People’s Response to APEC: Breakdown or Breakthrough?

by Tricontinental Asia / December 4th, 2025

The Doomsday Clock advances 10 seconds closer to midnight. Global temperatures rise beyond 1.5°C. Forests burn. Hurricanes intensify. Meanwhile, countries produce bombs and bullets, the New Cold War inches us closer to nuclear annihilation, and US President Donald Trump extorts the world.

The response of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is to draw from the same tired capitalist playbook that created today’s polycrisis. Thus, APEC perpetuates a global order that makes democracy a farce and concentrates production in the hands of corporations. For most of us, to live our lives, we become insensate to these realities. The International People’s Response to APEC 2025 and Trump (People’s Response) was created because we refuse to watch the world being destroyed from the sidelines. While we denounce Trump’s tariff extortion, we also refuse to settle for APEC’s nostalgic yearning for a pre-Trump globalised world that never was.

Lee Ungno (South Korea), People, 1985.

APEC’s structure and origins expose its corporate-centric economic cooperation. All 20 official meetings throughout the year, from food sovereignty to AI regulation, are carried out with corporations behind closed doors. Moreover, the only non-governmental body with an official meeting with APEC leaders is the APEC Business Advisory Council. Its ubiquitous interventions are evident in its letters to APEC’s thematic and working groups. This structure reflects APEC’s original intent and function of serving as a forum for business to access governments. Its corporate-centric economic cooperation traces back to 1966, with a Japanese economist’s proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). While rejected, this FTAAP remains APEC’s guiding vision. In fact, the progenitor to today’s global value chains emerged within this context: the Toyota Manufacturing System’s regional value chain across Southeast Asia stood in contrast to the Ford-inspired vertically integrated mass production that was then prevalent in the United States.

To represent the voices of people from the region and the world, the International Strategy Center, together with the International Peoples’ Assembly (IPA) and other progressive groups, hosted a series of People’s Response from 29 October to 1 November. International delegates were invited to join the struggle and exchange experiences.

Yoan Choe (South Korea), Stand Up With Your Fist Clenched, n.d.

On 29 October, we harnessed Korean public discontent and outrage to protest Trump’s visit to Gyeongju. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs were particularly egregious to South Korea as the latter’s zero tariffs were achieved after conceding to the US’ toxic provisions (i.e., investor state dispute settlement systems) in the US-ROK Free Trade Agreement. Today, in exchange for 15% tariffs, the Lee Jae-myung administration has to hand over $350 billion of Korea’s money (over 80% of its dollar reserves) to the Trump administration. As Vijay Prashad stated in the Gyeongju People’s Summit, ‘Trump just put his hand in your pocket and took your money’. Infuriatingly, excepting the few that stood up to Trump, this is an all-too-common scene around the world: presidents smiling and thanking Trump as they get robbed. And while these investments might yield profits for Korean companies, they do nothing for jobs and welfare for Korea while abetting in the US’s reckless scramble to maintain its dominance. After all, $150 billion will ‘Make American Shipbuilding Great Again’, thus expanding US naval capacity. The rest of the $200 billion will be used for investments (with Trump having final say) on extracting fossil fuels and further embedding South Korea in the US’s semiconductor industry. Trump’s tariff extortion portends US decline and retrenchment. Yet, rather than a rebalancing in foreign relations, South Korea is becoming more structurally dependent on the United States.

On 30 October, the People’s Response hosted a conference on the theme ‘An Economy For All’, exploring capitalist globalisation, the shifting global order, and alternatives to APEC. In the first panel (‘Globalization, Trump’s Tariff War, and APEC’), Walden Bello, co-chair of the board of Focus on the Global South, spoke about how capitalist globalisation has enriched multinational corporations from the Global North while destabilising countries in the Global South and increasing global inequality. Bello called for a deglobalisation based on people’s needs, development, plurality, and social control. Dr. Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj, chairman of the Socialist Party of Malaysia, proposed an ASEAN-centred regional economy for Malaysia, based on higher wages, corporate taxes, and import substitution. Solong Senohe, general secretary of Lesotho’s United Textile Employees Union, spoke on how Trump’s tariffs wrecked the textile industry, leaving countless unemployed (80% of them being young women). Kim Deok-su, general secretary of the Korean Peasants League of Gangwon Province, spoke about how Korean peasants were being sacrificed for export-oriented production and called for food sovereignty. Kim Seong-hyeok, director of the Korean Confederation of Trade Union’s Korea Labor and Society Institute, criticised Trump’s ‘America First’ policy while rejecting APEC’s capital-centred globalisation – he echoed calls for democratic and people-centred alternatives. Kim Jong-min, co-president of Together Seoul, called out Trump’s predatory neoliberalism while seeing the current moment as an opportunity to build international solidarity against Trump and for peace, sustainability, and development.

Jiha Moon (South Korea), The Letter Shin 2, 2011.

In the second panel (‘Multipolarity, the New Cold War, and Neo-Fascism’), Vijay Prashad, executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, presented on the growing confidence and assertiveness of the Global South (through processes such as BRICS+) which was provoked by the Global North’s inability to solve the world’s problems following the 2008 Financial crisis. Tings Chak, an organiser of the Shanghai-based Global South Academic Forum and co-editor of the international edition of the journal Wenhua Zongheng, explored China’s socialist path and its vision of peaceful co-existence based on national sovereignty. Corazon Fabros, co-president of the International Peace Bureau, proposed the idea of ‘common security’ as the ‘path to a peaceful multipolar world’, including in the South China Sea. Cathi Choi, executive director of Women Cross DMZ, called for developing a ‘people-centred economy’ and a ‘regional demilitarisation dialogue’ based on diplomacy. Dyung YaPing, of the Urgent Action by South Korean Civil Society in Solidarity with Palestine, called on Korean labour unions to actively participate in the solidarity struggle to end the genocide in Palestine. Myeong-Suk of Human Rights Network BARAM called for greater international solidarity (regardless of one’s positions on China) amidst the openings created by the seismic shifts to a multipolar world. Finally, Ahn Kim, Jeong-ae, president of Women Making Peace, presented on the specific impact of war on women and called for a feminist approach towards peace based on ‘care, life, peace, and co-existence’.

In the third panel (‘Alternatives, Social Movements, and Progressive Parties’), Stephanie Weatherbee, coordinator of the IPA, explored the potential and limitations of multipolarity given its heterogeneity and called for building organisations that can lead ‘sustained struggle’ towards ‘liberation and constructing a new world’. Peter Mertens, Secretary General of the Workers’ Party of Belgium shared the importance of a principled, flexible party rooted in the working class and explicitly committed to overcoming capitalism. Raphael Kaplinsky, professor at the University of Sussex, spoke on the end of deep globalisation and the need to add directionality towards sustainability and equality to the new emerging information technology and techno-economic paradigm. Layan Fuleihan, education director at the People’s Forum, emphasised the need to build social alternatives to Trump and the importance of political education and culture. Moon Jeong-eun, vice-chair of the Justice Party, Lee Sang-hyun, co-president of the Green Party, and Jang Hye-Kyoung, policy committee chair of the Labor Party, all spoke on the need for rebuilding left political parties through unity within Korean and internationally by constructing a vision of expanding public goods, rights, and sustainability. Miryu, chair of the organising committee for System Change Movement and Hwang Jeong-eun, general secretary of the International Strategy Center called for movements to move beyond isolation and towards solidarity.

Lee Kun-Yong, Logic of Hand, 1975/2018.

On 1 November, we gathered for the People’s Summit in Gyeongju which ran parallel to the last day of the APEC Leaders Summit. Hundreds of people gathered at the People’s Summit to read and sign on to the Gyeongju People’s Declaration. Soon after, the 2025 APEC Leaders’ Gyeongju Declaration was adopted, which sure enough repeated the same mantra around corporate led global value chains followed by a litany of corporate centred recommendations. While the weekend of solidarity and struggle against APEC ended with a rally and march through the streets of Gyeongju, our struggle continues. We call on the world to lift up banners and pickets on 20 January 2026, the first anniversary of Trump’s inauguration, to fight for a world of peace and dignity that we need and deserve.

Written by Dae-Han Song, a part of the International Strategy Center and the No Cold War collective. He is an associate at the Korea Policy Institute.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research seeks to build a bridge between academic production and political and social movements to promote critical critical thinking and stimulate debates. Read other articles by Tricontinental Asia.

Takaichi’s Foreign Policy Comes Into Focus In Japan – Analysis



Japan's Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi arriving at the Prime Minister’s Office. Photo Credit: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan


November 10, 2025 
Geopolitical Monitor
By Jonathan Bak

The decision to elect Sanae Takaichi as Japan’s prime minister marks a significant moment in the country’s political and diplomatic trajectory. Known for her ambitious and conservative stance, Takaichi brings clear priorities to her new role of managing the evolving challenges of both domestic and international affairs. Among her challenges is Japan’s ongoing support for Ukraine in its efforts to repel Russia’s invasion.

Since 2022, Takaichi has advocated for Ukrainian security and a negotiated ceasefire, and her approach to foreign policy blends continuity with new strategic considerations. While Japan’s support for Ukraine and pressure on Russia are set to continue, Takaichi also seeks renewed diplomatic engagement with Moscow and its partners to address key bilateral issues. Yet despite any conciliatory initiatives, the Ukraine war will continue to loom large in Takaichi’s policy agenda.

Japan’s Record of Support for Ukraine

After Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea, Japan joined other G7 nations in imposing sanctions on Moscow. In the wake of the 2022 invasion, Japan increased pressure on Russia and to date, has imposed hundreds of sanctions on Russian individuals and entities. Japan is also one of the few non-European Union countries that holds frozen Russian assets.

Since 2022, Tokyo has increased support for Ukraine, providing $16 billion in economic assistance. It supplies non-lethal military assistance and signed a 10-year security arrangement with Kyiv in November 2024. Japan has also assisted in ordinance removal efforts since 2023. The country has joined cross-regional collectives such as the Coalition of the Willing and the Indo-Pacific Four, ensuring support for Ukraine in the present and future.

President Zelensky was gratuitous in congratulating Takaichi’s election success, indicating that it portended a strengthening of Ukraine-Japan relations. Soon after the prime minister and her cabinet took office, the country hosted the third annual Ukraine Mine Action Conference in Tokyo. During the conference, newly-appointed Japanese Foreign Minister Motegi Toshimitsu affirmed that Japan will continue to assist in Ukraine’s de-mining operations. He announced the launch of the Ukraine Mine Action Support Initiative. This support package underscores that de-mining efforts will not just include ordinance removal; they will also focus on reconstruction, economic resilience, and the restoration of human security. In other words, de-mining efforts under Takaichi will emphasize a forward-looking perspective on post-conflict and reconstruction of Ukraine.


Takaichi’s Foreign Policy Blueprint

Takaichi’s first policy speech as Japan’s leader presented her plans for national security and foreign policy. She emphasized that military developments in Russia, China, and North Korea are serious concerns. Each country has played a role, directly or indirectly, in the Ukraine war. She stated that Japanese diplomacy will be restored in each case. Under her leadership, Japan and China will work to promote a mutually beneficial strategic relationship. While she denounced North Korea’s nuclear and missile development, she indicated her openness to meeting with Kim Jong Un to discuss the return of Japanese abductees. Regarding Russia, Takaichi asserted that the war of attrition must not expand into a cross-regional conflict. Though relations with Moscow are at an all-time low, she emphasized that territorial issues must be resolved and that a peace treaty must be enacted. For defense, she announced plans to increase spending to 2% of GDP.

Based on this speech, Takaichi’s views on foreign and defense policy appear to have adjusted. While she remains committed to enhancing military capabilities, she now places greater emphasis on diplomacy in bilateral matters, particularly with countries she has previously criticized. Interestingly, shortly before her speech, Russian aircraft conducted a fly by over the Sea of Japan, prompting a response from the Self-Defense Forces. After her address, the Kremlin acknowledged her pledge for bilateral peace. Despite her condemnation of the invasion and being bannedfrom Russia, her previously hawkish tone seems to have shifted toward a more pragmatic approach.

One possible reason for the shift may be a desire to better align Japan’s policies with its most important ally, the United States. Takaichi has sought to ensure a symbiotic relationship with President Donald Trump, aiming to address key bilateral matters such as finalizing the trade agreement and responding to his push for US allies to increase defense spending. She may also be strategically echoing Trump’s approach by pursuing bilateral relationships with other regional leaders, including Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping.

Another possibility is that she is modeling her approach on Shinzo Abe’s diplomatic endeavors by building a rapportwith Putin. During his time in office, Abe was the only world leader to consistently engage with Putin and to develop a personal relationship. Although the territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands was never fully resolved, there was notable progress in bilateral cooperation that has not been seen since. A third possibility is that Takaichi recognizes that the rhetoric and actions of a parliamentarian differ from those of a head of government, who must focus on what is best for the nation as a whole.

Efforts to engage with Russia could be a hit or miss. In the post-Abe years, longstanding issues with Russia have been persistent. These include the dispute with the Kuril Islands, Russian aircraft flying into Japanese airspace, the Russian navy conducting joint exercises with its Chinese counterpart in the Sea of Japan, and Japan being placed on the unfriendly countries list. Granted, dialogue could lead to a revival in bilateral relations, but Moscow has statedthat it can only commence once Tokyo stops the “anti-Russian rhetoric.”

Strategic Foresight

Despite Takaichi’s pledge to engage Russia through diplomacy, she made her support for Ukraine clear. Shortly after the policy speech, Takaichi attended the Coalition of the Willing meeting virtually. This event was her first major international appearance as prime minister and made her the first Japanese leader to participate in such meetings. European leaders praised her for choosing this assembly for her debut and reaffirming Japan’s support. Takaichi stated on the record that Japan’s support for Ukraine will also include building social and economic resilience. The members all agreed that they will continue to inflict economic pressure on Russia to end the aggression. Takaichi’s focus on post-conflict resilience, exemplified by Japan’s leadership at the Ukraine Mine Action Conference, reflects her commitment to preparing for Ukraine’s eventual recovery and regional stability.

Japan’s role in supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty appears unchanged, but it now places greater emphasis on strategic foresight. While Takaichi has expressed a willingness to engage in dialogue with regional leaders, she has not diminished national security measures or pressure on Moscow. The war in Ukraine will affect the Indo-Pacific. Regardless of the war’s outcome, Russia and North Korea will emerge with experience in modern warfare, including grey zone tactics, drone warfare, and cyber capabilities. North Korean state media has already criticizedTakaichi, particularly her pledge to increase military capabilities and asserting that she is turning Japan into a “war state.”

Taiwan is another security issue that involves Japan. Many believe that a Taiwan contingency is still possible, which has been juxtaposed to the invasion of Ukraine. As China continues to enhance its military capabilities, plans have been drafted to evacuate the Sakishima Islands in the event that the situation escalates. In her first summit with Xi, Takaichi emphasized the importance of stability and security in the Taiwan Strait. However, Beijing was not pleased when she subsequently met with Taiwanese officials at the APEC Summit. Overall, once the Russia-Ukraine war ends, the geopolitical environment will shift, and Takaichi is preparing for new challenges that may arise.

This article was published by Geopolitica Monitor.com

Geopolitical Monitor
Geopoliticalmonitor.com is an open-source intelligence collection and forecasting service, providing research, analysis and up to date coverage on situations and events that have a substantive impact on political, military and economic affairs.

Globalization, Trump’s tariff war and APEC 2025

GLOBALIZATION IS PROLETARIANIZATION

By Jeyakumar Devaraj

Published 8 November, 2025

First published at Think Left.

I would like to thank the organizers for inviting me to share my thoughts on this very important topic. It is a great honour for me personally, and for the Socialist Party of Malaysia to be given this opportunity to address this gathering of activists and progressive leaders from so many countries. Before going to the topic, I would like to salute the spontaneous and brave pushback on the night of December 3rd 2024 that defeated the attempt to declare Martial Law.

Trump tariffs

In August 2025, Trump finally declared a tariff of 19% on Malaysian exports to the US. This was a reduction from the 25% tariff threatened in April 2025. Of course, Malaysian business people and the government are still very concerned. Malaysia’s economy is very open. In 2024, our total exports amounted to 71% of GDP. And 12.7% of our total exports in 2024 went to the US — goods valued at USD 43.4 billion.

The truth is, it is extremely unlikely that a tariff of 19% or even 50% is going to induce firms to transfer production from SE Asia, to the US. The minimum wage in the US is USD 12.50 per hour — it is USD 15 or even higher in some States like California and New York. The minimum wage in Malaysia is RM1700 per month. This works out to USD 2.01 per hour.1 This 6-fold difference in wage levels militates against any significant “re-shoring” of production from SE Asia back to the US. It would still be much more “economic” for businesses to produce cheaply in Malaysia, pay the tariff and then sell in the US market.

Malaysia’s economy would take a hit if our main competitors for the US market — Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia — were given a much lower tariff compared to us. For then, businesses would consider transferring more of their production or procurement to the country with the lower tariff and Malaysia would lose orders and wage income. To our business sector’s relief, most SE Asian countries were given a similar tariff level. Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand were decreed tariffs of 19% and Vietnam, 20%.

However, it is likely that the ordinary people of SE Asia and elsewhere, are going to be affected by these tariffs. There is a high likelihood that these tariffs will spark a global economic recession. US goods imports amounted to USD 3.3 trillion or about 11% of the US GDP in 2024. With Trumps tariffs levied on friend and foe alike, prices of goods in the US are going to go up an average of 10 to 15%.2 Unless there is a concomitant increase in the income of US citizens, the effective aggregate demand in the US is going to shrink significantly. This means that the demand for goods and services from both US firms and the firms exporting to the US is going to decrease by at least 10–15%. Given the size of the US economy, this decrease in aggregate demand is likely to set off a deep recession — perhaps in about 18 months for now.

The Malaysian government does not seem to take this possibility too seriously at present. They are forecasting a growth rate of 4.0 to 4.5% for the Malaysian economy for 2026. Progressive movements in all continents should be prepared to mount campaigns to ensure that our governments handle this recession on the basis of solidarity if it actually develops. No one must be deprived of basic needs whether it be food, shelter, medical care or education. Society must marshal its resources to ensure that no member of society is left behind.

Globalization and the rules based economic order (1980–2024)

Many of the mainstream critics of Trump’s “tariff tantrums” speak about restoring the “rules based international economic order” that existed prior to Trump’s use of the US’ economic might to bully all its trading partners. This will probably be the majority position taken during the coming APEC Conference in Gyeongju. The PSM agrees that international trade should be governed by clear and consistent rules and guidelines and not be determined by the whims of a US President. But should it be the “international order” that was developed since the 1980s under the tutelage of the World Bank, the IMF and from 1995 onwards, the World Trade Organization?

That rules based order benefited the global elite and richest corporations far more than it benefited ordinary people. Consider the case of Malaysia. There are many who would call Malaysia a success story as it’s per capita GDP and health indices are better than many other countries in Asia and Africa.

Malaysia’s GDP grew 24-fold (in real terms) in the 50 years between 1970 and 2020.3 So, there would seem to be empirical basis for the postulate that Malaysia benefited from the rules based international order. But, if we investigate a little more deeply, we will find that:

• 60% to 70% of the Malaysian working population have to work more than 10 hours per day to make ends meet for their families.
• the prevalence of stunting for under-5 children is about 21% of the under-5 population in Malaysia. Stunting refers to heights less than the 3rd percentile of the normal range for that age bracket. It indicates long term malnutrition.
• About 40% of Malaysian graduates cannot get jobs that are commensurate with their training. They are forced to accept semi-skilled jobs at low wages or enter the gig market as motorcycle delivery riders.
• Old age poverty is a sad reality in Malaysia. About 70% of all those above the age of 65 years do not have any savings of their own and have to rely on their children or other relatives for their basic needs. (Malaysia has not yet committed to a universal old age pension scheme.)
• The younger generation is experiencing a mental health epidemic with many of them on medicines for anxiety and depression.
• Our public health care system has been chronically under-funded for the past 40 years. This has resulted in congested clinics and wards as well as inordinately long waiting times, delayed treatment and poorer health outcomes.

The problem with Globalisation based on the “Rules based order” that has been promoted all over the world since the 1980’s, is that most of the rules favour the largest corporations and the richest individuals in society. The pro-elite rules include the following

• Intellectual Property Rights provisions that have been used by the largest corporations to create monopolies and extract high rates of profit by bullying the subordinate firms in the value chains.
• “National Treatment” provisions. Many “Free Trade Agreements” require governments to give at least similar access to foreign investors as they give to local companies.
• The Investor State Dispute Settlement provision allows the biggest MNCs to haul governments to international tribunals if any aspect of government’s policies restricts the profits of the MNCs. It is considered “expropriation”.
• Unrestricted flow of capital across national boundaries. This has created a situation that has forced government to reduce tax rates for corporations and the richest individuals. This occurred both in the advanced economies as well as in the global South. In the ASEAN region for example, there has been a race-to-the-bottom in corporate taxes. Malaysia has reduced its corporate tax from 40% of profits in 1988, to its current 24% of profits. Malaysia felt pressured to do so because its neighbours also acted similarly, with Thailand’s and Vietnam’s corporate tax currently at 20%, and Singapore’s at 17%. The SE Asean countries have been reducing corporate tax in a bid to attract FDI as well as to ensure that domestic investors do not relocate to neighbouring countries.
• The “Zero Tariff Regime” of Free Trade Agreements have markedly eroded the economic sovereignty of governments. For example, the ASEAN FTA has brought the tariffs of 99% of goods traded among ASEAN countries to zero, and this FTA has the provision that tariffs can only be lowered, but never raised. As a consequence, the Malaysian government is apprehensive that raising the minimum wage for Malaysian workers might affect the competitiveness of Malaysian firms and lead to the loss of both the domestic and the exports markets to firms from other ASEAN countries.

These rules have led to the de-industrialisation of advanced countries in Europe and the US, and wage suppression in the developing countries in the Global South which had to, under this system, compete with their peers to attract foreign direct investment. The net impact of the international economic system created in the last 45 years is reflected in the pie chart reflecting income distribution in Malaysia in 2024.

Image

Currently, 90% of the Malaysian population receives 28% of total national income, while the Malaysian government receives 16%. (The Malaysian’s government share was 30% of GDP in 1988, before we started lowering our corporate tax rate). The richest 10% of the population and the companies with more than 50 employees receive 56% of the national income.4 This is the “price” of “success” under the rules based economic order that has built up since 1980s.

The globalisation we have experienced has resulted in a huge increase in the productivity of the global economy. However, the major beneficiary of this growth in productivity, are the largest MNCs in the world and the richest 0.1% of humanity who have become obscenely wealthy. Competition for investments from these MNCs has resulted in wages remaining stagnant and declining government revenue in almost all countries. Many countries in the global South are hugely in debt and are food insecure. Even the countries that grew their economies (like Malaysia — 24 fold in the past 50 years!) are unable to use the income generated in their economies to provide a better quality of life for their citizens or to mitigate against climate change.

Recalibrating the economy to serve the people

Multi National centric Globalisation cannot be rapidly reversed. Our national economies are now highly integrated in regional and international networks, and too rapid a disarticulation will lead to loss of jobs and economic chaos. We, the PSM, have been trying to develop practical medium- term strategies to build a more equitable society. We have been proposing to our progressive partners in SE Asia that Comrade Samir Amin’s proposal for partial de-linking from the global economy and the formation of regional blocks, should be the central strategy to

1. retain a larger portion of the value created by the labour of the ordinary workers, farmers and business people in our region
2. share a larger portion of the wealth created in ASEAN with the people who created it through higher prices for primary agricultural products, higher pay for our workers and more robust and comprehensive social protection schemes — such as high-quality health care, old age pension, reasonably priced rental residences, etc.

SE Asia has a population of 680 million. That should provide sufficient economies of scale for the local manufacture of most of the goods we use in daily life, except for things like advanced medical technologies like robotic surgery and passenger airplanes. A policy of import substitution at an ASEAN level should be discussed by progressive movements in the region. This policy would reduce dependence on economies outside the region, generate more jobs for the youth in ASEAN, and reduce outflow of local currency. It would also spur technological research and innovation at ASEAN level. The ASEAN member states will need to carefully and fairly apportion the manufacturing opportunities as well as associated job creation equitably among themselves, on the basis of population size to ensure continued buy-in on this endeavour.

The process of import substitution might require tariffs to keep the ASEAN market from being flooded with cheaper products from outside. We need to uphold the principle that one of the primary roles of the economy is to generate enough jobs for all the people in that society who need work. The “right to life” is an empty slogan if it does not encompass the “right to livelihood” — to be offered work at a reasonable wage level. The principle of “Free trade” should not be used to undermine our people’s right to decent jobs.

We need many new rules to move towards a better ASEAN. For example, ASEAN countries should commit to increasing corporate tax to 30% of profits over a period of 10 years. That would require Malaysia to increase its corporate tax rate by 0.6% annually as we are at 24% currently. Thailand, with a corporate tax of 19% at present, would have to go up 1.1% annually to make the target of 30% by 10 years. Increasing government revenue would help government provide better services to the people and to do serious climate mitigation work which is grossly overdue. Increase in government expenditure would augment aggregate demand, and this will provide a larger market for the businesses in the ASEAN region.

We need to explain the importance of this programme to the people and to businesses, because we need to cultivate political support to demand that the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement be modified to include a new provision that a tariff of certain percentage must be levied incrementally5 against the exports of any ASEAN member state that fails to adhere to the increment in corporate tax agreed at ASEAN level.

Another programme that needs to be considered at ASEAN level is to overcome wage suppression and attain a living wage for all. At present the minimum wages in ASEAN are at different levels. Jakarta is at about 75% of Malaysia’s minimum wage. Sulawesi and Cambodia are at about 50% of Malaysia’s. ASEAN nations should commit to increase the minimum wage in all ASEAN countries by 10% each year for the next 10 years, starting from their differing starting points — so that at 10 years, we would be at double today’s wage rate though still at different absolute levels. The benefits are obvious — lower income families would live better, eat more nutritious food and have better financial security. Businesses of all sizes would have a larger market to sell to.6 The increase in manufacturing and commercial activities would generate jobs that are desperately required all over ASEAN. Quite probably, government tax collection would also go up.

As in the case of the proposal to increase corporate tax progressively, we would need to work this into the existing ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. Any country that attempts to gain by keeping its wages static but nevertheless benefit from the expanding regional market created by wage increases in other ASEAN countries should be incurred a penalty in the form of a tariff of, perhaps 5%, against all its exports to other ASEAN countries. This penalty tariff would be cumulative, increasing for each year that country failed to implement the increase in minimum wage.

Would this lead to a flight of investment capital? Unlikely that capital will flee to advanced countries or to NE Asia. As explained earlier, the wage level in ASEAN is about 1/6th to 1/12 of that in Europe, the US and North East Asia. Translocation of investment capital to neighbouring ASEAN countries has been the possibility that national policy makers have had to be wary about. But if ASEAN countries had a unified policy on wage increase, where would international capital run to? The wages in the advanced countries would still be more than 3 times higher even after we managed to double ASEAN wage rates.

Africa might be a choice for international capital still dependent on very low wages. If that develops, we (being progressive internationalists) should not begrudge poorer African nations this opportunity to attract investments, create jobs and build their economies. Africa is still the poorest and most marginalized continent. But being one of the last remaining bastions of overly suppressed wages, they would be in a better bargaining power to insist on more decent returns for their countries in terms of wages and technology transfer.

APEC 2025 — and a message of hope

Would discussion of the themes outlined in the section above take place in the APEC summit? I seriously doubt. Most of the government leaders who will be attending APEC have been exposed to World Bank–IMF–World Trade Organisation dogma for the past 30 years such that they are unable to think outside that neoliberal policy framework.

The Message of Hope7 can only come from Progressive Movement. We have the responsibility of putting forward an alternative vision of a world where the vast wealth created by the growth of technology and science is utilized to benefit the ordinary people and the planet on the basis of solidarity. It is our duty to chart out a realistic (and believable) roadmap in that direction. And we need to rally people to this vision and attempt to take political power in our respective countries.

Rosa Luxemberg’s observation that the choice human society faces is either Socialism or Barbarism remains relevant. The Left has a crucial role to play in ensuring that it’s the former!

Jeyakumar Devaraj is Chairperson of Parti Sosialis Malaysia.

• 1

  There is no single minimal wage rate in the US. It varies State by State. It is as low as USD 7.50 in certain States and as high as USD 16.50 in New York and California. The weighted average US Minimum Wage, taking into account the population of the individual States is about USD 12.50 per hour. Minimum wage in Malaysia now is RM 1700 per month. This works out to RM 1700 div by 25 days div by 8 hrs per day – RM 8.50 per hour, which is equivalent to USD 2.01 per hour. (at the exchange rate of RM 4.22 to the US Dollar)

• 2

  Private consumption makes up approximately 68% of US GDP – 23% on goods and 45% on services. Approximately half of these goods are imported. In addition, the tariffs against certain countries such as Brazil, China and India are much higher than the tariffs on ASEAN countries.

• 3

  Real = after taking into account the effect of inflation.

• 4

  The percentage accruing to the top 1% at a global level would be more than the 56% figure quoted in the Malaysian analysis. This is because, Malaysia’s top 10% of individuals and firms are several steps down the global “pecking order” and they are forced to give up a major portion of the surplus they have extracted from their workers. The firms higher than them in the global value chains squeeze these surpluses from them. Refer to John Smith’s Imperialism in the 21st Century for a detailed description of this phenomenon.

• 5

  Incrementally here means that if a particular ASEAN member State fails to raise corporate taxes by the agreed percentage for a second year, another increase in the tariff rate would have to be added to the one declared after the first default.

• 6

  Implicit in these plans is the perception that the Left alliance that takes over government in any country in SE Asia, will not be in a position to implement a full “socialist” program that includes taking control of all productive assets by the State immediately. It is our perception that any such attempt would lead to economic mayhem and a steep drop in living standards. We think that we instead need to aim for the following

  a) increase the material wellbeing of the ordinary citizen by immediately expanding social protection programs, and then later working towards increasing jobs and wage rates. A progressive larger share of the income generated by the economy should be shared with the working classes.

  b) making food, energy and pharmaceutical self-sufficiency high priority targets

  c) building grassroots democratic structures – by mandating unions in all work places with more than 5 workers, and by organizing people to set up residential communities that can participate in community budgeting. Empowering people to take over the management of the economy and society should be the aim. Involving people in the transformation of society is crucial. (Marta Harnecker’s book, “Rebuilding the Left”, is well worth reading!)

  d) wherever possible, new industries should be owned by the government or “Government Linked Companies” and managed by workers, cooperatives or communities.

  In other words, our expectation is that the incoming “left” government would be managing (hopefully competently) a capitalist economy for the first 2 or even 3 decades, while building the capacity of ordinary people, and laying the groundwork for the progressive socialization of production, and further progress towards socialism.

• 7

  Some comrades still like to shout slogans like “Smash the system” and “Revolution now”. This is unlikely to appeal to people outside our echo-chambers. I can understand the anger against the unfair system and the frustration that young people feel, but the point, as Marx said, is to change the world. To change the world, we need the masses on our side in overwhelming numbers. There isn’t much appetite for anarchy among ordinary people in Malaysia. Yes, times are difficult, but there have also been significant improvements. Life expectancy at birth in Malaysia was 57 years in 1960. It is now 75 years. Maternal mortality was 242 per 100,000 births in 1960. It is now about 25.7 per 100,0000 (2023). Literacy has gone up. Most adults have their own handphones and are incredibly well connected. There has been an improvement in material conditions over the past 70 years. This “Smash the system” slogan will not rally the majority. But a narrative that given the greatly enhanced productive capacity of our society, life could be so much less stressful if that increase in productive capacity is used based on solidarity with all, might succeed to win people to our program especially if we can put forward a believable line of march. And if espoused by a political movement that has been consistently with the people, lobbying for bread and butter issues affecting the masses – decent wages, old age pension, decent health care, affordable housing, etc.

Trump’s Reckless War Drums in Nigeria Stink of Islamophobia and Imperial Arrogance

For the sake of Nigerian lives and the American soul, we must not allow Trump to drag America into a quagmire of his own making.

Chloe Atkinson
Nov 07, 2025

Common Dreams


In yet another display of the same divisive rhetoric that defined his first term, US President Donald Trump has once again pulled the United States into the crosshairs of global instability, this time by saber rattling over Nigeria’s complex ethnic and religious conflict. Trump not only threatened to slash US aid, but he also said he might order “fast and vicious” military strikes against what he calls “Islamic terrorists” slaughtering Christians. Aside from the fact that Trump is wrong, he is ranting xenophobic ideas, platforming American exceptionalism, and demonstrating a blatant disregard for the lives of millions caught in the cross fire of what is simply a resource war with colonial-era grudges.

Let’s be clear: The violence taking place today in Nigeria is heartbreaking and must end. Boko Haram’s extremism, clashes between farmers and herders, and general hooliganism have claimed over 20,000 civilian lives since 2020. It is true that Christian communities in the north-central regions have suffered unimaginable horrors as raids have left villages in ashes, children murdered in their beds, and churches reduced to rubble. The April massacre in Zike and the June bloodbath in Yelwata are prime examples of the atrocities taking place in Nigeria. These incidents are grave reminders that the international community must pay more attention to this crisis.




Echoes of Obama Libya Strikes as Trump Argues Boat Bombings Are Immune From War Powers Law



‘They’re Going to Be, Like, Dead’: Trump Says Land Strikes on Venezuela Are Next

But Trump’s response is crude and wrong. Painting all Muslims as genocidal monsters is not the answer. Calling Nigeria a failed state ripe for American liberation is not the solution, especially since the data shows otherwise. According to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, more Muslims than Christians have been targeted in recent years. Boko Haram has massacred worshipers in mosques, torched markets in Muslim-majority areas, and threatened their own co-religionists.

The crisis in Nigeria is not a holy war against Christianity. Instead, it’s a devastating cocktail of poverty, climate-driven land disputes, and radical ideologies that prey on everyone and not just any distinct group. By framing Nigeria’s conflict as an existential threat to Christians alone, Trump is not shining a spotlight on the victims. Instead, he is weaponizing right-wing conspiracy theories to stoke Islamophobia, the same toxic playbook he used to fuel his ban on Muslims, and which left refugee families shattered at America’s borders.

Americans must reject Trump’s imperial fantasy and instead demand congressional oversight on any military action.

Nigeria’s leaders are right to be astonished and furious. Presidential spokesperson Bayo Onanuga said he was “shocked” over Trump’s invasion musings, while President Bola Tinubu decried the religious intolerance label as a distortion of their “national reality.” Even opposition voices, like Labour Party spokesperson Ken Eluma Asogwa, admit the government’s security lapses but reject Trump’s extermination narrative as baseless fearmongering.

Trump should indeed be viewed as a warmonger, seeking every opportunity to sow discord and destruction in his wake. He sees every crisis as a photo op for his machismo and self-promotion. His first term was a disaster and now, in his second term, he wants to unleash drones and troops on Africa’s most populous nation, destabilizing a key partner in counterterrorism and migration management.

Unilateral strikes will only inflame the conflict’s root causes like resource scarcity and ethnic tensions. If anything, Trump’s misguided ideas to resolve the crisis will only exacerbate it by creating new waves of refugees and sowing even more discord throughout Nigeria. The country needs real solutions, not Trump’s wrong-headed conspiracy theories. He should be saving those who are vulnerable, not bombing them into submission.

A real solution would involve surging humanitarian aid to displaced families, partnering with the United Nations and African Union for joint security training, and pressuring Nigeria’s government through incentives, not threats. Real strength is in building bridges. Trump shows his weakness by building bunkers.

The Nigerian crisis is a clarion call for the world, but especially for America. Trump’s rhetoric is not just wrong; it is a betrayal of American values. Americans must reject Trump’s imperial fantasy and instead demand congressional oversight on any military action. America must recommit to a foreign policy that heals rather than divides. The world is watching, and for the sake of Nigerian lives and the American soul, we must not allow Trump to drag America into a quagmire of his own making. Nigeria deserves better.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Chloe Atkinson
Chloe Atkinson is a climate activist focused on US and European domestic policies.
Full Bio >

Nigeria's Ondo State announces $50bn investment framework for proposed 500,000bpd refinery, free trade zone

REAL REASON TRUMP WANTS TO INVADE NIGERIA

/ bne IntelliNews

FacebookTwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By Brian Kenety November 6, 2025

Nigeria’s Ondo State Government said on Wednesday (November 5) it has signed a $50bn investment agreement with a consortium of international firms under the Sunshine Infrastructure Joint Venture to establish a 500,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) oil refinery and free trade zone, The Punch reports.

Earlier this week, Backbone Infrastructure Nigeria Limited said it has secured expressions of interest for up to NGN71.8 trillion ($50bn) in funding to develop a refinery and build out the 1,471-hectare Sunshine Free Trade Zone in Ilaje, Ondo State.

The initiative follows a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the Nigerian company and the Ondo State Government in July. The State government said on Wednesday it signed an agreement with a consortium that includes Backbone Infrastructure, China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC), and Honeywell OUP. 

CHEC, a subsidiary of China Communications Construction Company (HK:1800; SHA:601800), typically acts as an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor rather than a primary project financier. Honeywell OUP is a private real estate and industrial development arm of Honeywell Group.

“The funding followed the successful execution of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Joint Venture and the state government through the Ondo State Investment Promotion Agency,” said Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa’s press secretary, Ebenezer Adeniyan, in a statement. “This investment marks a new dawn for Ondo State. It will fast-track industrial development, attract more investors and create jobs for our people.”

Backbone earlier stated that the planned development would include storage, loading and transport infrastructure to position the zone as a refining and export hub. The private Nigerian infrastructure and project development firm said it was working with strategic partner NEFEX Holding Limited, a Canadian company that operates across key sectors of the global energy and logistics chain.

The investment scale represents a major increase from estimates publicised in mid-2025, when Backbone described the refinery concept as a 100,000-bpd project with an indicative cost of around $15bn. The larger figure reflects a fivefold expanded capacity and broader integrated zone development.

Sunshine Infrastructure JV managing director Henry Owonka is quoted by The Punch as saying that the Ondo refinery-free trade zone project’s initial valuation, which he put at $30bn, has been revised upwards to $50bn following an expansion to cover broader infrastructure and community-driven programmes. The refinery would supply petroleum products locally and internationally, he added.

The Nigerian government has prioritised domestic refining to reduce fuel imports and preserve foreign exchange. However, large-scale private refinery projects have frequently faced delays linked to financing conditions, FX volatility, and crude supply arrangements.

If realised, the proposed 500,000bpd refinery project in Ondo would significantly expand Nigeria’s private downstream refining capacity, alongside the 650,000bpd Dangote refinery, which was commissioned in 2024 and last month announced plans to double its capacity.

Dangote said on November 1 it is ramping up gasoline and diesel output to meet domestic demand, after the government last week approved a 15% import duty on refined petroleum products.

Meanwhile, as bne intelliNews reported, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) has begun a fresh review of the country’s three state-owned refineries, Port Harcourt, Warri and Kaduna, signalling yet another attempt to revive facilities that have remained largely idle despite repeated rehabilitation efforts.

World War Gorka

Mr. President: No One Voted for This

by James Carden | Nov 5, 2025 | ANTIWAR.COM

Reprinted from The Realist Review.

News comes this weekend that the ‘Department of War’ now has Nigeria in its crosshairs. Taking to Truth Social on Saturday, Trump let loose on the Nigerian government, warning that,

…If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities, I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians.”

In this administration some Christians are more cherished than others; Trump and Co. have shown zero sympathy for the scores of Palestinian Christians murdered by the IDF and Benjamin Netanyahu, a frequent and honored guest at the White House and on Capitol Hill. That aside, the planned Nigeria operation is clearly the product of the capacious imagination of Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s chief counter-terrorism adviser.

Who is this Gorka?

Before coming to the White House he was a radio host (“America First with Sebastian Gorka”) and a pitchman for Relief Factor, a dietary supplement. America First? An odd name for a program hosted by someone with British, Hungarian and American citizenship – and with probable ties to foreign intelligence. Those ties cost him a job during Trump’s first term. After his ignominious exit from the White House in 2017, Gorka spent the Biden interregnum glued to Trump’s side, appearing alongside a gaggle of future Trump II officials during Trump’s trial in New York.

If he has any talent at all (itself a debatable proposition) it is for ass-kissing. Here he is on Facebook in late September posting about Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s eulogy for Charlie Kirk:

I was born a Catholic and have walked this Earth for 54 years. Before dedicating a quarter of a century to Counterterrorism, my first degree was in Philosophy and Theology.

But I will say for the record, I have never seen a human being encapsulate in 90 seconds the meaning of Jesus Christ like Acting National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Thank you Sir.

No. Thank you, Sebastian.

Gorka is not merely a fool. He is a religious fanatic (there being significant overlap between the two categories).

Gorka believes he and his fellow zealots are “not the lambs of the Bible; that is Jesus, our savior. We turn over the tables of the moneylenders. We are there when he calls, ‘Sell everything you own and buy a sword.’” Gorka’s advice to Netanyahu after October 7th was”: “Kill every single one of them. God bless Israel. God bless Judeo-Christian civilization.”

The scholar Michael Vlahos has described Gorka as “a subaltern mini-me of the emperor himself.”

But is the emperor now taking his cues from the subaltern? Perhaps. Only 2 months into Trump II, the New York Times reported deepening divisions between the newly christened counterterrorism chief, Gorka, and elements within the interagency over whether and how to respond to an Islamist insurgency in Somalia. Gorka eventually won out. During the first week of August, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), conducted airstrikes in central Somalia.

Turning close to home: Why, one wonders, is the peace president with the Nobel Prize very much on his mind, conducting a drone war in the Caribbean? Well, appearing on Newsmax this weekend, Gorka informed viewers that, “The connections of that regime, the Maduro regime, to other bad actors, other states, other nations who, for example, have been plotting to target members of this administration, including the president. Iran’s tentacles into this hemisphere go straight through Caracas and Venezuela.” Echoing Gorka, Sen. Lindsey Graham, reliable war propagandist that he is, took to the airwaves and called Maduro’s Venezuela a “drug caliphate.” The implications are impossible to miss, as the likes of Gorka and Graham seek to marry the War on Drugs with the War on Terror.

Call it World War Gorka.

James W. Carden is the editor of The Realist Review.  He is a columnist and former adviser to the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission at the U.S. Department of State. His articles and essays have appeared in a wide variety of publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, Responsible Statecraft, The Spectator, UnHerd, The National Interest, Quartz, The Los Angeles Times, and American Affairs.

Trump: Sincerity and Verisimilitude

by Kim Petersen / November 4th, 2025

US president Donald Trump is apparently trying to burnish his Christian bona fides on Truth Social:

If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, “guns-a-blazing,” to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!

Secretary-of-war Pete Hegseth saluted his commander-in-chief:

Yes sir.

The killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria — and anywhere — must end immediately. The Department of War is preparing for action. Either the Nigerian Government protects Christians, or we will kill the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.

Nigerian president Bola Ahmed Tinubu took exception to Trump’s and Hegseth’s depiction of internecine conflict in his country:

The characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians.

Nonetheless, Trump the Savior doubled down, stating,

Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter…. We stand ready, willing, and able to save our Great Christian population around the World!

First off, any comments made by Trump and his yes-men/yes-women ought to be greeted with utmost skepticism. And the aphorism of “Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me,” ought to be rigorously applied.

There are some questions that should spring to mind in judging the sincerity of Trump and his minions recent pronouncements.

For instance, if Trump is so concerned about the plight of Christians in Nigeria, then where was this concern for the Christian segment of Palestinians killed “by [Jewish] Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.”

Elementary morality demands that ethnicity or religious allegiance should neither condemn nor exculpate a people purely by virtue of their birthright, inculcation, or even belief. We are all humans, and it is the actions of humans that speak louder than any words.

Another question: If Trump claims a right to intervene in a purported religious conflict in far-off Nigeria, how does this relate to Russia coming to the defense of ethnic Russians under attack in next-door Donbass? Or is this moot, eclipsed by American exceptionalism?

What about Trump inviting al Qaeda terrorist cum Syrian president Ahmad al-Sharaa to the White House on 10 November? Ahmad al-Sharaa’s rebranded Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is reportedly behind an “abominable massacre of Christians and Alawites in Syria,” as well as “heinous violence, including the indiscriminate murders of children and elderly” Druze Syrians.

Now ask yourself, given just these three examples, how much verisimilitude should one extend to Trump’s concern for Christian Nigerians?

Moreover, is this even about ethnicity and religious confession?

Ask: What ties all these examples together?

Oil.

Nigeria is Africa’s largest oil producer. Russia is the world’s third largest oil producer. Trump already bragged about stealing Syrian oil. As for Palestine: “This genocide is about oil.” A report by UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) notes, “Geologists and natural resources economists have confirmed that the Occupied Palestinian Territory lies above sizeable reservoirs of oil and natural gas wealth, in Area C of the occupied West Bank and the Mediterranean coast off the Gaza Strip…. discoveries of oil and natural gas in the Levant Basin, amounting to 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas at a net value of $453 billion (in 2017 prices) and 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil at a net value of about $71 billion…”

Why did Trump bomb Iran this summer? Because Iran is legally developing its nuclear program? Democracy Now! offers another reason: “‘It’s Always About Oil’: CIA & MI6 Staged Coup in Iran 70 Years Ago, Destroying Democracy in Iran.” And why is Trump currently blowing up fishing boats and positioning US forces threateningly around Venezuela? Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, with approximately 300 billion barrels.

The self-declared peace president has promoted a cornucopia of fake news stories to gullible folk, disseminated disinformation, and openly bragged.

The Solution

Practice open-minded skepticism or risk shaming yourself.

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Read other articles by Kim.

Op-Ed: An African Vietnam in Nigeria? Trump vs Boko Haram, ISIS and others


By Paul Wallis

EDITOR AT LARGE

DIGITAL JOURNAL
November 3, 2025


Trump said 'thousands of Christians are being killed' in Nigeria, though experts say the violence is indiscriminate - Copyright APEC 2025 KOREA/AFP Handout

The news that Trump is considering military intervention in Nigeria opens a very much larger can of worms. This proposal is based on the killing and supposed persecution of Christians by Islamic terror groups.

The Catholic Weekly reports a cautious but slightly upbeat response from church leaders, who point out that interfaith coexistence is a major issue. The mix of faiths in Nigeria includes a large Christian minority.

The focus is also misleading. It’s not “just” Nigeria, to start with. Terrorism in this region has been ongoing for many years. It’s one of Africa’s festering sores and has been more or less continuous. Boko Haram and ISIS are in the catalogue of participants. The two groups are directly affiliated.

There’s another issue at the Nigerian governmental level. Nigeria denies “Christian genocide” stating that all groups are attacked by the terrorists.

This is a very different war in many ways. They’re real power groups with basic military capacity ranging across multiple countries. They have fought local national armies with limited success, but they survive.

This is also a truly huge regional area with very fluid borders. It makes cross-border wars in Afghanistan look relatively simple. Boko Haram’s known areas of operation are also obviously linked to economic and “turf wars”. Operationally they can strike across Nigeria in the north-east and the center of the country. They regularly conduct raids and publicize them well

.

Residents of Hajj Camp were all associated with some of the world’s most dangerous jihadists, Boko Haram or the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) group. – Copyright AFP/File Ted ALJIBE

In short, it’s a mess that can get a lot messier with third parties getting involved. Let alone the US, with the usual shipload of added political baggage.

From a purely military perspective, “going in guns a-blazing” comes with more than a few caveats.

Any US troops on the ground could be facing not just asymmetric warfare but from multiple directions and a large mix of different, often mutually conflicting parties and countries. That’s fairly normal in terror wars.

The big and defining difference is that these are long-established groups with many external links in the Middle East. In an escalated conflict, they can be expected to upgrade and call in extra resources.

This is not a subject for military naivete on any level. The theory of fighting the bad guys is fine, but these are very experienced bad guys. Far better intelligence and thorough evaluations are the minimum requirements for any sort of military operations from the boots up.

The mere presence of US troops would also be a magnet for jihadis. Attacking Americans adds a lot of propaganda value. The large African military arms black market and at the very least arm’s length national players, could be expected to get involved almost instantly. Africa’s terrorists are cashed up and can certainly obtain meaningful support from outside.

The US does not need yet another war with no clear properly defined winning strategy.

How would you beat these groups?

If the war against ISIS is any guide, they have to be militarily destroyed as a fighting force at the bare minimum. You need local support like the Kurds, who did so much inexcusably unappreciated work, stopping ISIS and grinding them down in years of hard fighting.

The terror support networks must be totally eliminated. External bases and networks like those of the Taliban in Pakistan are also likely to be major issues.

This would be a major operation. A few airstrikes will just motivate them It’ll also be ultra-expensive. It could be a matter of years to actually achieve anything.

You have to wonder how anyone can just blithely sprinkle military forces into multiple largely thankless and objective-less scenarios. Vietnam is not just another overworked but apt metaphor in this case. It can happen.

This has all the hallmarks of a very bad idea.

_____________________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.