IT'S ASIA'S CENTURY

The Old World Order Was Buried in China

RISE OF THE EAST, DECLINE OF THE WEST

Here’s why it matters

by RT / September 2nd, 2025

Xi, Putin and Modi have lead calls in Tianjin for a UN-centered multipolar system, as Eurasian blocs tighten and the EU is sidelined.

The latest gathering of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Tianjin looks at first like another summit – handshakes, family portraits, scripted statements. But the meeting on August 31–September 1 is more than diplomatic theater: it is another marker of the end of the unipolar era dominated by the United States, and the rise of a multipolar system centered on Asia, Eurasia, and the Global South.

At the table were Chinese President Xi Jinping, his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi – together representing more than a third of humanity and 3 of largest countries on Earth.

Xi unveiled a broad Global Governance Initiative, including a proposed SCO development bank, cooperation on artificial intelligence, and financial support for developing nations. Putin described the SCO as “a vehicle for genuine multilateralism” and called for a Eurasian security model beyond Western control. Modi’s presence – his first visit to China in years – and the powerful optics around his meeting with Putin, signaled that India is willing to be seen as part of this emerging order.

What just happened (and why it’s bigger than a photo-op)

The pitch: Xi is promoting an order that “democratizes” global governance and reduces dependence on US-centric finance (think: less dollar gravity, more regional institutions). Putin called the SCO a vehicle for “genuine multilateralism” and Eurasian security. By calling China a partner rather than a rival, Modi signaled New Delhi won’t be locked into Washington’s anti-China agenda.

The audience: More than 20 non-Western leaders were in the room, with United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres endorsing the event organisation – not a club meeting in the shadows, but a UN-centered frame at a China-led forum.

Translation: “We want the UN Charter back – not someone else’s in-house rules”

Beijing’s line is blunt: reject Cold War blocs and restore the UN system as the only universal legal baseline. That’s a direct rebuke to the post-1991 “rules-based international order”, drafted in Washington or Brussels and enforced selectively.

Examples are not hard to find. The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia went ahead without a UN mandate, justified under the “responsibility to protect.” The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was launched despite the absence of Security Council approval – a war later admitted even by Western officials to have been based on false premises. In 2011, a UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya was used by NATO to pursue outright regime change, leaving behind a failed state and opening a corridor of misery into the heart of Western Europe.

For China, Russia and many Global South states, these episodes proved that the “rules-based order” was never about universal law but about Western discretion. The insistence in Tianjin that the UN Charter be restored as the only legitimate framework is meant to flip the script: to argue that the SCO, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and new members Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, plus Indonesia), and their partners are defending the actual rules of international law, while the West substitutes ad hoc coalitions and shifting standards for its own convenience.

Both Xi and Putin drove the point home, but in different registers.

Xi’s line: He denounced “hegemonism and bullying behavior” and called for a “democratization of global governance,” stressing that the SCO should serve as a model of true multilateralism anchored in the UN and the World Trade Organization (WTO), not in ad hoc “rules” devised by a few Western capitals.

Putin’s line: He went further, charging that the United States and its allies were directly responsible for the conflict escalation in Ukraine, and arguing that the SCO offers a framework for a genuine Eurasian security order – one not dictated by NATO or Western-imposed standards.

The architecture replacing unipolarity (it’s already here)

Security spine: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization brings together Russia, China, India and Central Asian states to coordinate security, counterterrorism and intelligence – the hard-power framework that makes the rest possible.
Economic boardrooms: BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) expanded in 2024 to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, followed by Indonesia in 2025.

With its New Development Bank and a drive for trade in national currencies, it now acts as a counterweight to the Group of Seven (G7).

Regional weight: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – a ten-member bloc shaping Asian trade and standards – increasingly aligns with SCO and BRICS projects.

Energy leverage: The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), six Arab monarchies, coordinate policy through the wider Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Plus (OPEC+), giving them control over key oil flows.

Taken together, these bodies already function as a parallel governance system that doesn’t need Western sponsorship or veto power.

EU’s irrelevance

The European Union (EU) is absent from Tianjin – and that absence speaks volumes. Once promoted as the second global pole, Europe is now tied to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for defense, dependent on outside energy, and fractured internally. Even its flagship Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) has soured relations with India and other Global South economies. In Tianjin, Europe was not a participant in decisions – only a spectator.

After the talks, the tanks

The SCO summit precedes China’s Victory Day military parade in Beijing on September 3, commemorating 80 years since Japan’s surrender in World War II. Xi, Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, with whom Moscow has a bilateral security pact, will stand together as Beijing showcases intercontinental missiles, long-range strike systems and drone formations.

The spectacle will likely demonstrate that multipolarity is not just a form of diplomatic language, but that it backed by the hard power on display.

Why Tianjin matters beyond Tianjin

A rival rule-set with institutions: From a Shanghai Cooperation Organization bank to BRICS financing and potential ASEAN–GCC coordination, there is now a procedural path to act without Western oversight.

UN-first framing: By anchoring legitimacy in the UN Charter, the bloc positions Western “rules-based” frameworks as partisan.

India’s calculus: Modi’s public handshakes with Xi and Putin have normalized a Eurasian triangle that Washington and Brussels cannot easily fracture.

Europe’s shrinking veto: EU regulations such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism no longer set the agenda in Eurasia, where energy, trade and security are coordinated elsewhere.

The bottom line

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin was less about formal speeches than about symbolism. It signalled that the unipolar world has ended. From development banks to energy corridors to parades of missiles, a new multipolar order is taking shape – and it no longer asks for Western permission.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

The RT network now consists of three global news channels broadcasting in English, Spanish, and Arabic. Read other articles by RT, or visit RT's website.

 

Nuclear Snobbery and Atomic Anniversaries

by Binoy Kampmark / September 3rd, 2025

How do we commemorate it? The atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War on August 6 and 9, 1945 by the United States remain the only examples of the use of such a weapon in history. Rather than banishing any temptation to use them, the wholehearted killing of tens of thousands of civilians through experimental designs laid the grounds for an arms race that has never dissipated. Once found, the military use of the atom was never abolished or dissipated. As Henry Stimson, US Secretary of War, put it to President Harry Truman in April 1945, “if the problem of the proper use of this weapon can be solved, we would have the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved.”

After eight decades, we have two diametrically opposed trends, babbling in separate halls. Non-nuclear weapons states, for the most part, are showing fortitude and resolve in stigmatising the nuclear bomb through such instruments as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Others, such as a neutered, heavily vassalized Australia, prefer the comfort of extended deterrence offered by the US nuclear deterrent. But the aristocrats and landed gentry of the nuclear club continue to retain their prized assets, seeking to modernise and refurbish them. Like prized livestock, these creatures need feeding and watering, not forced retirement. In 2024, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute documents, the US, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel “continued intensive nuclear modernization programmes […] upgrading existing weapons and adding newer versions.”

This whole process has been characterised by a certain snobbery, one encouraged by the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The document legitimised the sanctity of the nuclear club by means of bribery: non-nuclear weapon states could still avail themselves of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while nuclear weapons states would abide by the promise of Article VI. “Each of the Parties to the Treaty,” states the article, “undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

The NPT, and in particular Article VI, is looking increasingly worn. Executive director of Project Ploughshares, Cesar Jaramillo, is merely stating the obvious by referring to two stresses at work on those arrangements: an internal one marked “by the persistent failure of nuclear-weapon states to meet disarmament obligations” and an external one characterised by “shifting geopolitical dynamics that threaten to dismantle longstanding norms.”

Unfortunately, the events of this year, particularly regarding the illegal attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and infrastructure by Israel and the United States, continues to demonstrate the appeal of such weapons. On the pretext of claiming how horrifying such arms are in terms of acquisition and potential use, the two countries demonstrated their quintessential value. The implications of Operations “Rising Lion” and “Midnight Hammer”, the respective names given to the Israeli and US bombing operations against the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities in June, bode ill. The absurdity of this action was laid bare by the fact that Iran had originally surrendered its quest for a nuclear weapon by joining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that the US decided to leave in 2018. That Tehran subsequently enriched uranium to the level of 60 per cent was something to draw the surly attention of the International Atomic Energy Agency, but it was still below the 90 per cent required for weapons-grade production.

As the bombs fell, the grand defenders of international law were nowhere to be found. When they bothered to make an appearance, they scolded Iran for nursing nuclear ambitions of its own, sparing any chastening words for Israel, an undeclared nuclear power that decided years ago to join the nuclear club as a prancing upstart sneering at international treaties, even as it decided to deny the entitlement of any power in the Middle East to do the same. The words of Australia’s Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, were typical of this: “The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent this. That is what this is.”

The tragic lesson of the June attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure adds succour to the proposition that not having such a military capability, and more to the point, being told not to acquire one, endangers the state in question. The North Koreans, having witnessed the demise of the regimes of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya to foreign invasion and interventions despite both having abandoned their nuclear programs, studied that lesson with avid keenness. In Europe, countries concerned about a loss of interest from the Trump administration in extending its nuclear deterrent – an infantile notion given the presence of some 100,000 US soldiers and 100 tactical nuclear weapons on the continent – are mulling over a collective option that could involve a “Eurobomb”. The pollen of proliferation is in the air.

The nuclear club, to admit members, requires stupendously good references (is the candidate clubbable or not?), powerful patrons and shed loads of hypocrisy. Short of that, the country must acquire nuclear weapons clandestinely, a point Israel knows better than most. Once admitted to the inner sanctum, membership guarantees both security and an eternal reluctance that a sovereign option, once attained, should ever be relinquished.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

Plausible Parody: A ‘Property Development’ Theory of Geopolitics

by Peter Blunt / September 3rd, 2025

Since resuming residence in the White House a few months ago, it has not been difficult to detect in President Trump’s behaviour traces of his background as a real estate deal maker. Indeed, it could be said that his statements and actions since becoming president demonstrate a clear predisposition to perceive geopolitics predominantly as an arena of opportunity for ‘property development’. ‘Property’ defined in a broad sense to include any high value natural resource, land, or other asset that can be turned into profit.

We argue that the acquisition of such assets by fair means or foul (mainly the latter) and/or the control of access (for example, waterways) to them are important features of the president’s megalomaniacal self-image as the world’s new colossus and that they have a determining influence on his view of geopolitics and hence on US foreign policy.

In some well-known cases, such as Palestine, President Trump has already expressed his interest explicitly in these terms.

Conveniently, and perhaps not coincidentally, the president’s predilections in these respects dovetail beautifully with the insatiable appetites of late-stage capitalism, which depends for its survival on the acquisition and consumption of ever-increasing quantities of ‘property’. You might say that it is a union made in oligarchic heaven.

Below, as plausible parody, we outline a Property Development Theory of Geopolitics (PDTG) as follows: first, we set out the criteria employed to identify target countries for property acquisition; and second, on the basis of those criteria, we draw up a property development country hit list, which reflects our best estimates of countries at risk of invasion or attack.

This list can be used to assess the predictive validity of our theory as measured by the vigour with which countries on the list are attacked militarily and in other ways by the US and/or its allies and proxies.

Country Assessment Criteria and Hit List

Countries that might be regarded as prime targets are identified in terms of the following criteria:

First, the richness of their natural resources (a sine qua non). Does the country have enough ‘property development’ potential to warrant and maintain the president’s attention?

Second, the ease with which the country can be demonised as a mortal threat to the ‘democratic way of life’ or as a terrorist haven, a source of refugees and/or drugs (etc.) and can therefore be made a ‘legitimate’ target for invasion or some other form of attack such as economic sanctions, targeted assassinations, and so on. This would enable the US to employ the tried and tested method of attacking the country concerned in order to save both its own people as well as the rest of the world, as was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Third, the military strength of the country and whether proxy states or other agents such as mercenaries can be used to do the dirty work for the US.

Fourth, the degree to which the US government is subject to determining influences such as those exerted by Israel in relation to Palestine and Iran and/or strong pressure from major corporations and/or the target country has significant regional strategic significance.

We have excluded Russia and China from our list because they are military superpowers that would not be susceptible to conventional US imperial smash and grab methods involving direct military attack.

Neither have we included Ukraine. While undoubtedly asset rich, Ukraine’s notional status as a US ally and as the US/Nato proxy in the war with Russia largely exempts it from imperial smash and grab. It is conceivable also that the US will do an asset sharing deal with Russia and compel Ukraine and Nato to accept it.

The absence from our list of erstwhile US target favourites like North Korea and Cuba is explained by the paucity of their assets and their relatively high military strength and the absence of suitable proxies. Their political misbehaviour in the eyes of the US is punished by extensive economic sanctions.

We have included Palestine because we believe that the US will allow Israel to complete its occupation and ethnic cleansing of Gaza, the destruction of its infrastructure, and the expulsion of its inhabitants. Its asset richness stems from the high value and significance to Israel (and therefore the US) of the land it occupies and its reserves of natural gas.

As we have suggested elsewhere, Iran’s heretofore underestimated military strength makes it a high-risk target for the US and Israel, but this is heavily outweighed by its maximum scores on the other criteria, making further military attacks against it a certainty in the short term.

The first three countries in the high susceptibility category are all high value in terms of assets or ‘property’ and relatively low risk military targets.

In particular, the DRC and the CAR have long been subjected to various forms of foreign state-supported corporate predation (using mercenaries etc.), are weak militarily, and the governance circumstances of the two countries have been reduced to ‘failed state’ status.

By some calculations, the DRC is the world’s richest country in terms of natural resources.

Regarding Venezuela, whose oil reserves are the largest in the world, President Trump’s ambitions were made clear in late August 2025 when he despatched three US warships armed with cruise missiles to the Venezuelan coast. Venezuela’s high demonisation score is accounted for by its socialist government.

Panama and Greenland are less attractive for the reasons given in Table 1, but this does not preclude them from attack. Greenland’s inclusion as a semi-autonomous region within the Kingdom of Denmark and Denmark’s authority over its foreign and defence policies explain its score on military strength.

Conclusion

The serious purpose of this plausible parody is to identify in rank order a hit list of countries that according to our PDTG will become the next victims of US imperialism under President Trump or, where they are already subject to attack, US or US-supported aggression against them will be intensified.

The other purpose is to demonstrate the depths to which international relations has sunk under the current US administration, which, given their normal abysmal state, required a deep dive.

The implications for those countries that we deem to be either ‘certainties’ or ‘high risk’ are particularly sinister. Clearly, their interest in the predictive validity of our theory will be neither light-hearted nor academic.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Peter Blunt is Honorary Professor, School of Business, University of New South Wales (Canberra), Australia. He has held tenured full professorships of management in universities in Australia, Norway, and the UK, and has worked as a consultant in development assistance in 40 countries, including more than three years with the World Bank in Jakarta, Indonesia. His commissioned publications on governance and public sector management informed UNDP policy on these matters and his books include the standard works on organisation and management in Africa and, most recently, (with Cecilia Escobar and Vlassis Missos) The Political Economy of Bilateral Aid: Implications for Global Development (Routledge, 2023) and The Political Economy of Dissent: A Research Companion (Routledge, forthcoming 2026). Read other articles by Peter.

How the UN Can Act Decisively to End Genocide in Gaza

by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies / September 3rd, 2025

One year ago, the UN General Assembly demanded that Israel must end its occupation of the Palestinian Territories within twelve months.

The General Assembly voted, by 124 votes to 14, with 43 abstentions, for a strong resolution that not only “demanded” an end to the occupation within a year, but called on all countries to refrain from trade involving Israeli settlements and from transfers of weapons “where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may be used in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

The General Assembly was meeting on September 18, 2024, in an Emergency Special Session, invoking the “Uniting For Peace” principle to act where the UN Security Council has failed to do so. The General Assembly had asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to rule on the legality of the Israeli occupation and the legal consequences arising from it, and the new resolution was triggered by the court’s ruling, on July 19, 2024 that the Israeli occupation is unlawful and must end “as rapidly as possible.”

A year later, Israel has failed to comply with any of the demands of the 124 states. On the contrary. It has escalated its genocide in Gaza by cutting off nearly all food, medicine and humanitarian assistance, launching relentless bombardments, expanding ground incursions, and displacing virtually the entire population. All over the world, people are calling on leaders and politicians to do whatever it takes to put a stop to this holocaust before it goes any further.

As world leaders gather again in New York for another UN General Assembly beginning on September 9th, how will they respond to Israel’s ever-escalating genocide and continued occupation and expansion of settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem? Grassroots political pressure is building on all of them to turn the strong words in ICJ rulings and UN resolutions into meaningful action to end what the vast majority of the world recognizes as the most flagrant genocide of our time.

Countries have taken individual actions to cut off trade with Israel and cancel weapons contracts. Turkey announced a total trade boycott on August 29, and closed its airspace to Israeli planes and its ports to Israeli ships. Twelve members of the Hague Group, formed to challenge Israeli impunity, have formally committed to banning arms transfers and blocking military-related shipments at their ports. Sweden and the Netherlands have urged the EU to adopt sanctions on Israel, including suspending the EU-Israel trade deal.

But most of the 124 countries that voted to demand an end to the occupation have done very little to enforce those demands. If they fail to enforce them now, they will only confirm Israel’s presumption that its corrupt influence on U.S. politics still ensures blanket impunity for systematic war crimes.

In response to this unconscionable state of affairs, Palestine’s UN Representative has formally asked the UN to authorize an international military protection force for Gaza to help with the delivery of humanitarian aid and protect civilians. So has the largest coalition of Palestinian NGOs, PNGO, as well as pro-Palestine groups and leaders such as Ireland’s President Michael D. Higgins. There’s a growing global movement calling for the UN General Assembly to take up this request in another Emergency Special Session when it meets this month. That would be well within the authority of the General Assembly in a case like this, where the Security Council has been hijacked by the U.S. abuse of its veto power.

Whether or not this initiative for a protective force succeeds, the truth is that the governments of the world already have countless ways to support Palestine—they simply need to muster the political will to act. Israel is a small country that depends on imports from countries all over the world. It has diversified sources for many essential products, and, although the United States supplies 70% of its weapons imports, many other countries also supply weapons and critical parts of its infernal war machine. Israel’s dependence on complicated international supply chains is the weakest link in its presumption that it can thumb its nose at the world and kill with impunity.

If the large majority of countries that have already voted for an end to the occupation are ready to back their words and their votes with coordinated action, a UN-led trade boycott, divestment campaign and arms embargo can put enormous pressure on Israel to end its genocide and starvation of Gaza, and its occupation of Palestine. With full participation by enough countries, Israel’s position could quickly become unsustainable.

Two years into a genocide, it is shameful that the world’s governments haven’t already done this, and that their people have to plead, protest and push them into action through a dense fog of spin and propaganda, while leaders mouth the right words yet keep doing the wrong things.

Many people compare the problem the world faces in Israel to the crisis over apartheid South Africa. The similarity lies not only in their racism, but also in the western countries’ shameful complicity in their human rights abuses and lack of concern for the lives of their victims. It is surely no coincidence that the United States, with its own history of genocide, slavery and apartheid, acted as the main diplomatic supporter and military supplier of apartheid South Africa, and now of Israel.

But it took over 30 years, from the first UN arms embargo and oil sanctions in 1963 to the final lifting of UN sanctions in 1994, before UN action helped bring down the apartheid regime in South Africa. It was not until 1977 that the UN even made its arms embargo binding on all members. In the case of Israel and Palestine, the world cannot wait 30 years for its actions to have an impact. What will be left to salvage of Palestine if the UN can only counter Israel’s genocide and America’s bombs with endless court rulings, resolutions and declarations, but no decisive action?

One initiative that will be debated and voted on in the General Assembly is the one advanced by France and Saudi Arabia. In July they hosted a high-level UN conference on the “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the implementation of the Two State Solution.” But its agenda is weak and it avoids any strong action to pressure Israel to end the genocide or the occupation.

The first steps the declaration calls for are a ceasefire in Gaza, the restoration of the Palestinian Authority’s control of Gaza, and then the deployment of an international military “stabilization” force. But Israel has already rejected the first two steps, and critics warn that a stabilization force would mean foreign troops deployed in Gaza, not to protect Palestinians from Israeli bombs and bulldozers, but to police them, contain resistance, and reinforce Israeli demands.

Moreover, the declaration contains no enforcement mechanism. Instead, it offers only carrots—promises of recognition, trade, and arms deals—while Israel pays no price for continuing its crimes.

And while the declaration could pave the way for more Western countries to join the 147 countries that already recognize Palestine as an independent state, without concrete pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire in Gaza and end the occupation, such recognition risks being symbolic at best—and, at worst, may embolden Israel to accelerate its campaign of mass killing, settlement expansion, and annexation before the world can act.

What is urgently needed is for the General Assembly to hold an Emergency Special Session to vote on a UN protection force, as well as a UN-led arms embargo, trade boycott and divestment from Israel, conditioned on ending the genocide in Gaza and the post-1967 occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The arms embargo and economic measures against Israel should be binding on all UN members, with the full support of the UN secretariat, which can provide staff to organize and supervise them, in coordination with UN members. China, the largest supplier of Israeli imports, and Turkey, which was the third largest before it cut off trade with Israel, should both be ready to take leadership roles in a UN boycott and arms embargo. The European Union collectively does even more trade with Israel than China, and has failed to unite against the genocide, but strong UN leadership could help Europe to overcome its divisions and join the campaign.

As for the United States, its role in this crisis, under Biden and now under Trump, is to encourage Israel’s crimes, provide unlimited weapons, veto every Security Council resolution, and oppose every international attempt to end the slaughter. Even as majorities of ordinary Americans now side with the Palestinians and oppose U.S. military support for Israel, the oligarchy that rules America is as guilty of genocide as Israel itself. As the world comes together to confront Israel’s crimes, it will also have to confront the reality that Israel is not acting alone, but in partnership with the United States of America.

Aggressors and bullies get their way by dividing their enemies and picking them off one at a time, as the world has seen the European colonial powers and now the United States do for centuries. What every aggressor or bully fears most is united opposition and resistance.

Israel and the U.S. currently apply huge political pressure against countries and institutions that take action to boycott, sanction or divest from Israel, as Norway has by its decision to divest its sovereign wealth fund from Caterpillar for supplying bulldozers to demolish homes in Palestine. In a world that is truly united to end Israel’s genocide, threats of U.S. and Israeli retaliation would isolate the United States and Israel more than those they target.

Recent UN General Assemblies have heard many speeches lamenting the UN’s failure to fulfill its most vital purpose, to ensure peace and security for all, and how the veto power of the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council prevents the UN from tackling the world’s most serious problems. If, at this year’s UN General Assembly, the world can come together to confront the holocaust of our time in Gaza, this could mark the birth of a reenergized and newly united UN—one finally capable of  fulfilling its intended role in building a peaceful, sustainable, multipolar world.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books, November 2022.  Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for PEACE, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran:  The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nicolas J.S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on our Hands:  The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. Read other articles by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies.

EU approves draft Mercosur trade deal with ‘robust’ protections for farmers

The EU on Wednesday moved a step closer to sealing the world’s largest free-trade zone, giving final approval to its long-delayed pact with South America’s Mercosur bloc while assuring ‘robust’ protections for farmers to win over a skeptical France. The pact, set to create the world’s largest 700-million-strong trade area, is key to Brussels’ push to diversify markets.


Issued on: 03/09/2025 - 
By: FRANCE 24

The EU put forward a huge trade deal with South American bloc Mercosur for approval by member countries Wednesday, reassuring chief critic France it came with "robust" safeguards to protect farmers.

The agreement to form a 700-million-customer free-trade area, the world's biggest, is a key pillar in Brussels' push to open new markets in the face of US tariffs – but has faced Paris-led opposition over agricultural concerns.

"EU businesses and the EU agrifood sector will immediately reap the benefits of lower tariffs and lower costs, contributing to economic growth," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said presenting the deal.

The commission Wednesday gave its final go-ahead to the accord, which was struck with the club bringing together Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in December – 25 years after negotiations began.


But the text needs to be approved by at least 15 of the EU's 27 member nations – and the European Parliament – to be formally adopted.

EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic told a press conference the commission hoped to complete the approval process by the end of the year.

Read moreEU leaders mull new US trade proposals ahead of Trump tariffs deadline

The Mercosur deal is backed by a wide majority of countries skippered by Germany, keen to diversify trade away from the United States – which will maintain ramped-up tariffs on the EU despite a newly-struck trade deal.

The pact will see Mercosur countries progressively remove import duties on 91 percent of EU goods including cars, chemicals, wine and chocolate, which currently face tariffs of up to 35 percent.

The commission estimates it will increase EU annual exports to the four-country bloc by up to 39 percent, or €49 billion ($57 billion), and give Europe an edge over China and others vying for influence in the region.

"These are markets that haven't opened up in this manner before to anyone, so there is a certain first-mover advantage for us," a senior commission official said on condition of anonymity.

In return, agricultural giant Brazil and its neighbours would be able to sell meat, sugar, honey, soybeans and other products to Europe with fewer restrictions.

This raised fears that a flow of cheaper farming goods would undercut European producers – leading to a staunch opposition by France.

Read moreBrazil's Lula urges Macron to 'open your heart' to EU-Mercosur trade deal
'Steaks' and Mexico

Pan-European agriculture lobby group Copa-Cogeca has called the deal "economically and politically damaging for Europe's farmers, rural communities, and consumers."

But the commission insisted it provides "full and comprehensive protection for all EU sensitivities in the agricultural sector".

For example, only a quota of beef imports from Mercosur, equal to 1.5 percent of EU production, will be subject to a preferential 7.5-percent levy.

"This is about two steaks, two hamburgers, whatever your preferences are, per year, per European," said the commission official. Additional imports will face tariffs of up to 50 percent, he added.

Sensitive European products will be further protected from "any harmful surge in imports" by "robust safeguards", the commission said.

In a late concession, it promised to detail how these would work in a separate act, which the official said will clarify the safeguards could be triggered even if a single member state – rather than the whole of the EU – is badly affected.

Paris sounded a conciliatory note Wednesday, with government spokeswoman Sophie Primas saying the commission had "heard the reservations" of several countries.

She stressed, however, that Paris still needed to analyse the safeguard mechanism before giving its green light to the accord.

Brussels had also already said it planned to set up a €1 billion ($1.2 billion) "reserve" for European farmers who might be negatively impacted.

The EU has sought to broaden its trade horizons, pitching itself as a reliable business partner, amid soaring global trade tensions and the volatility sparked by Trump's tariff campaign.

Over the past year, it has launched trade deal talks with the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia and held summits with India and South Africa, among other initiatives.

On Wednesday the commission also presented a revamp of its existing trade deal with Mexico.

The update will see Mexico remove the remaining tariffs on EU agrifood exports, such as cheese, poultry, pasta, apples, chocolate and wine, and provide access to critical raw materials, the commission said.

"In today's uncertain geopolitical climate, diversifying our supply chains and deepening partnerships with trusted allies, partners and friends is not a luxury, it is a necessity," trade chief Sefcovic told reporters.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Moroccan feminist sentenced to 30 months for blasphemy due to T-shirt slogan

A Moroccan court sentenced feminist activist Ibtissame Lachgar to 30 months in prison on Wednesday for “offending Islam” over a T-shirt with the word "Allah" in Arabic followed by "is lesbian". The 50-year-old psychologist and rights campaigner was also fined $5,500, with her defence team vowing to appeal.


Issued on: 03/09/2025 - 
By: FRANCE 24

Moroccan feminist Ibtissame Lachgar has been sentenced to 30 months for ‘offending Islam’ with a T-shirt slogan. © Compte X, @IbtissameBetty


A Moroccan court on Wednesday sentenced feminist activist Ibtissame Lachgar to 30 months behind bars for "offending Islam", her lawyer told AFP, adding that the defence plans to appeal.

Lachgar, a 50-year-old clinical psychologist known for her rights activism, was arrested last month after posting online a picture of herself wearing a T-shirt with the word "Allah" in Arabic followed by "is lesbian".

Read moreMoroccan feminist activist accused of 'offending Islam' has trial postponed

The court in Rabat sentenced her to 30 months in prison and imposed a fine of 50,000 dirhams ($5,500), said defence lawyer Mohamed Khattab.

Khattab said the defence team planned to appeal the decision.

Outside the courtroom, friends and family of Lachgar began weeping as the verdict was announced, an AFP correspondent said.

Hakim Sikouk, president of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights, called the sentence "shocking" and an "attack" on freedom of expression.

During an earlier hearing, Lachgar told a judge that the message on her T-shirt was a "feminist slogan which has existed for years, against sexist ideologies and violence against women... and has no connection to the Islamic faith".

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

US judge overturns Trump’s Harvard research funding freeze

A US judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to reverse funding cuts to Harvard University, which froze more than $2 billion. The cuts were imposed over allegations of antisemitism and bias at the Ivy League school, sparking a legal battle over federal support for higher education.


Issued on: 04/09/2025 
By: FRANCE 24

Demonstrators with signs in Harvard Yard after a rally was held against President Donald Trump’s attacks on Harvard University at Harvard University, Massachusetts on April 17, 2025. © Joseph Prezioso, AFP

A US judge ordered the Trump administration on Wednesday to overturn deep funding cuts to Harvard University that froze more than $2 billion over allegations of antisemitism and bias at the Ivy League institution.

The administration insisted its move was legally justified over Harvard's alleged failure to protect Jewish and Israeli students amid campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza -- claims Harvard rejected, saying Trump was instead focused on controlling the prestigious school's hiring, admissions and curriculum.

The cuts to Harvard's funding stream forced it to implement a hiring freeze while pausing ambitious research programs, particularly in the public health and medical spheres -- pauses experts warned risked American lives.

The ruling, which can be appealed, could shape talks on a settlement reportedly underway between Harvard and the White House under which the university would pay a sum acknowledging Trump's claims, with federal funding restored in return.

Other universities have struck similar deals with the administration.

"The Court vacates and sets aside the Freeze Orders and Termination Letters as violative of the First Amendment," Boston federal judge Allison Burroughs said in her order.

"All freezes and terminations of funding to Harvard made pursuant to the Freeze Orders and Termination Letters on or after April 14, 2025 are vacated and set aside."

The ruling also bars the administration from using the same reasoning to cut funding in the future.

Albany Law School Professor Ray Brescia told AFP that despite the overwhelming legal victory Wednesday, Harvard may still follow Columbia University and settle with the administration.

"(Trump) could go back to the negotiating table and offer Harvard a better deal than they have been offering. I think that there has been some talk about a $500 million settlement," he said.

"People settle cases all the time for lots of reasons, even if they think they are 100 percent right."

Harvard did not respond to a request for comment.

Read more Harvard fights Trump administration in court over $2.6 billion funding cut

'Smokescreen' for university 'assault'

In her ruling, Burroughs pointed to Harvard's own admissions in legal filings that there had been an issue of antisemitism on campus -- but said the administration's funding cuts would have no bearing on the situation.

"It is clear, even based solely on Harvard's own admissions, that Harvard has been plagued by antisemitism in recent years and could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with the issue," she wrote.

"That said, there is, in reality, little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism."

The judge, appointed by Democratic former president Barack Obama, said evidence suggests Trump "used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country's premier universities."

Both Harvard and the American Association of University Professors brought cases against the Trump administration's measures.

Trump had sought to have the case heard in the Court of Federal Claims instead of in the federal court in Boston, just miles away from the heart of the university's Cambridge campus.

The Ivy League institution has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and "viewpoint diversity."

Trump and his allies claim that Harvard and other prestigious universities are unaccountable bastions of liberal, anti-conservative bias and antisemitism, particularly surrounding protests against Israel's war in Gaza.

The government has also targeted Harvard's ability to host international students, an important source of income who accounted for 27 percent of total enrollment in the 2024-2025 academic year.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

‘Block everything’: What we know about the movement to shut down France on September 10

A grassroots protest movement that began on social media is gathering steam with its rallying cry to "Block everything" ("Bloquons tout”) in France on September 10. Organisers hope to bring the country to a standstill to protest Prime Minister François Bayrou’s national budget plan ­– even though the current government may fall before the demonstrations begin.


Issued on: 03/09/2025 - 
FRANCE2
By:  Barbara GABEL/ Joanna YORK

A protestor holds a smoke bomb aloft during a May Day rally, marking International Workers' Day, in Paris, on May 1, 2025. © Alain Jocard, AFP

Across social media in France, three words have been proliferating since Bayrou announced his national budget plan on July 15: “Boycott, disobedience and solidarity” ("Boycott, désobéissance et solidarité").

Behind the slogan is the burgeoning national protest movement "Block everything" (Bloquons tout) calling for a day of national protest on September 10 in a bid to paralyze the country.

The citizens collective, which has about 20 organisers according to French newspaper Le Parisien, says it is independent of political parties and unions. On social media platforms X, TikTok, Telegram and Facebook, its message has taken off with supporters sharing visuals under the hashtags #10septembre2025 and #10septembre.

The trigger for such widespread discontent is Bayrou’s 2026 financial plan aiming to slash €43.8 million from the national budget and reduce France’s spiralling deficit. Among the most controversial austerity measures are plans to remove two national holidays, a freeze on pensions and €5 billion in health cuts.

But in the weeks since support for the protest took off, France’s political landscape has shifted dramatically. Bayrou in late August called for a parliamentary confidence vote in his government – and its budget – which will take place on September 8.

The prime minister is all but certain to lose the vote, forcing his resignation and leaving France, once again, without a government or a financial plan.

In this scenario, will the September 10 protests still go ahead?

“Definitely,” says Andrew W M Smith, historian of Modern France at Queen Mary University, London. “If the government falls on September 8, then on September 10 people will feel that the streets are where politics needs to be done. The protests will be even more emboldened because of the reality of an apparent political crisis.”
'Feeling left behind'

On a website created for the movement, which has since been removed, the collective listed a wide range of demands including massive reinvestment in public services, an end to job cuts, and for all public holidays to be maintained.

But the government is not the only target for the organisers’ discontent.

Recommended forms of protest include boycotting major retailers such as Carrefour, Amazon and Auchan, withdrawing money from major banks and the “peaceful occupation of symbolic locations” such as local government administrative buildings and town halls.

A social media post linked to the movement viewed more than 1.5 million times calls on supporters to help “stop the machine” that is crushing “worn out, invisible” citizens.

A social media post outlining the objectives of France's Block Everything protest movement. © @SarahHRakM4, X

On September 10, they write, “we won’t pay anymore, we won’t consume anymore, we won’t work anymore, and we will keep our children at home. Our only power is a total boycott”.

Other forms of suggested action call for solidarity such as creating strike funds, organising neighbourhood assemblies, and supporting protestors who engage in acts of civil disobedience.

It may be frustration over plans to cut two public holidays that ignited calls for protest, “but the movement is much broader”, says Paul Smith, head of the department of Modern Languages at the University of Nottingham, UK. “It’s become about the idea of people feeling left behind.”

“It’s calling for a refocusing of political attention on the cost-of-living crisis and people feeling underrepresented by what's happening in Parliament,” adds Andrew W M Smith.

There are echoes of the 2018 Yellow Vest (gilets jaunes) protest, which began with social media users venting frustration over rising petrol prices but grew to encompass street protests that attracted tens of thousands frustrated by a broad sense of economic injustice.

The Yellow Vest movement was not affiliated with any specific political party or union and had no single leader. Its emblem was instead the florescent yellow vest that French law requires all drivers to have in their vehicles and which protestors wore en masse during demonstrations.

In terms of its material objectives, the movement was only partially successful, achieving small but significant wins such as raising minimum pensions.

Block everything for now only exists in the digital space. But its grassroots organisation, generalised frustration with the authorities, and combative tone are all in the same mould as its predecessor.

Murky origins

While the organisers of Block everything have said the movement is apolitical, questions have emerged over its origins.

The first post calling for a September 10 protest appeared in May – well before Bayrou had announced his budget – posted by anti-government group, Les Essentiels France.

As little is known about who runs the group or what its affiliations are, “it's always worth being alert to the possibility of manipulation, especially by foreign interests”, says Andrew W M Smith.

Online support for the idea of a September 10 protest surged after Bayrou’s budget announcement in July, with figures on extreme right quick to align themselves with the burgeoning movement.

Since then, the movement has garnered widespread support from left-wing parties, spearheaded by the firebrand leader of the France Unbowed party, Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

“Much like the Yellow Vests there have been plenty of people willing to try and own some of the political dynamism and force of the movement by attaching themselves to it,” says Andrew WM Smith.

An alignment with the left fits the profile of the average supporter of the movement, according to a survey published on Monday by French think-tank Fondation Jean-Jaurès.

Among more than 1,000 supporters interviewed in mid-August, 69% said they had voted for Mélenchon’s hard-left party in the first round of the 2022 presidential election, compared with 22% of the population as a whole.

Just 2% said they had voted for President Emmanuel Macron and 3% for hard-right leader Marine Le Pen in the same election.

The survey found that despite apparent similarities with the Yellow Vest movement, Block everything’s supporters are less focused on economic insecurity, and more on “strong politicisation and a desire to engage on behalf of collective interests”.

Lack of union support

Most major union chiefs have so far refused to align themselves with Block everything, despite sharing many of their political concerns.

A petition launched by five major unions against Bayrou’s budget on July 22 has so far amassed more than 375,000 signatures.

"The horror show that is the draft budget must be abandoned," CFDT union chief Marylise Léon on Friday, even though her union will not participate in the September 10 protests.

Only the hard-left CGT union has said it will support Block everything by organising strikes on September 10.

The inter-union group has instead called for “major strikes and protests” on September 18 – an announcement that is unlikely to take the wind out of Block everything’s sails.

Compared with a formal union strike, September 10’s grassroots protest is, “much less controlled, and much less organised”, says Paul Smith. “That makes stopping it really quite difficult.”

This article was adapted from the original in French.