PETITE BOUREOISE

Dutch farmers 'freedom convoy' takes aim at climate change net zero regulations

9 Jul, 2022 07:00 PM

Farmers block a highway on the Dutch-German border, in protest against the Dutch government's nitrogen plans. Photo / AP

Daily Telegraph UK

By Joe Barnes

Lauded by Mick Jagger and vilified by their own prime minister, Dutch farmers are giving Europe a taste of the backlash the Continent faces in its drive towards net-zero emissions.

Huge protests have swept the Netherlands triggered by the introduction of new laws designed to cut nitrogen and ammonia emissions, by up to 95 per cent in certain areas, from its agricultural sector.

Inspired by the "freedom convoys" which began in Canada and saw truck drivers bring major roads to a standstill in protest at Covid vaccine mandates, tractors are blockading supermarkets and industrial complexes across the Netherlands, at a cost of tens of millions of euros to businesses and the economy.

The demonstrations, some of which have turned violent, materialise with little notice and are organised via secretive channels on the Telegram messaging app.

Huge protests have swept the Netherlands triggered by the introduction of new laws designed to cut nitrogen and ammonia emissions. Photo / AP

They are a sign of the growing discontent among European farmers faced with spiralling fertiliser costs owing to the war in Ukraine and demands to cut down on emissions. In Britain, unions have urged Downing Street to give them more time to overhaul their businesses to make them more sustainable.

MILLIONAIRE PETTY BOURGEOISE ARE NOT WORKING CLASS (YET)

The working-class uprising has not only won over the support of the Rolling Stones frontman and popular conservative broadcasters in the US, but the Dutch public is also siding with the farmers.

Recent polling showed the Farmer-Citizen Movement, formed three years ago in response to the climate laws, would secure 11 parliamentary seats if a general election was to be held now. Dutch fishermen have also joined the protests, blockading ports.

Earlier this week, police opened fire on Jouke Hospes, a 16-year-old who was driving one of his father's tractors, and two others, at a demonstration in the Friesland region

Farmers blocked the entrance to Groningen Airport. Photo / Getty Image

On Friday, when The Telegraph visited the Netherlands, hundreds of businesses across three towns were brought to a complete standstill by three separate demonstrations, which came and went with very little warning.

Among the main targets for the farmers are supermarket warehouses, which has resulted in empty shelves.

Yosemite’s giant sequoias: California wildfire threatens world’s largest trees

 July 11, 2022, NPR



A growing wildfire in California is threatening the largest grove of giant sequoias in Yosemite National Park, the BBC reports.

The Washburn Fire has doubled in size over the past 24 hours, and it is now estimated to have burned 1,591 acres.

Firefighters are working in difficult terrain to protect some of the largest and oldest redwood trees in the world.

Residents and campers near the fire have been evacuated, and thick smoke has worsened the region’s air quality and obscured the park’s scenic views.

The blaze, which started on 7 July, threatens at least 500 giant sequoias in the Mariposa Grove, including the famed Grizzly Giant which is thought to be around 3,000 years old.

For now, none of them have been destroyed by the fire.

The Yosemite fire and aviation management department said it was “proactively protecting” the grove by setting up a sprinkler system to increase humidity around the trees and by removing potential fuels from the site.

 

Yosemite wildfire threatens grove of iconic sequoia trees

Giant Sequoia trees are seen in a meadow in the at Sequoia National Park near Visalia, Calif. on Friday Sept. 11, 2015. Researchers are studying how California's drought is affecting the Giant Sequoias, some more than 3,000 years old and 90 metres tall, making them among the oldest and largest living things on Earth. (AP / Rich Pedroncelli)

Published Saturday, July 9, 2022 7:48PM EDT

The largest grove of giant sequoias in Yosemite National Park remained closed Saturday as firefighters battled a blaze that threatened the gathering of the iconic trees and forced hundreds of campers to evacuate.

The rest of the park in California remained open, though smoke that hung in the air obscured some of the most scenic vistas and views.

More than 500 mature sequoias were threatened in the Mariposa Grove but as of Saturday afternoon there were no reports of severe damage to any named trees, including the 3,000-year-old Grizzly Giant. Some of the massive trunks were wrapped in fire-resistant foil for protection as the blaze burned out of control.

The cause of the fire was under investigation.

Beyond the trees, the small community of Wawona, which is surrounded by park and a campground, was under threat, with people ordered to leave their homes and campsites on Friday night.

The fire was proving difficult to contain, with firefighters throwing “every tactic imaginable” at it, said Nancy Phillipe, a Yosemite fire information spokesperson. That included air drops of fire retardant as well as the planned use of bulldozers to create fire lines, a tactic that's rarely used in a wilderness setting like Yosemite, Phillipe said.

The bulldozers would primarily be used to put in fire lines to protect Wawona, she said. About 600 to 700 people who were staying at the Wawona campground in tents, cabins and an historic hotel were ordered to leave.

Though firefighters were facing hot and dry conditions, they didn't have to contend with intense winds on Saturday, said Jeffrey Barlow, senior meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Hanford. Given the relatively small size of the fire and minimal winds, smoke impacts were not expected to stretch far beyond the park, he said.

The giant sequoias, native in only about 70 groves spread along the western slope of California's Sierra Nevada range, were once considered impervious to flames but have become increasingly vulnerable as wildfires fueled by a buildup of undergrowth from a century of fire suppression and drought exacerbated by climate change have become more intense and destructive.

Lightning-sparked wildfires over the past two years have killed up to a fifth of the estimated 75,000 large sequoias, which are the biggest trees by volume.

There was no obvious natural spark for the fire that broke out Thursday next to the park's Washburn Trail, Phillipe said. Smoke was reported by visitors walking in the grove that reopened in 2018 after a $40 million renovation that took three years.

The fire had grown to about 1.1 square miles (2.8 square kilometers) by Saturday morning.

A fierce windstorm ripped through the grove a year-and-a-half ago and toppled 15 giant sequoias, along with countless other trees.

The downed trees, along with massive numbers of pines killed by bark beetles, provided ample fuel for the flames.

The park has used prescribed burns to clear brush around the sequoias, which helps protect them if flames spread farther into the grove.

Meanwhile, most evacuation orders were lifted Saturday in the Sierra foothills about 80 miles (128 kilometers) to the northwest of the Yosemite fire, where a fire broke out on July 4. The Electra Fire that began near Jackson was mostly contained, and only areas directly within the fire's perimeter remained under evacuation orders, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

 

US introduces new sanctions over failure to provoke uprising in Cuba — Foreign Ministry

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla said that the introduction of new sanctions by Washington is an attempt to discredit society’s resistance to US’ aggression

HAVANA, July 10. /TASS/. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla said that the introduction of new sanctions by Washington is an attempt to discredit society’s resistance to US’ aggression.

"In view of failed attempt to provoke popular uprising in #Cuba in 2021, the US government & its Secretary of State are seeking to discredit people’s victory over imperialist aggression. Their repeated coercive measures violate International Law & UN Charter," he wrote on Twitter.

On Saturday, the US administration introduced visa sanctions against 28 Cuban officials whom Washington accuses of suppressing domestic disturbances last July as well as of restricting access to information. The US Department of State did not list any specific names of those sanctioned.

Last July, disturbances broke out in several Cuban towns, and President Miguel Diaz-Canel urged his supporters to take to the streets to prevent provocations against the government. The Cuban authorities held the US responsible for organizing the riots.

Robert Reich: The Democrat’s Disease – OpEd

 July 10, 2022  

By Robert Reich

Much of today’s Republican Party is treacherous and treasonous. So why are Democrats facing midterm elections that, according to most political observers, they’re likely to lose? Having been a loyal Democrat for some seventy years (my father liked Ike but my mother and I were for Adlai), including a stint as a cabinet secretary, it pains me to say this, but the Democratic Party has lost its way.

How? Some commentators think Democrats have moved too far to the left — too far from the so-called “center.” This is utter rubbish. Where’s the center between democracy and authoritarianism and why would Democrats want to be there? Others think Biden hasn’t been sufficiently angry or outraged. Please. What good would that do? And after four years of Trump, why would anyone want more anger and outrage?

The biggest failure of the Democratic Party — a disease that threatens the very life of the party — has been its loss of the American working class. As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg concluded after the 2016 election, “Democrats don’t have a ‘white working-class’ problem. They have a ‘working class problem’ which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate.”

The working class used to be the bedrock of the Democratic Party. What happened?

Before Trump’s election, Democrats had occupied the White House for 16 of 24 years. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during the first two years of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations. During those years, Democrats scored some important victories for working families: the Affordable Care Act, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example. I take pride in being part of a Democratic administration during that time.

But I’d be lying to you if I didn’t also share my anger and frustration from those years — battles inside the White House with Wall Street Democrats and battles with corporate Democrats in Congress, all refusing to do more for the working class, all failing to see (or quietly encouraging) the rise of authoritarianism if the middle class continued to shrink. (I offer the following video clip not in the spirit of “I told you so” but as a way of sharing my frustrations and fears at the time.)

The tragic reality is that even when they’ve been in charge, Democrats have not altered the vicious cycle that has shifted wealth and power to the top, rigging the economy for the affluent and undermining the working class.

Clinton used his political capital to pass free trade agreements, without providing millions of blue-collar workers who consequently lost their jobs the means of getting new ones that paid at least as well. His North American Free Trade Agreement and plan for China to join the World Trade Organization undermined the wages and economic security of manufacturing workers across America, hollowing out vast swaths of the Rust Belt.

Clinton also deregulated Wall Street. This indirectly led to the financial crisis of 2008 — in which Obama bailed out the biggest banks and bankers but did nothing for homeowners, many of whom owed more on their homes than their homes were worth. Obama didn’t demand as a condition for being bailed out that the banks refrain from foreclosing on underwater homeowners. Nor did Obama demand an overhaul of the banking system. Instead, he allowed Wall Street to water down attempts at re-regulation.

Both Clinton and Obama stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the working class. They failed to reform labor laws to allow workers to form unions with a simple up-or-down majority vote, or even to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violated labor protections. Biden has supported labor law reform but hasn’t fought for it, leaving the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act to die inside the ill-fated Build Back Better Act.

At the same time, Clinton and Obama allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify, enabling large corporations to grow far larger and major industries to become more concentrated. Biden is trying to revive antitrust enforcement but hasn’t made it a centerpiece of his administration.

Both Clinton and Obama depended on big money from corporations and the wealthy. Both turned their backs on campaign finance reform. In 2008, Obama was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general election campaigns, and he never followed up on his re-election promise to pursue a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United vs FEC, the 2010 Supreme Court opinion opening the floodgates to big money in politics.

Throughout these years, Democrats drank from the same campaign funding trough as the Republicans – big corporations, Wall Street, and the very wealthy. “Business has to deal with us whether they like it or not, because we’re the majority,” crowed Democratic representative Tony Coelho, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 1980s when Democrats assumed they’d continue to run the House for years. Coelho’s Democrats soon achieved a rough parity with Republicans in contributions from corporate and Wall Street campaign coffers, but the deal proved a Faustian bargain. Democrats became financially dependent on big corporations and the Street.

By the 2016 election, the richest 100th of 1 percent of Americans – 24,949 extraordinarily wealthy people – accounted for a record-breaking 40 percent of all campaign contributions. That same year, corporations flooded the presidential, Senate and House elections with $3.4 billion in donations. Labor unions no longer provided any countervailing power, contributing only $213 million – one union dollar for every 16 corporate dollars.

**

Joe Biden has tried to regain the trust of the working class, but Democratic lawmakers (most obviously and conspicuously, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) have blocked measures that would have lowered the costs of childcare, eldercare, prescription drugs, healthcare, and education. They’ve blocked raising the minimum wage and paid family leave. They’ve blocked labor law reforms. Yet neither Manchin nor Sinema nor any other Democrat who has failed to support Biden’s agenda has suffered any consequences. Why does Manchin still hold leadership positions in the Senate? Why is Manchin’s West Virginia benefitting from the discretionary funds doled out by the administration?

Why hasn’t Biden done more to rally the working class and build a coalition to grab back power from the emerging oligarchy? Presumably for the same reasons Clinton and Obama didn’t: The Democratic Party still prioritizes the votes of the “suburban swing voter” – so-called “soccer moms” in the 1990s and affluent politically independent professionals in the 2000s – who supposedly determine electoral outcomes. And, as noted, the party depends on big money for its campaigns. Hence, it has turned it back on the working class.

The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a rigged system. There is no longer a left or right. There is no longer a moderate “center.” The real choice is either Republican authoritarian populism (see here, here, and here) or Democratic progressive populism. Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform — an anti-establishment movement. Democrats must stand squarely on the side of democracy against oligarchy. They must form a unified coalition of people of all races, genders, and classes to unrig the system. Trumpism is not the cause of our divided nation. It is the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us.

Robert Reich

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes at robertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

Rape: The Russian tool of conquest

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 10, No. 6, June 2022

Police uncover the body of Karina Yeshiva, 22, in Bucha. Witnesses say she was tortured, raped, and shot in the head by Russian soldiers. Source: DW.

Stephanie Wild
University of Cape Town

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, at least 4,000 civilians have been killed. Moscow has therefore been accused of targeting civilians. However, this is not the only tactic emerging. Acts of rape and sexual violence are also emerging as a weapon of war. In fact, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a report on the 3rd of June stating that they had already received allegations of 124 acts of conflict-related sexual assault in Ukraine. These reported assaults have mostly been against women and girls, ranging from gang rape, to coercion, to forcibly bearing witness to acts of sexual violence perpetrated against partners and children. Concerns surrounding human traffickers exploiting existing networks are also on the rise. A United Nations Security Council meeting, in particular, brought this to the attention of the world on June 6. 

Sexual violence being heavily associated with stigma and shame, the concern is that the actual figure is much higher than 124. A more accurate idea of the actual figure will only emerge with an end to the conflict. However, considering the number of reported sexual assaults, it is clear that Ukrainian women are the victims of sexual violence perpetrated by Russian soldiers each day. This points to a weaponization of sexual violence.  

The weaponization of sexual violence in Ukraine

The concept of weaponization essentially points to a systematic use of rape and acts of sexual assault with the intention of forwarding the agenda of war. Notably, this does not refer to soldiers experiencing violent outbursts out of frustration at war. It is not an accidental phenomenon. It is very much intentional. More specifically, rape is used to dehumanise its victims. This occurs through the stripping away of the victims’ dignity. Moreover, it is a way in which to express dominance. Soldiers display a physical act of dominance through the complete violation and dehumanisation of the civilian victims. It is therefore the ultimate act of dominion and victory. In fact, feminist scholars identify sexual violence, and rape specifically, to be a tool of patriarchal control, whereby sexual access to women reaffirms a man’s authority. Ultimately, the systematic use of rape when at war is a method of control through the dehumanisation and domination of the victim. This is happening in Ukraine.

In fact, Ukraine’s Human Rights Commissioner, Lyudmila Denisova, has been open about this weaponisation tactic described above. She has gone so far as citing victim testimony to suggest that they are signs of a “genocide of the Ukrainian people”. These victim testimonies include Russian soldiers calling Ukrainian women “Nazi whores”, as well as identifying the intention to rape until these victims can no longer birth Ukrainian children. And so, testimonies coming out of the invaded nation support this theory. With the liberation of each village, comes an influx of calls to Ukraine’s Psychological Assistance Line. While women appear to be the target of this violence, the Russian army has expanded its scope to include men and children. A man as old as 78 has reported being a victim of sodomy, and a one-year-old has been reported dead as a result of rape by two soldiers. The result of these actions is intended to be a Ukrainian sense of humiliation and helplessness.

Furthermore, it is not only testimonies and news headlines that support this notion of weaponization. This is not the first time that Russia has come under fire for this very strategy. For instance, the Soviet Army systematized the use of rape towards German women in the Second World War with the intention of gaining enemy territory. More specifically, throughout the Soviet Army’s mission to take Berlin, an estimated 125,000 German women are said to have been raped. This figure, when expanded to consider the Soviet occupation of and traversal of Eastern Europe is said to be closer to two million. Even more shocking, reports from this time indicate that victims ranged between the ages of eight and eighty.

Again, these acts cannot be dismissed as coincidental violent outbursts. Not only do the figures appear far too high for this to be the case, but evidence suggests that reports of the mass rapes were in fact read and seen by then-President Stalin. This re-enforced the idea of rape as a “tool of conquest”. Acts of sexual violence during the 1945 Soviet expansion of territory are therefore shown to have been indiscriminate and systematic. This is eerily similar to what is happening now in 2022. Russia is, again, on a mission to expand and increase its territory.     

How should Ukraine- alongside the international community- respond?

In rather broad terms, the solution here is to learn from previous mistakes. When looking at the international community’s response to Russia’s use of systematic rape in the 1940s, it was essentially non-existent. Rather, there was a silence that shrouded this topic. It is widely acknowledged that this narrative only changed in 2008 with the release of the film A Woman in Berlin. Essentially, this has amounted to over 60 years of impunity. It cannot happen again. Impunity breeds repetition. Russia must be shown that this tactic, no matter the war, is no longer an option. More than that, victims require recognition. As previously mentioned, victims of sexual violence experience extreme shame and stigma in society. The psychological effects are, as a result, generational. And so, intervention is key for a just transition to peace. 

Judicial processes in Ukraine indicate that such recognition is already underway. For instance, the first Russian soldier to be tried for rape has already been identified, Mikhail Romanov. He is accused of breaking into a civilian home, murdering the homeowner, as well as repeatedly assaulting said homeowner’s wife. While he is not in Ukrainian custody, he will be tried in his absence. And so, despite the war raging on, war crimes are already being tried in the courts of law. This momentum must, simply, not be lost. 

 Additionally, a response to these crimes must not be strictly judicial. Acts of sexual assault are notoriously difficult to convict. And so, these judicial proceedings must be accompanied by some transitional justice mechanism to ensure that those victims unable to see their attackers convicted are too recognised. These mechanisms, at their core, are driven by this very purpose. To do so, a universal truth and account of events must be established. There must be no question in the minds of the nation that these women, men and children suffered. This can only be done through investigating cases, as well as through providing the victims of Russian sexual assault a platform on which to recount their experiences. This therefore calls for a truth commission post-war. 

---

Stephanie Wild has a B.A in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, accompanied by a B.A Honours in Justice and Transformation, from the University of Cape Town, where she is currently pursuing her MPhil in Public Law. Her research focuses on transitional justice and gender.

Liberalism In Peril: A Theory Of Conflict In World Politics – OpEd

Flags in front of United Nations building in New York City

 July 10, 2022  Eurasia Review  0 Comments

By Ibrahim Nahushal

Rise of liberalism

The US and its democratic allies had defeated fascism and then communism, supposedly leaving humankind at “the end of history”. The European Union seemed like a bold experiment in shared sovereignty that had banished war from most of Europe. Indeed, many Europeans believed its unique combination of democratic institutions, integrated markets, the rule of law, and open borders made Europe’s “civilian power” an equal if not superior counterpart to the crude “hard power” of the US. For its part, the US committed itself to “enlarging the sphere of democratic rule, getting rid of autocrats, solidifying the “democratic peace,” and thereby ushering in benevolent and enduring world order (Walt, 2016). On the other side, the fruit of liberal financial systems and market economy led by free trade and international financial rules is being harvested which gave some states incentives to raise and stand for their geopolitical interests by ignoring American unilateralism.

The democratization, pacification and economic resuscitation of Germany and Japan, along with the introduction of American power permanently into the previously conflicted regions of Europe and East Asia, transformed the dynamics of international relations. Within the confines of the new order, normal geopolitical competition all but ceased until the time when new actors and new states on the global stage appeared to defend their geopolitical interests (Kagan, 2016).

Liberal order and the eventual cracking

The liberal world has been destined for nations’ economic wellbeing, freedom, democracy and human rights. Under this rubric, many nations around the globe joined the liberal world club and enrolled on its financial institutions, created by the American legacy. The whole idea was based on “American values”; democracy, free market, collective security, self-determination etc.…

Since the liberal idea was based on an idealistic conception of the US and the West, the principles of this concept might not be shared by the rest of the world as a whole. The metaphysics of liberalism is a mind-devised utopian world order. Though this conception of world order became a reality to some degree, the stability of such an order was in peril as many states devised their own identity based on their distinctive cultures and nationalism which vindicated the geopolitical discourse. As Kissinger (2014) said, there are no universally accepted rules. There is the Chinese view, the Islamic view, the Western view and, to some extent, the Russian view. And they really are not always compatible.

Many countries gained their share and increased their fortunes while others invigorated their economies to an extent that they can defy American hegemony, and choose their own narrative in their relationship vis-à-vis with other regional nations and, like China and Turkey.

The US expected to exercise its diplomacy and military prowess generated by its robust economy to coerce other countries to commit themselves to the US interests seeing those countries as in the sphere of influence since they are well rooted in the US-led world order. But as their economies started to grow and consequently defied the US interests in their regions, the US started to eviscerate and debilitate those countries of its rising economy and leadership role in the region.  More directly the US has betrayed a system established by itself.

Recently a bevy of US political scientists from the progressive left to the libertarian right has launched attacks on the very idea of the liberal order, as well as on the conduct of the US foreign policy over the past seven decades. These critics argue that the liberal order was a “myth,” a cover for the US hegemony and “imperialism.” To the degree there was an order, it was characterized by “coercion, violence, and instability,” and also by hypocrisy (Kagan, 2016).

It was when rising states’ interests converged and collided with the US interests, that The US chose to avoid liberal rules and resorted to its “soft power” of economic and diplomatic coercion, leaving behind the long-standing liberal affairs.

From another perspective, the current world order is being challenged by the rising states who did not have a say when the order was created in the first place. These states seek to overhaul the order in order to establish a favourable atmosphere where their geopolitical interests are best served. 

The US has refuted the legitimacy of the international criminal court, an institution established under the US-led liber world order after the US revoked ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s visa as a response to her request to investigate possible crimes committed by the US forces in Afghanistan.

It can be said that China is the second nation after the US which exploited the US-led free-market economic system by establishing a massive flow of Chinese goods into world markets and establishing the “belt and road initiative”, from which the US and some of its allies cannot take their gaze off for its massiveness and economic potentials.

US President Donald Trump complained about China’s trading practices since before he took office in 2016. It imposed tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese products last year, and Beijing retaliated in kind. So far, the US has imposed three rounds of tariffs on more than $250bn worth of Chinese goods. Tariffs imposed on Chinese goods, in theory, make US-made products cheaper than imported ones and encourage consumers to buy American.

In theory, what we expect among states is cooperation and what we expect among businesses is competition. But for the US, this time the narrative has changed, the narrative or old saying of the liberal free-market economic system.

To some extent, the US achieved its liberal democratic world, without any other symmetric superpower. Clashes eventually resulted as rising countries started to defend their interests which collided with the US interests.

The world is no longer purely unipolar, rising states are demanding more share and pushing their narratives into global platforms. It is time for the US to change its unilateral, realist-driven foreign policy and get back on the track of liberal values, most importantly multilateral decision-making in world affairs.

References:

Kissinger, H. (2014). Interview by E. F. &. J. von Mittelstaedt. Retrieved from https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-henry-kissinger-on-state-of-global-politics-a-1002073.html

Walt, S. M. (2016, June 26). The collapse of the liberal world order. Retrieved July 9, 2022, from Foreign Policy website: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/26/the-collapse-of-the-liberal-world-order-european-union-brexit-donald-trump/

Kagan, R. (2018, September 28). The world America made — and Trump wants to unmake. Retrieved July 9, 2022, from POLITICO website: https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-wants-to-destroy-liberal-world-order-post-ww2/