart visited China, the first high-ranking Latin American official to do so after the Chinese Revolution. At a mass rally in Beijing, he declared that China showed “how a people, looked down upon by others for past centuries, can emancipate themselves from the yoke of their exploiters.” The US response was swift. American media constructed a narrative linking Brazilian agrarian reform movements to a “communist threat from China.” On April 1, 1964 (less than three years after Goulart’s visit) a US-backed military coup overthrew him. Twenty-one years of dictatorship followed. The playbook remains the same. In the 1960s, the pretext was “communist threat”; today it’s “China threat.” And what’s at stake is Latin American sovereignty. What makes this moment different is economic weight. China-LAC trade reached a record US$518.47 billion in 2024, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce. China’s share of trade with Mercosur countries has grown from 2% to 24% since 2000. At the May 2025 CELAC-China Forum, Xi Jinping announced a USD 9 billion investment credit line. In 1964, Latin America had few alternatives. Today, China presents another option. The question before the Latin American people The right-wing surge across the continent is undeniable — Kast in Chile, Milei in Argentina, the end of MAS rule in Bolivia. These victories reflect the limitations of progressive governments when addressing crime, migration, and economic stagnation. But they also reflect how US-generated crises become the terrain on which the right wins. The question is whether Latin American governments (including right-wing ones) want to be subordinates in what Trump’s strategy calls an “American-led world.” Even Western liberal analysts are alarmed. Brookings describes the NSS as “essentially assert[ing] a neo-imperialist presence in the region.” Chatham House notes that Trump uses “coercion instead of negotiation”, contrasted with China, “which has been providing investment and credit … without imposing conditions.” That being said, China’s presence in Latin America is not without contradictions. The structure of trade remains imbalanced — Latin America exports raw materials and imports manufactured goods. Meanwhile, labor and environmental concerns linked to specific Chinese private enterprises cannot be ignored. Whether the relationship enables development or reproduces dependency depends on what Latin American governments demand: technology transfer, local production, industrial policy. This agenda for a sovereign national project must be pushed forward by the Latin American people and popular forces. At present, the differences between the two visions being presented of the “US-led world” and a “community with a shared future” have never been starker. This article was produced by Globetrotter. The original article is under a CC BY-SA license