Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro described the detention of an oil tanker seized by US military personnel in the Caribbean Sea on Wednesday as an act of piracy. On Thursday night, he reported that the crew was abducted and is missing, a circumstance referred to in human rights terms as a forced disappearance.
“Yesterday, they committed an absolutely criminal and illegal act when they carried out a military assault, kidnapping, and robbery—like pirates of the Caribbean—of a merchant, commercial, civilian, private vessel. A vessel of peace, which was attacked as it was about to enter the Atlantic, not off the coast of Venezuela.
Inside NATO’s cathedral of fear, weapons become sacraments and projection becomes liturgy. From the stained-glass altar, thunderous light strikes Russia and China — not as analysis, but as ritual. This is not about Putin. It is about the West’s collapse into psycho-political theatre.
Mark Rutte’s Berlin speech in December 2025 has been hailed as a wake‑up call for NATO. But the deeper truth is this: Rutte’s speech is not about Russia and China at all. It is about NATO itself, and about the fundamental transformation of politics into psycho‑political theatre where rational policy has become impossible. The “red threat” he invoked is less an empirical reality than a stage device in a liturgical performance.
From Policy to Performance
Compared with a good month ago, Rutte’s purpose is alarm/urgency instead of agreement/consensus. His tone is existential/dramatic instead of pragmatic/institutional. His focus was on the survival of Europe instead of the credibility of NATO, and hinting that more than 5% of GNP may be needed. His threat perception is now that “Russia is already at our doorstep,” and that China is behind it, where it was a more general enemy image and Ukraine focus in November 2025. Significantly and amateurishly, he condescendingly calls Putin “this guy.” These are very significant escalatory changes.
Watch the full speech here, delivered about 13 minutes after that of the German foreign minister, Wadephul, which is an intellectual bottom feeder in poor English. And here is NATO’s transcript of Rutte’s speech, should you prefer to study it more closely.
Politics once meant rational calculation: weighing interests, negotiating compromises, balancing costs and probabilities. That paradigm has collapsed. In its place stands a new order: politics as performance. Leaders no longer persuade with evidence; they dramatise with sermons. Rutte’s Berlin speech exemplifies this shift. His words were not analytical but eschatological: “Russia is already at our door. NATO and Europe could be Putin’s next target.” This is not policy analysis; it is liturgy. (See postscript below, too).
NATO as Church
The speech revealed NATO’s metamorphosis into a church‑like institution.
Doctrine: NATO embodies goodness; Russia embodies evil.
Congregation: The Military‑Industrial‑Media‑Academic Complex, MIMAC, creates and repeats the creed.
Rituals: Summits, communiqués, budget votes, press conferences, and speeches function as sacred ceremonies.
Eschatology: The apocalypse — Russia’s attack — is always imminent, never arriving, sustaining endless vigilance and ever-increasing military expenditures, never peace. It is not the purpose.
In this church, Rutte plays the priest. His sermon is not about Russia’s actual capabilities or intentions; it is about reaffirming NATO’s faith in its own innocence and moral superiority. The congregation responds with offerings: pledges of 5% GDP for defence, tithes to the military‑industrial altar. More about NATO as church in my 2022 abolish NATO analysis.
Psycho‑Pathological Rhetoric
Rutte’s rhetoric falls squarely into a tradition that includes Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, and Adolf Hitler. Each claimed to be surrounded by enemies, each insisted on the necessity of defence, and each justified aggression by projecting evil onto the other side. The formula is always the same: we are threatened all the way around, and we must defend ourselves — no matter the reality.
Hitler invoked Versailles and “Jewish Bolshevism” to justify expansion. Saddam invoked imperialism and Zionism to justify repression and war. Bush invoked weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion. Rutte invokes Putin to justify NATO’s expansion and militarisation. The psycho‑pathological script is identical: paranoia, projection, eschatology, and self‑sanctification.
And here lies the danger: there is an increasing risk that the Rutte‑type of performance, whether intended or not, will have the same consequence for Europe as Hitler’s did. Once politics becomes theatre of paranoia, escalation is not a possibility but a destiny.
The Absurd Stage
The absurdity of this transformation is striking. It resembles Ionesco’s The Chairs, where the stage fills with empty chairs until there is no room left for the characters themselves. In NATO’s theatre, the “chairs” are weapons, budgets, and warnings — multiplying endlessly until politics itself disappears. The room is filled with arsenals, slogans, and rituals, leaving no space for rational analysis or genuine diplomacy.
Groupthink thrives in this closed theatre. Leaders, media, and academics repeat the same refrains, trapped inside the box of paranoia. The more they echo each other, the less reality intrudes. The absurdity is not comic but tragic: a self‑reinforcing ritual that consumes substance and replaces it with performance.
The Red Threat as Stage Device
The “red threat” is not a description of Russia’s actual power. NATO remains technologically superior, vastly richer, and more expansive than Russia. Yet Rutte insists NATO is fragile, vulnerable, at risk of annihilation. This inversion of reality is the hallmark of absurd theatre: the stronger actor plays the victim, the weaker is cast as omnipotent aggressor. The red threat is a stage device, a prop that sustains the liturgy of fear.
Why Politics Has Changed
Readers will ask: Why has politics changed so dramatically? The answer lies in the decline of the West itself. The United States, NATO, and the European Union are facing the long arc of imperial exhaustion. Economic stagnation, social fragmentation, and geopolitical overreach have eroded confidence. As substance weakens, performance intensifies. The sermon replaces the policy because the empire no longer has coherent strategies to offer.
Rutte’s speech is therefore not only a symptom of NATO’s paranoia but of the West’s decline. The liturgical theatre of threat and innocence is the last refuge of a system that senses its own fragility. The louder the sermons, the weaker the empire beneath them.
The Existential Change
The tragic fact is that Rutte’s speech demonstrates the end of rational politics. There is no longer space for cohesive, analytical policy. What remains is performance: sermons of paranoia, rituals of spending, choruses of media repetition. Politics has mutated into psycho‑religious theatre, where leaders preach, congregations respond, and the apocalypse is always imminent.
Thus, the speech is not about Russia and China at all. It is about NATO’s transformation into a church of paranoia and projection in which the sermon itself is the policy. The red threat is not a geopolitical reality but a liturgical necessity. And in this theatre — absurd, pathological, and imperial in decline — substance has vanished; only performance remains.
Post‑script
The tragic transformation of politics described above makes it rather meaningless for an organisation like TFF to continue publishing rational analyses, as if today’s world were still guided by reason, concepts from peace research, international relations, or political science. With few exceptions, the omnipresent geo‑politico‑military day-to-day commentators do not seem to have noticed this change and speak now into a vacuum — into something that once existed but no longer does.
As TFF turns 40 on January 1, 2026, we therefore move in new directions – or do the same with new means and perspectives: toward idea‑producing visions and conceptual innovations that humanity will need in the multi‑nodal, networking world that will emerge after the fall of the US/Western empire and its institutions.
Our basic mission remains the same: Promoting the UN norm of making peace by peaceful means. But either you adapt the methods and perspectives to the ways of the world or you perish – or stop. TFF does not stop. We believe in the fundamental – superior – values of nonviolence, educated conflict-management and peacemaking over primitive and kakistocratic urges of militarism and pathological war-mongering in the name of fake peace.
The formation of the Group of Friends of Global Governance was formally announced at the United Nations in New York on December 9. This follows President Xi Jinping launching the Global Governance Initiative at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Plus Meeting in Tianjin on September 1.
The group initially consists of 43 members. Besides China, among them are Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Palestine, Senegal, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
From 1980-2008, EU GDP grew 2.7%, the US 3%, and China 9% . Since then, the EU has averaged 1.5%, the US 1.8% and China 7%. In other words, China’s economy has grown 300% faster than Western countries’ and, as they slip out of the top bracket of high income countries, China is entering it.
1990. China’s economy has come to a halt. The Economist
1996. China’s economy will face a hard landing. The Economist
1998. China’s economy’s dangerous period of sluggish growth. The Economist
1999. Likelihood of a hard landing for the Chinese economy. Bank of Canada
2000. China currency move nails hard landing risk coffin. Chicago Tribune
2001. A hard landing in China. Wilbanks, Smith & Thomas
2002. China Seeks a Soft Economic Landing. Westchester University
2003. Banking crisis imperils China. New York Times
2004. The great fall of China? The Economist
2005. The Risk of a Hard Landing in China. Nouriel Roubini
2006. Can China Achieve a Soft Landing? International Economy
2007. Can China avoid a hard landing? TIME
2008. Hard Landing In China? Forbes
2009. China’s hard landing. China must find a way to recover. Fortune
2010: Hard landing coming in China. Nouriel Roubini
2011: Chinese Hard Landing Closer Than You Think. Business Insider
2012: Economic News from China: Hard Landing. American Interest
2013: A Hard Landing In China. Zero Hedge
2014. A hard landing in China. CNBC
2015. Congratulations, You Got Yourself A Chinese Hard Landing. Forbes
2016. Hard landing looms for China. The Economist
2017. Is China’s Economy Going To Crash? National Interest
2018. China’s Coming Financial Meltdown. The Daily Reckoning.
2019 China’s Economic Slowdown: How worried should we be? BBC2020. Coronavirus Could End China’s Decades-Long Economic Growth Streak. NY Times
2021 Chinese economy risks deeper slowdown than markets realize. Bloomberg
2022. China Surprise Data Could Spell R-e-c-e-s-s-i-o-n. Bloomberg.
2023. No word should be off-limits to describe China’s faltering economy. Bloomberg
2024. China Slowdown Means It May Never Overtake US …Bloomberg
It has been a big year for China’s future food economy – here are the 10 trends that defined the country’s alternative proteins space in 2025.
From regulatory wins and public investment to patent filing and a restaurant boom, China’s alternative protein industry has had a lot going for it in 2025.
The Asian behemoth has been angling to become a global biotech leader, having decisively conquered the green energy and mobility spaces.
People in China have already been eating more protein per capita than Americans since last year, a majority of which comes from plants. As the world’s largest market for meat (accounting for around a third of the world’s supply), its food industry needs faster solutions to decarbonise.
A transition to alternative proteins, whether plant-based, fermentation-derived, or cell-cultivated, can ramp up China’s emissions reduction drive, while also clearing up vast amounts of land.
The country’s reputation as an R&D and biomanufacturing powerhouse, combined with growing support from citizens and the government, outlines its future food potential, as evidenced by this industry’s biggest trends in 2025
1) Plant-based is defying China’s restaurant slump, but challenges remain
Courtesy: DragonImages
Restaurants have always been a tough business, though never more so than after Covid-19. Rising food costs and wages and shifting consumer behaviours meant that 70-80% of Chinese restaurants lost money in 2024. In fact, seven in 10 new eateries failed within three months of opening.
As highlighted by Toronto-based Dao Foods International, a China-focused impact investment firm, meat-free restaurants are bucking the trend. The number of vegetarian establishments has nearly tripled from under 5,000 to over 14,000 in the last five years.
That said, the category still maintains a small share of China’s eight million restaurants, with several challenges and opportunities to grow. Scalability is particularly a big challenge, with over 95% of meatless restaurants having fewer than three locations, in contrast to meat-serving chains that have dozens (or even hundreds) of sites.
2) Health is driving the Chinese vegan market’s growth
Courtesy: China Vegan Society
It’s well documented that health influences food choices in China more than any other factor, and this is true for consumers young and old.
In a market survey by the China Vegan Society, which kicked off the Veganuary-style V-March campaign this year, 36% of respondents said they choose plant-based diets for health reasons.
Data from Meituan, a Chinese app offering a wide range of lifestyle services, finds that people aged 25-35 make up two-thirds of vegetarian catering orders. And as vegetarianism has grown, the share of consumers under 30 who have embraced the diet has surged by 29% over the last three years.
At the same time, the country’s rapidly ageing population – 310 million (or 22% of the total) were aged 60 or above as of 2024 – is dictating the market shift too. These consumers tend to reduce meat consumption due to digestive issues and cardiovascular concerns. Vegetarian chain Sumanxiang reports that 35% of its diners are 55-plus, highlighting how seniors have also become a core meat-free group.
3) Prices still dictate future food adoption
Courtesy: China Vegan Society
Still, affordability is a major barrier to the shift towards alternative proteins. Beyond Meat, which has suspended its China operations, is a good example.
Its plant-based beef costs nearly twice as much as conventional beef mince in the country’s supermarkets. Even meat alternatives made by local brands are half as pricey as Beyond Beef. It’s not just beef, either – the company launched pork meatballs in February with a price tag over 10 times that of animal-derived counterparts.
And when you factor in the ubiquity of tofu and seitan in China, the price gap widens even further. “Tofu and traditional alternatives are cheap, widely available, and sold in bulk. Plant-based meats are often significantly more expensive,” Jian Yi, founder and CEO of the China Vegan Society, told Green Queen in June.
As Dao Foods pointed out, low-cost plant-based food can shift perceptions amid consumers hit by the cost-of-living crisis. Vegan buffet restaurants were initially not well-received by consumers, who associated them with religious veganism or low-income citizens and perceived the quality of the food to be poor.
After the economic downturn, vegan buffets priced around ¥30 ($4.25) have gained traction; meat-based versions typically cost around ¥100 ($14.15). The former options, roughly the price of a bubble tea, offer compelling value, and most diners aren’t even vegan.
4) China is going all-in on microbial proteins
Courtesy: Fushine Bio
Proteins derived from microbial fermentation are having a moment in China. In Angel Yeast, the country is home to the world’s largest producer of yeast protein. It began operating an 11,000-tonne production line earlier this year, with built-in expansion capacity to meet future market growth for yeast protein.
Meanwhile, Fushine Bio is the nation’s largest mycoprotein producer, and has become the recipient of China’s first regulatory green light for these foods. It can churn out 1,200 tonnes of product per year, and an industrial-scale line with an annual capacity of 200,000 tonnes is under construction.
Overseas companies are recognising the potential. Australia’s All G received regulatory clearance to sell its recombinant bovine lactoferrin protein in personal care formulations, supplements, and more in China. It is now working with a local contract manufacturer ahead of a launch in early 2026.
Fusarium venenatum has been identified as a key opportunity to advance China’s alternative protein sector, with a group of leading scientists recognising its ability to “meet the stringent protein quality requirements of high-end markets such as medical nutrition, sports nutrition, and infant formula” in a recent blue paper.
Plus, the government’s current five-year agriculture plan (which runs until the end of the year) encourages research on recombinant proteins and cultivated meat. And President Xi Jinping has previously called for a Grand Food Vision that includes plant-based and microbial protein sources.
5) China’s innovation ecosystem is second to none
Graphic by Green Queen
The East Asian country’s research prowess is the bedrock of its future food potential. According to the Good Food Institute APAC, of the top 20 all-time patent applicants for cultivated meat, eight are from China. That’s twice as many as Israel, the next on the list.
The number of patent families – collections of applications related to the same invention – is significantly greater from Chinese entities than from other markets (totalling 160). Cultivated pork maker Joes Future Food leads the way in China with 25 applications.
China’s applicants include multiple universities as well, such as Zhejiang University, Jiangnan University, and Ocean University of China. Experts say this indicates “very strong” government interest and an intentionally collaborative approach to build a national cellular agriculture ecosystem.
6) The hospitality sector is leading the protein transition
Courtesy: Lever China
Though the research and manufacturing sectors are building China’s capacity to produce future foods, it will all be in vain if consumers don’t embrace them. It’s why the hospitality industry is critical, serving as a lever for greater adoption of alternative proteins,
In a scorecard compiled by Lever China, 11 large hotel operators received an A+ rating for their corporate policies on increasing plant-based food offerings. The score reflects public, time-bound targets to make at least 30% of all meals plant-based, or increase the percentage of non-animal foods served per guest by at least 20%.
Among the companies driving the industry’s protein transition are Accor Hotels, Marriott Greater China, Langham Hospitality, IHG Hotels & Resorts, and Dossen Group.
7) Consumers are increasingly open to cultivated meat
Courtesy: APAC-SCA/Marco Livolsi/Green Queen
As cultivated meat companies ramp up R&D and scale-up efforts, they will be buoyed by the public’s growing acceptance of these proteins. A survey by the APAC Society for Cellular Agriculture (APAC-SCA) found that 77% of people in four tier 1 cities – Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen – are willing to try cultivated meat and seafood.
Moreover, 45% of consumers say they’re likely to replace conventional meat and seafood with cell-cultured versions. There is a need for further education, though, as a third of respondents aren’t familiar with cultivated meat, and of the 63% who have heard of it, just one in 10 knows what the concept means.
Further, China’s consumers need more assurances about the safety of these foods. “As consumers place a strong belief and trust in food safety regulators, unified messages from government stakeholders and industry players would be most effective to provide assurance on health and safety,” Calisa Lim, senior project manager at the APAC-SCA, told Green Queen.
8) Global brands still find it hard to cut through…
Courtesy: Beyond Meat
Companies that may lead the market in other parts of the world aren’t guaranteed success in China. Oatly’s struggles are well-known, with the company restructuring its market divisions by separating Greater China from the rest of its Asian business.
As alluded to above, Beyond Meat has failed to gain ground, leading the plant-based meat producer to close its China operations and lay off 20 employees. Concerns around ultra-processing, high prices, and unsatisfactory taste all contributed to its middling performance in this market.
International firms need to home in on localised flavours and preferences, and they need to do so at an affordable price point. Beyond Meat did the former with its pork meatballs, but not the latter. In general, overseas brands find it difficult to break through the familiarity of established local companies.
For instance, Japanese food giant Glico (the producer of Pocky) has been a household name in China for over a century. And since launching its almond milk in 2021, the company now sells more of it than any other company in the category, thanks to a deeply localised marketing strategy leveraging identity, self-expression, and social media.
9) …but homegrown brands are going global
Courtesy: Starfield
The flip side of this issue is, Chinese companies are increasingly looking outwards for success, thanks in no small part to the impact of Donald Trump’s tariffs on the country. They have pushed companies to relocate manufacturing to other countries and enter the market with their own consumer brands.
They’ve spotted it as an opportunity to drive higher margins, brand value, and market resilience in international markets, according to Dao Foods. The shift is also in response to expanding industrial overcapacity and a slowdown in domestic consumption.
Chinese plant protein brand Starfield, for instance, showcased a diverse range of products, including a Poki Salad Bar, vegan bacon strips, and dairy-free cheese, at the 2025 International Food & Drink Event (IFE) in London.
Meanwhile, alternative protein innovator Cellx relocated from Shanghai to San Francisco, pivoting to a licensing model for its cultivated meat platform, and launching a new brand of morel mycelium protein snacks for the US market.
10) The government is going all-in on alternative proteins
Courtesy: Fengtai District Media Integration Center
Perhaps the most significant future food trend in China is the continued support from the government. Building on its agriculture and bioeconomy plans, top government officials called for a deeper integration of strategic emerging industries (which included biomanufacturing) at this year’s Two Sessions summit.
This came shortly after the agriculture ministry highlighted the safety and nutritional efficacy of alternative proteins as a key priority. In addition, No. 1 Central Document (which signals China’s top goals for the year) underscored the importance of protein diversification, including efforts “to explore novel food resources”.
The policy support is translating into investment, too. China’s first alternative protein innovation centre was opened in Beijing in January, fuelled by an $11M investment from public and private investors to develop novel foods like cultivated meat.
And in the Guangdong province, China’s most populous region, local officials are planning to build a biomanufacturing hub to pioneer tech breakthroughs in plant-based, microbial, and cultivated proteins.
Donald Trump’s new National Security Strategy, which formalizes the ideological shift that U.S. foreign policy has taken under Trump 2.0, has won praise in Moscow but stunned European allies. Indeed, the strategy document, which was published on December 4, 2025, sent political shock waves through the whole of Europe as European leaders and political analysts grasped how Trump’s radical…
Multipolarity — the idea that there are more than one decisive economic actors in the global economy — is an important fact. More than anything else, the rise of the People’s Republic of China demonstrates that fact. The size and rate of growth, along with the expansive Belt and Road Initiative, establishes that the PRC functions somewhat independently of the world’s most powerful player in the global market — the US. While the PRC spurns the language of rivalry, characterizing its desired relationship with the US as one of cooperation or partnership, the mere fact that the US rejects that relationship creates another competitive pole in the global economy, centered on the PRC.
Similarly, the US ruling class has sought to absorb the post-Soviet world — Russia, Eastern Europe, and other former Soviet collaborators — into the US-dominated economic order. The US demands that they play the same game and by the same rules or be banished from participation. When they object or defy accepting these terms, they, too, necessarily become alternative poles.
As other formerly minor or compliant participants — Brazil, India, etc. — have risen in economic stature, they can also represent counters to US unipolarity.
The tendency away from the US’s complete dominance of the international market economy is a reality of our time. No rational person can dispute this fact (though the tendency could easily reverse).
Since the origin of international trade, there have been conflicting tendencies and counter-tendencies toward concentration and diversity, toward monopoly and competition, and toward unipolarity and multipolarity. It is the very nature, the very essence of market exchange that a privileged trader will arise to dominate, only to be challenged by rivals who subsequently share or dominate the market, with the process repeating or reversing. As Friedrich Engels insisted: “In short, competition passes over into monopoly. On the other hand, monopoly cannot stem the tide of competition– indeed, it itself breeds competition.”
History shows many empires or countries rising to dominate an arena of commerce or trade over its trading “partners”: Venetian dominance in the Mediterranean, Dutch dominance in European trade with the Spice Islands, successive European empires’ dominance of the trading in slaves, British dominance of the opium trade with China, etc. In nearly all cases, other empires or nations challenge and often prevail.
With the rise of the Cold War, the immensely powerful US assumed and maintained the leading role in ruling and protecting the capitalist order, then over half of the world’s population. After the fall of the Soviet Union, US leaders sought to extend their dominance over the entire world, envisioning a new order codifying and guaranteeing the existing inequalities and the established uneven development. Of course, this status privileges US interests.
If this state of affairs constitutes what people consider to be unipolarity, then it is clear that it is not sustainable. Competitors unfailingly will rise to challenge US dominance. Rivals will strive to break the US economic reign, through innovation, deception, trickery, market manipulation, alliances, and even open conflict. That is the way of capitalism.
And that is what is happening.
Thus, the alternating tendencies toward multipolarity and unipolarity are inevitable consequences of market exchange in a world of private ownership and national self-interest.
It should be noted that — everything else remaining the same — this dynamic will guarantee neither that working people will benefit nor be disadvantaged by changes in existing poles. Changes in the relative economic position of nation-states in the global economy is neutral with regard to the fate of those living in class societies. A worker or peasant may gain little from a trend from unipolarity to multipolarity — any gain will be determined by other factors.
*****
There is, however, an entirely different understanding of multipolarity, unrelated to the factual tendency of competition to drive the global economy toward a unipolar or multipolar world. Since the time of Karl Kautsky, leftists have invested in multipolarity as a moral response to imperialism, an antidote to economic exploitation, as anti-imperialism. Nation-states were and are believed to rationally accept a stable order based on common interests and fair and equitable relations (if only the predators were tamed!). Lenin mocked this view and World War I crushed it.
But it doesn’t go away! The illusion of a brotherhood of capitalist powers accepting fair and equitable relations stubbornly persists!
Liberals and social democrats invested heavily in the League of Nations, a reset of the rules of international politics and economics after the disaster of World War I. Both little nations and big nations were expected to live amicably under its umbrella. The League promised to stifle the aggression and domination of great powers. Within two decades World War was again on the agenda.
Once again, after World War II, a new “multipolar” institution came into being– the United Nations. Dominated by capitalist powers (most also beholden puppets of the US ruling class), the promise of diverse poles ensuring peace, harmony, and fairness gave way to manipulation, indecision, and — on the best day — impotence. The UN — today, a multipolar institution governing capitalist-oriented nation-states — is a modern-day farce.
Now, we have BRICS — an alliance of a motley assortment of states with different ideologies, different modes of governance, different economies, different levels of development, and different commitments to social justice, but a common interest in finding some benefit from rearranging the existing world order. Centrists and leftists of every stripe have adopted BRICS and BRICS+ as an anti-imperialist front. With little reflection on history, with little appreciation of diversity, and especially with little understanding of market-based economies, they imagine that nation-states driven by self interest will somehow construct a common organization governed by mutual interest. Kautsky would embrace this shallow hope. Lenin would summarily dismiss it.
Persistently and consistently, I have challenged this misguided concept of anti-imperialism. BRICS is no more an answer to imperialism than an alliance of corporations is an answer to capitalist exploitation.
And that is the tragedy of the BRICS solution to imperialism. It fails to address the foundation of imperialism: the capitalist mode of production. It distracts social justice warriors, and even some Marxists, from the root cause of growing inequality within and between nations. Through ignorance or frustration, it creates the false hope of tempering exploitation without confronting capitalism.
*****
Where theoretical arguments fail, I have proposed a practical test of multipolarity and, specifically, BRICS. If BRICS is an anti-imperialist alternative, then it — or its most committed members — must stand tall against the most glaring, most egregious acts of imperialism. I have suggested that the response of BRICS members to the atrocities in Gaza are a litmus test of commitment to anti-imperialism, a test which BRICS has failed abysmally.
One might think that the recent UN Security Council vote on the US/Israeli plan to further maintain Gaza as a semi-colony — brazenly ruled as brutally as the old Belgian Congo — might have ignited a resistance from the “anti-imperialism” of BRICS. Instead, BRICS’s most vocal friends of Gaza choose to abstain from the vote.
And, yes, one would think that these scandalous abstentions would cause many multipolaristas to pause, and rethink their delusion of an anti-imperialist BRICS.
And many on the left have recoiled from this plan and criticized the Russian and Chinese abstentions. The Palestinian Communist Party denounced the vote, as did other Communist and Workers parties.
Nonetheless, apologists like the Friends of Socialist China defend China and Russia’s abstention. They argue bizarrely that: “For China, or Russia, to have exercised the veto would only have weakened their position vis-à-vis the Arab and Islamic nations and correspondingly further strengthened that of the United States.” As though voting against the Security Council resolution would have cost them friendship with some of the backstabbers of the Palestinian cause and defying the US plan would have somehow strengthened the already compliant US relationship with these same traitors to Gaza’s fate.
Since the Gaza resolution, the US has launched an offensive against Venezuelan sovereignty. US military might is staged in waters offshore from Venezuela, insisting that the Venezuelan people bow to US pressure. The threat is real and accompanied by the disgusting demonstration of US power by the murderous killing of boats’ crews in international waters, killings that have no established legitimacy.
How have the PRC and Russia — the “spear” of BRICS anti-imperialism — responded?
Kejal Vyas and James T. Areddy, writing in the Wall Street Journal, state smugly: “For two decades, Venezuela cultivated anti-American allies across the globe, from Russia and China to Cuba and Iran, in the hope of forming a new world order that could stand up to Washington. It isn’t working.” They understand that Cuba and Iran are in no position economically to help Venezuela. As for Russia and China, the authors conclude: “Both countries are trying to negotiate major diplomatic and trade deals with Trump now, giving them little incentive to waste political capital on Venezuela.”
It should be clearly understood that Russia, the PRC, and other BRICS states have the sovereign right to forge their own or an independent collective foreign policy, regardless of what others might want. Sadly, unlike in the throes of the Cold War against socialist states, no great power or alliance is willing to risk confrontation with other great powers, where willingness to do so is historically the measure of authentic anti-imperialism.
It should be equally clear that those who elevate the BRICs countries to the status of anti-imperialist icons are doing the left a disservice. However well-meaning some of the BRICS leaders may be, they fall far short of constituting an anti-imperialist bloc. To continue the fantasy that rallying around BRICS is the basis for an anti-imperialist front only deflects the left from attacking the foundation of imperialism: capitalism.
On Thursday, the White House released the new National Security Strategy for the United States. Others may well give it a different read, but here is my quick take:
The document is ghoulish, abhorrent, repetitious, and sometimes incoherent, but I found its honesty refreshing. The mask is torn off sanctimonious bullshit, tall tales about spreading democracy and caring about human rights. The US is “not grounded in traditional political idealism,” but by “America First.” (P.8) A bit of the usual boilerplate is here, but for the most part, the ideological cover is gone.
Dan Caldwell, onetime advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, applauded the new American military restraint, saying, “For too long, delusion undergirded our foreign policy, delusion about America’s role in the world, delusion about our interests, and delusion about what we can achieve through military force. This is a reality-based document in that regard.” (NY Times,12/7/2025)
In place of pretense, the document spells out what US policy has always been about: undisguised economic nationalism — whatever benefits American grifter capitalism. All this unexpected candor required the New York Times to lamentably and hypocritically describe the new doctrine as “Security Strategy Focused on Profit, Not Spreading Democracy.” Going further, General Wesley Clark, former NATO Commander, joined in by saying that “The United States has sacrificed the magic of America. For 250 years, America lived the dream that we gave to all mankind. And we acted to protect that. The rules-based international order has served us so well.” Yes, he actually said that…
Here are a few specifics from a document that, without explicitly saying so, recognizes that the US is a declining power and must accommodate that reality
Ukraine: The US must press for an “expeditious cessation of hostilities.” This is as clear a public admission that we’re going to see from Trump that the US proxy war is lost. Ukraine will not be joining NATO; the organization must cease being a “perpetually expanding alliance.” The US should also “re-establish strategic stability with Russia.” This section states that “The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.” One detects Vance’s input here.
The Middle East: The US will recede from the Middle East. There will be “No more” decades of nation-building wars, even as the area remains an area of “partnership, friendship, and investment.” The document also states that “We seek good and peaceful relations with other countries without imposing on them democratic or other changes that differ widely from their traditions and histories.” This falls under a section called “Flexible Realism.”
Europe: The US evidences contempt for Europe. As recently as last Wednesday, Trump said, “The European Union was founded to screw the United States.” The document asserts that Europe faces “civilization erasure” in 20 years, in large measure because immigration will make it “non-European.” Further, Europe must learn to “stand on its own feet” and “We expect our allies to spend far more on their Gross National Product (GDP) on their own defense to start making up for the enormous imbalances over decades of much greater spending by the United States.” This refers to Washington’s demand that European allies spend 5% of their GDP on defense.
Latin America: The United States will reassert its preeminence in the region, a development referred to as “The Trump Corollary” to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine. Hemispheric competitors will be prevented from owning and controlling energy facilities, ports, and telecommunication networks. The goal is to make the Western Hemisphere an increasingly attractive market for American commerce and investment. In accordance with this objective, US diplomats in the region are to seek out “major business opportunities in their country, especially major government contracts.” And they should be “sole-source contracts for our companies.” I sense that profits from the Western Hemisphere are expected to offset a shortfall elsewhere. There is an unmistakable message here that Latin American countries will no longer retain their sovereignty.
China: As nearly as I can tell, the document cautions that war over Taiwan should be avoided because it would have “major implications for the US economy.” Further, “Our allies must step up and spend — and more importantly do — much more for collective defense.” The document refers to establishing a “mutually advantageous relationship with China.”
Thailand’s Air Force Logistics Department announced on 20 November that it had selected Israeli company IAI to supply Barak MX air defence systems to the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) to help protect its air bases. The value of the contract awarded to IAI for this Military Base Defence Development Project was worth THB3.44 billion […]
China has granted its first approval of mycoprotein as a new food raw material, a move hailed as a “significant step forward” for the global alternative protein sector.
Chinese biotech firm Fushine Bio has received the country’s first regulatory green light for Fusarium venenatum, a source of fungal mycelium protein, as a novel food ingredient.
The approval was granted by the National Health Commission (NHC) alongside 13 other new food additives and ingredients, and marks a “turning point for fermentation-based proteins in one of the world’s most influential food markets”, according to think tank the Good Food Institute (GFI) APAC.
“This approval further validates the safety, potential, and future scale of mycoprotein, reinforcing our confidence in accelerating its adoption across the food industry,” Fushine Bio said in a statement.
Fushine Bio already Asia-Pacific’s largest mycoprotein producer
Courtesy: Fushine Bio
Mycoprotein is derived from mycelium, the root-like structure of filamentous fungi. Fushine Bio’s flagship ingredient, called FuNext, is produced via a biomass fermentation process with glucose and water as the primary raw materials.
Its specific strains, A3/5 or TB01, can double their biomass every five hours, enabling an output 1,000 times more efficient than livestock-derived protein, according to the company.
The ingredient is a complete protein with all essential amino acids and high digestibility. It’s rich in fibre, vitamins and minerals, low in fat, and has zero cholesterol. Beyond its nutritional benefits, FuNext offers environmental wins too, requiring far less land and water than animal proteins, with a fraction of the greenhouse gas footprint.
Fushine Bio sell the protein in wet, dry and whole-cut formats. The former has a light beige tint and a mild, natural mushroom aroma with a fibrous texture akin to meat. It can be used to create structured meat analogues like meatballs, nuggets, ham slices, and sausages.
The dry powdered form has an adjustable particle size and high dispersibility, and can be tailored for various processing needs. This is best-suited for functional nutrition products, protein-rich baked goods, meal replacement formulas, snacks, and nutritional supplements.
Finally, the off-white whole-cut mycoprotein has a meaty aroma and naturally fibrous texture, resembling animal muscle tissue. Fushine Bio describes this as a high-flexibility format that can be shaped into slices, strips, chunks, and more, and added to a range of dishes and next-generation meat alternatives.
The firm has earmarked several other applications for FuNext, including dairy-free cheese, pet food, medical supplements like low-sugar or condition-specific formulas, and food for consumption in space.
Fushine Bio said it would “continue collaborating with partners to bring high-quality, clean-label mycoprotein solutions to more food applications”. It claims to be Asia-Pacific’s largest mycoprotein producer, with the capability of churning out 1,200 tonnes of product per year. The company is now building an industrial-scale line with an annual capacity of 200,000 tonnes.
Mycoprotein a key opportunity for the Chinese and global future food sector
Courtesy: Fushine Bio
Fushine Bio has already self-determined FuNext as a Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) ingredient in the US, enabling its use in a range of food categories as a protein source, including meat alternatives.
Mycoprotein from Fusarium venenatum has been on sale in many countries for decades, thanks to Quorn’s suite of meat-free products. However, China’s approval of Fushine Bio’s version is unusual, according to GFI APAC, in that it provides explicit national-level specifications and guardrails, such as formal composition limits and labelling mandates for sensitive groups (like young children or pregnant women).
“With this level of detail, companies in China and abroad gain a much clearer understanding of what is required when they apply for approval in the future,” the think tank explained in a social media post.
The move provides a boost to China’s food security strategy, with the government looking to diversify its protein supply and support domestic future food production to reduce reliance on imports.
“This approval makes tangible progress towards achieving those goals, and also creates confidence and momentum outside of China, influencing ingredient demand, investment priorities, and manufacturing decisions,” said GFI APAC.
Expanding on why the decision has implications far beyond China, the organisation outlined its potential to expand the global market runway, supporting scale-up, cost reduction, and supply chains that can serve multiple regions.
Fusarium venenatum has been identified as a key opportunity to advance China’s alternative protein sector, with a group of leading scientists recognising its ability to “meet the stringent protein quality requirements of high-end markets such as medical nutrition, sports nutrition, and infant formula” in a recent blue paper.
But the fungus’s rigid cell walls can hinder protein release, digestibility, and functional and nutritional utilisation, the authors wrote, highlighting the need for CRISPR-based gene editing and multi-stage extraction processes combining high-pressure homogenisation with pH shift solubilisation.
“This systematic breakthrough in efficient cell wall disruption, separation, and extraction technologies will significantly enhance the product quality and industrial competitiveness of Fusarium venetum protein,” they said.
The United Nations is facing one of the gravest financial crises in its history. According to the UN Secretariat, by late 2025, only 145 of its 193 member states had paid their assessed contributions in full. That leaves 48 countries behind on their obligations, with total arrears amounting to $1.87 billion. The consequences are severe: the UN has announced that its 2026 budget will be cut by $577 million, a reduction of 15 per cent, and nearly 19 per cent of staff positions will be eliminated. According to Al Jazeera on December 2, 2025.
It happens in a world where all UN members in 2025 spent close to US$ 3000 000 000 000 on arms that create more problems than they solve! This is the immoral global proportion between nonviolence and violence. If maintained, it is extremely hard to see how humanity shall survive.
This ought to create larger headlines in media across the globe than anything having to do with, say, Ukraine or what Trump wrote last night. It doesn’t. It is yet another example of what I have called the world’s conflict and peace illiteracy: People to not know, or value, the world’s most important peace and development organisation that states in its Article 1 that peace shall be established by peaceful means and only when everything has been tried and found without effect can the UN go in and use military force where needed.
This situation is not the result of one or two small states failing to pay. It is driven by the largest economies and most powerful members, whose arrears dwarf those of smaller countries. The imbalance is stark: while member states collectively spend 100 times more on weapons than on the UN’s entire system, they fail to meet even the modest obligations required to keep the organisation functioning.
This table shows clearly that the UN’s financial crisis is not caused by the poorest members. It is the largest economies — the United States, Russia, China, and Mexico — that account for the overwhelming majority of arrears. Smaller states are formally listed as “in arrears” under Article 19 of the UN Charter, which means they risk losing their vote in the General Assembly.
China’s chronic late payment
The United States and Russia are the largest outright debtors, but who would expect them to live up to their obligations vis-a-vis the United Nations? That said, China’s role is distinctive and enigmatic. China is the second-largest contributor to the UN regular budget, assessed at about 15 per cent of the total, or roughly $480 million per year. Unlike Venezuela or Afghanistan, China does eventually pay its dues. The problem is that it pays them months late, often at the very end of the calendar year.
2021: Paid about 2 months late. 2022: Payment confirmed on 23 November 2022, covering regular budget and peacekeeping. 2023: Payment made, but not within the 30‑day due window; UN financial reports show “lesser collections” and the need for liquidity management because of late payments. 2024: Paid nearly 10 months late, final instalment on 27 December 2024. 2025: Pattern of late payment continues, contributing to the UN’s $1.87 billion arrears crisis; as of October 29, still unpaid.
This pattern is not trivial. Because China’s contribution is so large, its late payments create liquidity crises for the UN with, as is seen above, grave long-term consequences. The organisation cannot plan its budget, hire staff, or sustain operations when one of its largest funders withholds payment until the last possible moment.
The enigmatic part is that no other country emphasises the present and future importance of international law, the UN and its Charter as much and as frequently as China does. TFF and I have always emphasised and applauded that; it is a credible and fundamental building block in China’s peace-oriented foreign policies and its various, very welcome, Initiative Documents that sketch out the possible futures of the world, its security and governance. This does not harmonise well with the above-mentioned payment statistics.
Consequences for the UN
The consequences of these arrears and delays are spelt out in the UN’s own announcements and reported widely, including in Al Jazeera’s coverage on December 2, 2025:
Budget cuts: $577 million will be removed from the 2026 budget.
Staff reductions: Nearly 19 per cent of UN staff will be eliminated.
Program impact: Peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and climate programs will be scaled back.
Credibility: The UN’s ability to act as the backbone of multilateralism is undermined by the very states that claim to support it.
The irony is striking. China, Russia, and others frequently invoke the UN Charter in speeches, presenting it as the foundation of both multilateralism and the emerging multipolar world order. Yet their financial behaviour undermines the institution they claim to champion.
If we want a strong UN and an efficient multi-nodal/polar future for the common good of humanity, the perversion of funding the UN at $1 to every $100 for Militarism must change and change now. And UN members must pay all their dues and do so on time. And to get there, it is time to start a global future discussion, rather than continuing the boring geopolitical-military discourse that offers no solutions but stares at history, today’s events and interpretations of them.
A group of scientists have identified 10 bottlenecks hindering China’s alternative protein progress, calling for policy and investment support to overcome the barriers.
Long heralded as a leader in the green energy and mobility spaces, China is well-positioned to spearhead the alternative protein race aswell.
Still, China’s alternative protein economy faces major constraints, from limited foundational research and technical bottlenecks to fragmented funding and weak links between industry and academia, according to a new blue paper.
Penned by 48 leading scientists from the NeoProtein Professional Committee of the Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology (CIFST) and ProVeg China, the report provides a system-level analysis of 10 technical gaps and several emerging opportunities in the East Asian nation’s “NeoProtein” industry.
It offers a strategic roadmap for aligning national R&D priorities, bolstering collaboration, and translating scientific breakthroughs into real-world applications to “drive China’s transition from a ‘follower’ to a ‘leader’ in NeoProtein technology” over the next decade.
“The Blue Paper is a powerful call to action for advancing the industry,” said Nicole Wu, executive director and chief representative of ProVeg China. “It will help scientists concentrate on the most impactful research areas, guide policymakers and funders on strategic resource allocation, and enable industry stakeholders to identify where collaboration can make the greatest difference.”
What’s holding back China’s alternative protein sector?
Outlining how existing plant protein extraction technologies suffer from high energy consumption and pollution, as well as protein denaturation issues, the report suggests prioritising the development of low-denaturation, green, and efficient extraction pathways, which would improve the functionality and sustainability of these foods.
Single-source plant protein still struggles to achieve good gelation, water-holding, and oil-holding properties simultaneously, so the experts advise combining biotech with physical field treatment to optimise protein structure and functionality, design specialised equipment to construct 3D protein structures, and implement structural engineering of plant-based fats.
For cultivated meat, the development of immortalised myogenic cell lines is central to scaling up, as is the establishment of serum-free culture media. The latter can be achieved through the development of plant-based or recombinant alternatives to animal inputs, integrating multi-omics data with AI algorithms, and bioreactor design with dynamic nutrient regulation tech.
The report places a major emphasis on fermentation-derived proteins. It calls for the construction of highly efficient cell factories for microbial biomass production, as well as the intelligent design of protein biomanufacturing reactors for high-density fermentation and yeast chassis cells for efficient expression of functional proteins.
Courtesy: Angel Yeast
Further, as low-carbon processing is integral to the fermentation industry’s success, for which the report suggests establishing AI-optimised control systems for solid-state fermentation, systematically optimising key elements like substrate formulation and aeration rates, and integrating non-thermal methods with enzymatic modification to improve proteins.
Further, the blue paper argues that China must optimise the processability and multi-scenario application of yeast protein, championing techniques like high-pressure microjet processing and ball milling to shrink protein particles and combining proteomics with bioinformatics methods to analyse multilevel structures and post-translational modifications.
Finally, it shines a light on Fusarium venenatum, a source of mycelial protein that is nutrient-rich but whose rigid cell walls can hinder protein release and digestibility. Companies should look to employ CRISPR-based gene editing to knock out genes linked to the synthesis of key cell wall components like chitin and glucan. In addition, they should develop a multi-stage extraction process combining high-pressure homogenisation with pH shift solubilisation.
How China can clear hurdles to lead the protein transition
“The research and industrial communities must work hand-in-hand to address these key challenges and drive the high-quality development of the industry,” said Jian Li, a professor at Beijing Technology and Business University.
The report calls for a “forward-looking strategic vision” to bolster top-level policy planning and direct science and technology investments towards high-impact areas to tackle the core bottlenecks of the NeoProtein sector.
The scientists proposed six actions to help achieve “a historic leap from ‘supplementation’ to ‘substitution’, and then to ‘expansion’ and ‘irreplaceability’ within the global food system”:
Develop a national alternative protein strategy: This roadmap should define the priorities and timeline for technological breakthroughs to guide researchers, industry, and other stakeholders toward shared objectives.
Expand collaboration, funding and R&D support: China should introduce a collaborative innovation platform for alternative proteins, ramp up fiscal support, set up a major science and tech project dedicated to these foods, and integrate the sector into the key national R&D programme.
Create an innovation-friendly regulatory sandbox: This system would help fast-track food safety approvals for new novel proteins and ingredients, and should be complemented with stronger certification standards to regulate market order and boost consumer confidence.
Encourage regional action on bottlenecks: Local governments should be incentivised to incorporate the 10 barriers in industrial planning and biotech initiatives through industrial guidance funds, specialised industrial parks, and preferential access to land, energy and data to foster globally influential clusters.
Mobilise industrial capital for future foods: It’s critical to invest boldly in R&D and pilot-scale platforms and support collaboration across sectors and disciplines. Long-term investments should accompany frontier technologies through the “valley of death” between lab discovery and commercialisation.
Spur researchers to overcome boundaries: China can boost the sustainable protein sector by actively promoting collaboration between industry and academia to encourage researchers to jointly tackle technical bottlenecks and ensure scientific advances drive industrial scale-up.
“Significant technical gaps still exist in plant-based and related fields,” said Xiaoquan Yang, a professor at South China University of Technology. “Future efforts should prioritise staple foods and alternatives to traditional animal proteins, so that novel proteins can genuinely become part of people’s everyday diets.”
Chinese chairman Xi Jinping met with Japanese prime minister Sanae Takaichi, at her request in Gyeongju, on 31 October, in the Republic of Korea.
The recently ensconced Japanese prime minister Sanae Takaichi began her early leadership with a major diplomatic gaffe when she said a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a survival-threatening situation” for Japan requiring the use of force.
Beijing is apoplectic. Fu Cong, Beijing’s ambassador to the UN, accused Takaichi of committing “a grave violation of international law.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said, “It is shocking that Japan’s current leaders have publicly sent the wrong signal of attempting military intervention in the Taiwan issue, said things they shouldn’t have said, and crossed a red line that should not have been touched.”
Takaichi seems oblivious of Article 9 of Japan’s constitution which renounces war and forbids Japan from using force to settle international disputes.
2. The Government of Japan recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China.
3. The Government of the People’s Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.
Not only is Takaichi oblivious of the country’s constitution and the joint communiqué, she is also seemingly oblivious of Japanese history.
A modernized and expansionist Japan went to war and defeated the Qing dynasty. One requirement of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, 1895, was that China cede Taiwan to Japan.
Japan’s further expansionism and militarism led to its defeat after WWII. Thus, Japan would have to relinquish ill-gotten territories. The Cairo Declaration of 1943 states:
[A]ll the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.
The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
The major historical documents clearly point to Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.
Despite China having asked for clarification and a retraction of Takaichi’s erroneous remarks, no such clarification or retraction has been forthcoming.
Why would Takaichi even make such ignorant remarks? What did she hope to gain? Assuredly not an economic rupture of the economically challenged Japan from China.
China’s travel sanctions following diplomatic tensions with Japan have triggered mass flight cancellations, severe tourism losses and a projected ¥2.2tn annual economic impact.
Japan has expressed remorse for its WWII atrocities, but no official government apology has ever been issued. Meanwhile, Japanese politicians, including Takaichi (although she skipped such a visit during the 2025 autumn festival) have continued to visit the Yasukuni Shrine, said to house the kami of Japanese dead including class-A war criminals eliciting anger among countries violated by Japan during WWII.
Among the heinous crimes are the recruitment of ianfu (comfort women; i.e., sex slaves for Japanese military); the Rape of Nanking, the gore of Japanese militarism archived in the the Memorial Hall of the Victims in Nanjing, China; and the gruesome experimentation on humans exhibited at the Unit 731 Museum in Harbin, China.
Evidence of Japanese atrocities during the Rape of Nanking in a trailer for 2025 movie Dead to Rights
Japan has much to apologize and atone for. Yet Takaichi’s remarks indicate an apology and atonement is not soon forthcoming from Japan. This reflects poorly on the loser of WWII, a nation still occupied by the US military, a nation considered by many a vassal state — also echoed by US media.
Hanging onto American apron strings is unlikely to resurrect the Japanese economy, whereas entering into a mutually respectful relationship with the nearby soaring economy of China should bode well for a future prosperous Japan.
However, the nascence of a sovereign Japan starts with a sincere apology to all those nations and peoples Japan violated during WWII.
On 13 November, at the Global South Academic Forum in Shanghai, China, we released our latest study, The 80th Anniversary of the Victory in the World Anti-Fascist War – Understanding Who Saved Humanity: A Restorationist History. An edited version of my keynote speech ‘Two Lies and an Enormous Truth’, delivered to introduce the study, is reproduced here.
In early August 1942, the Soviets set up loudspeakers across Leningrad. The city had been under siege for over 300 days. People were starving. The conductor, Karl Eliasberg, kept the Leningrad Radio Orchestra going by holding rehearsals and personally taking his musicians to feeding stations.
Responding to Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s claims that under the “San Francisco Peace Treaty,” Japan “is not in a position to determine or recognize the legal status of Taiwan,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said on Thursday that Takaichi’s remarks deliberately ignore internationally binding documents while relying solely on the illegal and invalid “San Francisco Peace Treaty,” once again showing she remains unrepentant and disregards UN authority. Guo warned that the international community should also remain highly vigilant.
According to the Yomiuri Shimbun, during a parliamentary debate on Wednesday, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi claimed that under the “San Francisco Peace Treaty,” Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan, and Japan is not in a position to determine or recognize the legal status of Taiwan.
When asked to comment on Takaichi’s such remarks, Guo stressed at Thursday’s press briefing that Taiwan island’s return to China is an important part of the victory in World War II and the post-war international order. A series of internationally binding documents, including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and Japan’s Instrument of Surrender, all confirmed China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.
Guo noted that the question of Taiwan’s status was thoroughly resolved in 1945 with the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. On October 1, 1949, the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was proclaimed, becoming the sole legitimate government representing the whole of China.
“This is a change of government in which China, as a subject under international law, did not change and China’s sovereignty and inherent territorial boundaries stayed unchanged. Thus, the government of the People’s Republic of China naturally and fully enjoys and exercises China’s sovereignty, including sovereignty over the Taiwan region.” Guo said.
Guo noted that the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement clearly stipulates that, “the Government of Japan recognizes the Government of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China;” “the PRC government reaffirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of its territory; and the Government of Japan fully understands and respects this position of the Chinese Government and adheres to the stance specified in Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.”
“The so-called ‘San Francisco Peace Treaty’ was a document issued to collude with Japan, excluding important WWII belligerents such as China and the Soviet Union,” Guo said.
Guo stressed that this treaty violates the provision prohibiting separate peace with enemy states as stipulated in the Declaration by United Nations signed by 26 countries including China, the US, the UK, and the Soviet Union in 1942, as well as the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and basic norms of international law. Any disposition under this treaty involving China’s territorial and sovereign rights as a non-signatory state, including the determination of Taiwan’s sovereignty, is illegal and invalid.
“Takaichi deliberately ignored the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which possess full international legal effect and are explicitly emphasized in bilateral documents, while solely highlighting the illegal and invalid ‘San Francisco Peace Treaty’,” Guo said.
“This once again demonstrates that she remains unrepentant to this day, continues to undermine the political foundation of China-Japan relations established with the spirit of the four political documents between the two countries, disregards UN authority, openly challenges the post-war international order and basic norms of international law, and even attempts to hype up the so-called ‘theory of undetermined Taiwan status,’” the spokesperson stressed. “This is adding insult to injury. China firmly opposes this, and the international community should also remain highly vigilant.”
China once again urges Japan to earnestly reflect on its mistakes, retract its erroneous remarks, honor its commitments to China with concrete actions, and fulfill the minimum obligations of a UN member state with practical deeds, Guo said.
If you think Trump’s threat to invade Venezuela is about stopping the influx of drugs into the United States, you need to take a closer look at Project 2025. That document advocates American hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. But Trump does not read documents or strategy papers. He wants to bully the hemisphere and control its vast natural resources. His “Gulf of America” apparently includes the vast oil reserves of Venezuela. The socialist nation has the world’s largest proven reserves. Still, with its politics chaotic and its military weak, and its close relationships with China, Russia, and Iran, it is an obvious launching point for Trump’s Napoleonic march through the Americas. Besides, handing over Venezuela’s oil fields to American Big Oil is the least he can do for the oil and gas executives who ponied up about $450 million – at least according to public records – to get their shill back into the White House.
His crowning gift to Big Oil may be the lucrative long-term investment opportunities they’ll have after his naval armada, which includes the world’s largest aircraft carrier, seizes Venezuela’s abundant fields. But there’s more. Trump got Congress to slash the industry’s taxes by another $18 billion, even though it already enjoyed billions in tax breaks. Additionally, he’s rolled back dozens and dozens of environmental regulations, opened public lands and waters for drilling, dismissed climate change as a hoax, and put fossil fuel executives in charge of public agencies.
It’s not that Big Oil needs big new reserves. The world is awash in oil, and the US is the world’s leading producer. In fact, when both Biden and Trump put Alaskan oil fields up for bid, there were no serious takers. Yet Trump’s functionally irrational “Drill Baby Drill” energy policies call for even more production. Although oil corporations historically control prices through policies of planned scarcity, U.S. producers opened their spigots to consolidate a monopoly by glutting the market. This strategy not only drives out small independent producers. It even puts OPEC over a barrel. Yes, in the short term, this strategy has marginally cut into Big Oil’s profits, but the current small decline is an investment in long-term market control.
Trump justifies military action and regime change in Venezuela by claiming that President Maduro heads the Cartel de Los Soles, which, he says, is a terrorist drug cartel. The U.S. Justice Department has even offered a $50-million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest. Once the U.S. declares it a terrorist organization, Trump will have an excuse to invade Venezuela. No: he can’t legally use military force without congressional authorization. The facts, however, fail to back Trump’s accusations. As Charlie Savage explains in a recent New York Times piece, this so-called cartel does not exist. The phrase is a decades-old figure of speech mocking the Venezuelan military, who take drug money. More importantly, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Venezuela is not a cocaine producing country, and most Colombian cocaine comes through the Pacific coast. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration corroborates this by noting that 84% of seized cocaine in the United States comes from Colombia. This is not to suggest that drug trafficking doesn’t exist in Venezuela. It does, but the government does not appear to participate in it as Trump claims. In fact, one observer in a CNN interview maintained that Maduro has seized hundreds of aircraft and almost a hundred vessels in his attempt to stop the drug trade. As for the deadly fentanyl epidemic that he’s always talking about, the major suppliers are Mexico and China. Why isn’t Trump sending his armada to those places?
The charge that drug trafficking is a military-like threat to the United States is how Trump justifies regime change through military force. Ignoring Congress and defying the Constitution, Trump’s Department of War has already killed as many as 83 people in the Caribbean without showing a stick of evidence of criminal activity. Just as important, narco-trafficking is a legal matter, not a military one. His Caribbean murders and saber-rattling against Venezuela are shot through with illegality. A Congress with any teeth would impeach Trump for a third time. But then, presidents since Harry Truman have made a habit of using military power as if it were their exclusive property. And Congress pretends not to see. Just since the 1950s, U.S. presidents from Truman and Eisenhower through Obama and Trump have all used covert as well as overt military power with utter indifference to the Constitution, Congress, or public opinion. American presidents don’t take well to small nations that get in their way. Think Lumumba, the Bay of Pigs, Allende, and Saddam Hussein. Add oil to the mix, and you get the Eisenhower-directed CIA coup of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. That brilliant stroke of coercive diplomacy eventually led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the ouster of the US’s puppet Shah, a hostage crisis, an oil embargo, and Iran’s ongoing efforts to get the big bomb. Recall, too, the Suez Canal crisis of 1956 that almost triggered a war with the Soviet Union; and of course, the Gulf oil wars of 1991 and 2003 to 2011. As Robert Engler observed many years ago in his seminal work, The Politics of Oil, the oil industry is a powerful private government that transcends national boundaries in its quest to control the world’s petroleum resources. To illustrate, he recounts the story of Standard Oil’s partnership with the German I.G. Farben company at the beginning of World War II, a partnership based on the premise that countries come and go, but Standard Oil is forever. For the time being, Trump’s dream of being crowned King of the World and Big Oil’s pursuit of world domination happily align.
Why did the United Nations Security Council vote to give authority over Gaza to a genocidal demolition squad called the Board of Peace, headed by Donald Trump?
This question has several dimensions. The resolution itself was drafted by the US, and more specifically the Trump administration, in close consultation with the Netanyahu government in Israel. This explains why it is perfectly consistent with a continuing genocide and progressive elimination of the existing population of Gaza, totally Palestinian, but now estimated to be considerably less than two million, compared to 2.2-2.3 million two years ago. Up to half a million, almost entirely civilian and mostly women and children, have died, due to direct murder by Israeli forces as well as vast numbers of equally but differently murdered victims of starvation, malnutrition, disease, exposure and lack of medical resources, a result of the Israeli policy of denying the means of survival. A smaller minority have escaped despite their reluctance to leave and the unwillingness of most countries to accept them. The intention behind the plan is to replace the Palestinians with Zionist settlers and lucrative resorts, as well as to exploit the large oil and gas deposits off the coast for Israeli and western investors rather than for the benefit of the Palestinian population.
This explains the resolution, but not the votes that passed it, including Algeria and Pakistan, and the abstentions of Russia and China. Russia had in fact drafted an alternative resolution, but did not submit it, due to passage of the US version. Why did Algeria and Pakistan vote in favor? This can probably be attributed to intense inducements from the US, and the fact that governments generally put their own interests first. But then why did Russia and China not veto the US proposal and submit their own? Alon Mizrahi provides a very coherent explanation, amounting to having no Arab partners to support them – not even the UN representative of Palestine, which, as we know, serves at the pleasure of Israel. The loss of Syria is keenly felt at such times.
Is the United Nations a useful organization if it cannot uphold international law – or worse, if it passes resolutions that are in direct contradiction to international law? The fact is that the UN was designed to recognize and reflect the international power structure, not to alter it. This is why veto power exists in the Security Council. It is, in effect, a recognition that the most powerful countries have veto power over anything the UN might decide, whether the UN recognizes it or not. After WWII, the countries that signed the UN charter – especially the most powerful – also decided what constituted international law and agreed to abide by it. Although adherence has been inconsistent and violated many times, there has been general agreement on what constitutes this body of law.
Until now. We seem to have transitioned into the era of “rules-based order.” What is that? What are the rules? Where is the order? It is an empty phrase meaning no more than the arbitrary and sometimes contrary decision making of an absolute monarch. The UN was formed by a treaty whereby all the signers agreed to give up some small measure of sovereignty in order to establish a minimal degree of security and welfare for all concerned, even if some benefitted more than others.
In the era of the sole remaining superpower, such cooperation for mutual benefit appears to be withering away. But then, so does the superpower, as well as its Zionist appendage. It seems that we will have to be patient and steadfast, much like Palestinians, and to resist the abuses of those who rule us, also like the Palestinians.
China reiterated its demand that Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi retract her statement threatening military intervention in the event that China tries to forcefully integrate Taiwan into the mainland. It warned of strong counter measures otherwise.
The “Japanese prime minister’s erroneous remarks on Taiwan have fundamentally eroded the political foundation of China-Japan relations and triggered strong outrage and condemnation from the Chinese people,” said official spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mao Ning, in response to a question on Wednesday, November 19.
AI isn’t going to save us. Tech innovation isn’t going to save us. Your favorite politician isn’t going to save us. The Epstein files aren’t going to save us. China isn’t going to save us. The aliens aren’t going to save us.
No one is coming to save us. There is no deus ex machina resolution to the plotline of the human story.
We’re going to have to save ourselves.
In ancient Greek theater, they used to resolve plays by having gods come in at the end to punish the villains and reward the heroes. The actors playing the gods would either be lowered onto the stage by a crane or raised by machine from a trap door below, hence the term deus ex machina. Today it’s used to refer to any lazy plot resolution where the protagonists are rescued out of the blue by an external force rather than by the fruit of their own struggles and character development; if the gods just come in to save them at the end, then nothing they did up until that point mattered, leaving the audience dissatisfied and staring at the writer instead of at the story.
When you look at the existential crises facing humanity today, it’s tempting to find hope in the belief that external forces will rescue us without our having to struggle or change ourselves. You see such salvation stories everywhere:
Elon Musk is going to automate everything so we don’t have to work and then help humanity become an interplanetary species.
Artificial superintelligence is right around the corner, and it will explode our scientific understanding of the universe and give birth to transformational new technologies.
The release of the Epstein files will expose all the corruption that’s been poisoning our society and lead to the arrest and disempowerment of all the evil bad guys.
Electing progressive Democrats or populist Republicans can put heroes into office who will transform the American political system for us.
The rise of China is going to reshape the world order and help bring about the end of capitalism.
UFO disclosure is happening any minute now, and it’s going to bring in alien technologies that will save humanity from destruction.
And it never happens. The Greek god never makes his entrance. The actors are left standing there in a long, awkward silence while the set collapses around them.
It’s never gonna happen, folks. Apollo missed his entrance, and Zeus is a no-show.
Nobody’s going to save us but us. We’re going to have to change. We’re going to have to act. We’ll keep hurtling in the direction of tyrannical dystopia, environmental catastrophe, and nuclear armageddon until we do.
We’re going to have to help each other snap out of the hypnotic trance of propaganda and awaken to the truth of what’s really going on in our world, and show each other that real change is both necessary and possible.
We’re going to have to wake up enough that we can use the power of our numbers to force our rulers to stop stealing from us, oppressing us, killing our biosphere, and murdering people.
We’re going to have to awaken from the trance of ego and become a truly conscious species, so that we can build a healthy world without falling back into our self-destructive patterning when the revolution is over.
Everyone wants change, but no one wants to change. That’s why the deus ex machina plot resolution is preferable in our minds.
It’s just a fantasy, though. Change is coming from nowhere but ourselves. Maintaining hope in the fantasy is the first obstacle preventing us from waking up to reality.
Every species eventually reaches a point where it must either adapt to changing conditions or go extinct. We are at that juncture today. We’ll either pass that test or we won’t, and if we do, it will be because of our own efforts, sacrifices, and self-transformation.
UNSC Resolution 2803 is unequivocally rejected. It is a direct contravention of international law itself, imposed by the United States with the full knowledge and collaboration of Arab and Muslim states.
These regimes brutally turned their backs on the Palestinians throughout the genocide, with some actively helping Israel cope with the economic fallout of its multi-frontal wars.
The resolution is a pathetic attempt to achieve through political decree what the US and Israel decisively failed to achieve through brute force and war.
It is doomed to fail, but not before it further exposes the bizarre, corrupted nature of international law under US political hegemony. The very country that has bankrolled and sustained the genocide of the Palestinians is the same country now taking ownership of Gaza’s fate.
It is a sad testimony of current affairs that China and Russia maintained a far stronger, more principled position in support of Palestine than the so-called Arab and Muslim “brothers.”
The time for expecting salvation from Arab and Muslim states is over; enough is enough.
Even more tragic is Russia’s explanation for its abstention as a defence of the Palestinian Authority, while the PA itself welcomed the vote. The word treason is far too kind for this despicable, self-serving leadership.
Recipe for disaster
If implemented and enforced against the will of the Palestinians in Gaza, this resolution is a recipe for disaster: expect mass protests in Gaza, which will inevitably be suppressed by US-led lackeys, working hand-in-glove with Israel, all in the cynical name of enforcing “international law”.
UNSC Resolution 2803 is unequivocally rejected. It is a direct contravention of international law itself, imposed by the United States with the full knowledge and collaboration of Arab and Muslim states. These regimes brutally turned their backs on the Palestinians throughout the…
Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the history of Palestine knows that Res 2803 has hurled us decades back, resurrecting the dark days of the British Mandate over Palestine.
Another historical lesson is due: those who believe they are writing the final, conclusive chapter of Palestine will be shocked and surprised, for they have merely infuriated history.
The story is far from over. The lasting shame is that Arab states are now fully and openly involved in the suppression of the Palestinians.
Dr Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London). He has a PhD in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter (2015) and was a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. This commentary is republished from his Facebook page.
The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2803 this week, after permanent members Russia and China chose to abstain instead of using their veto power. In addition to giving a framework for Gaza that would put Israel and the U.S. in control, the language of the motion is extremely vague, and it gives no guarantee that there will be an end to the genocide.
Craig Mokhiber, an international human rights lawyer and former senior United Nations human rights official, noted that: “the ceasefire is a lie. The idea that there is a peace process is a lie. What we have here in this resolution is a betrayal of historic proportions.”
He also said that while Russia and China may be going off of the Palestinian Authority’s support for the resolution, we have to remember that the PA operates “under occupation,” and “under the thumb of of the Americans.” And when it comes to the language that was passed: “this resolution doesn’t even demand the unfettered flow of aid. All it does is use some rhetorical language that underscores the importance of humanitarian aid.”
“The Throne of Peace is Now Empty and the UN Cancelled” • AI-generated image by Jan Oberg
The UN Security Council adopted a U.S.-drafted resolution on November 17, 2025, endorsing Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan. It authorised an International Stabilisation Force (ISF), backed a transitional governing body called the “Board of Peace”, and declared that conditions may now exist for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and eventual statehood. The vote passed 13–0, with Russia and China abstaining. This is UN SC Resolution 2803.
This goes against everything the UN stands for. Of course, China and Russia wisely abstained. They want no involvement and co-responsibility with this fake peace plan and are smart enough to see that it will never lead to true peace.
I ask myself – did the Trump Regime give the UN its death knell yesterday? It remains to be seen, but the consequences will be devastating and, tragically, associated with the name of its otherwise decent S-G, who has been completely outmanoeuvred.
On October 14, the China Academy and its editor, Mimi, of “China Roughly” conducted the interview below with me, which begins with my harsh criticism of this nonsensical, absurd, and unacceptable way of making peace.”Peace.” No wonder the video title: “Trump’s Gaza Ceasefire Plan Was Hilarious from the Start – Best US Joke Ever.”
I call it a joke, and I will add that, if this has anything to do with peace, there is no need for political satire anymore. This is a satire on peace, intellectualism, international law and political ethics.
Quick and simple reasons for that:
A party to a conflict can not be a mediator or peacemaker; it has to be a neutral third party. The US has been on the side of Israel all the time and is the leading enabler of its genocide.
A war criminal and habitual international law-violator cannot be a mediator or lead a peace process; Trump and his suggested “peace” board member, Tony Blair, both have that status, albeit being non-convicted.
The conflicts that lie under and cause the unspeakable violence in Gaza, characterised by words such as apartheid, historical injustices, asymmetry, nuclearism, occupation and Zionism, as well as Hamas militancy, are not analysed or addressed. The underlying conflict, not the surface violence, is the key to solving a conflict. This “peace” plan is pure symptom treatment.
The larger conflicts in the Middle East region that this conflict is part of are not addressed.
The whole project smacks of contemporary colonialism – we Westerners put ourselves up as those who shall run Gaza, and we have decided that it shall be demilitarised while we say nothing about Israeli militarism, occupation and nuclearism.
There is no understanding of this particular type of a-symmetric conflict which requires different approaches from symmetric conflicts.
All involved parties have not been addressed with three simple but fundamental questions: What do you think this conflict is about? What do you fear most and what future would you prefer or accept to live with – from which a mediator begins to look at possible arrangements and various possible futures.
There is no idea about consultations leading to a negotiation table. It is all done from outside by an incompetent, impossible “mediator” who has snatched the conflict from the weaker party.
Professional peace-making would build economic and other relations into a plan in such a way that the parties to a conflict would see it as more advantageous to cooperate than to fight each other in the future. There is no mention of anything like that, and of course, there will be more violence and no peace.
Professional peace-making would have utilised the world’s most experienced peace-making machinery, namely the United Nations. Instead of experienced, principled, trained and neutral UN peacekeepers and other UN elements drawn from around the world, this plan will deploy personnel from countries with a special political and/or economic interest that have no training in peacekeeping – perhaps, God forbid, even NATO countries.
A professional peace-making would have focused on post-violence processes and institutions such as forgiveness and reconciliation, a truth commission, security sector reform, de-militarising all sides, and discussing how schoolbooks, culture and cooperative projects could help the parties to live with what has happened and, slowly but surely, become partners in a process leading eventually to peace, stability and cooperation among all parties.
One could go on and on.
The fact that the UN Security Council has passed this cynical, miserable humbug “peace” resolution and virtually all parties and media call this a peace plan speaks volumes of the world’s peace illiteracy, of its peace and overwhelming endorsement of militarism.
That the UN Secretary-General goes along with this sidelining of his organisation and the defilement of everything the UN stands for only adds to the tragedy.
*****
And why is truepeace, as predictably as tragically, now dead?
Because people of low intelligence and/or being uneducated in conflict understanding prefer violence to non-violence.
Because we have no peace education, no peace academies, no university-level peace research and public education. Because media, politics and research have cancelled, tabooed and disappeared peace, by and large, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of Yugoslavia – that is, the ravaging of the US-led unipolar world that is now coming to its end, also with this resolution.
Because not a single government leader has an adviser who knows the slightest about alternatives to militarist “solutions” – knows about mediation, peace-making and reconciliation – as a science and an art.
Because kakistocrats and the MIMAC – the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – see all problems as something to use a hammer on because they only have a hammer in the toolbox.
Because peace requires creativity, knowledge and empathy – which are no longer characteristic of, or needed in, foreign policy- and security policy-making.
I am sure that with this Las VeGaza “peace” plan, Trump will be a high-ranking candidate for the 2026 NATO-aligned Nobel Peace Prize – that is, if it doesn’t finally decide to give it posthumously to Adolf Hitler…
PS The countries of the Security Council that made this fatal decision are: The US, Russia, China, France, the UK (all permanent members) + Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Somalia – in other words, mostly countries that will follow orders from Washington. As mentioned, China and Russia abstained.
While Indonesians worry about President Prabowo Subianto’s undemocratic moves, the failures of his flagship “breakfast” policy, and a faltering economy, Australia enters into another “treaty” of little import. Duncan Graham reports.
COMMENTARY:By Duncan Graham
Under-reported in the Australian and New Zealand media, Indonesia has been gripped by protests this year, some of them violent.
The protests have been over grievances ranging from cuts to the national budget and a proposed new law expanding the role of the military in political affairs, President Prabowo Subianto’s disastrous free school meals programme, and politicians receiving a $3000 housing allowance.
More recently, further anger against the President has been fuelled by his moves to make corrupt former dictator Soeharto (also Prabowo’s former father-in-law) a “national hero“.
Ignoring both his present travails, as well as his history of historical human rights abuses (that saw him exiled from Indonesia for years), Prabowo has been walking the 27,500-tonne HMAS Canberra, the fleet flagship of the Royal Australian Navy, along with PM Anthony Albanese.
The location was multipurpose: It showed off Australia’s naval hardware and reinforced the signing of a thin “upgraded security treaty” between unequals. Australia’s land mass is four times larger, but there are 11 Indonesians to every one Aussie.
Ignoring the past Although Canberra’s flight deck was designed for helicopters, the crew found a desk for the leaders to lean on as they scribbled their names. The location also served to keep away disrespectful Australian journalists asking about Prabowo’s past, an issue their Jakarta colleagues rarely raise for fear of being banned.
Contrast this one-day dash with the relaxed three-day 2018 visit by Jokowi and his wife Iriana when Malcolm Turnbull was PM. The two men strolled through the Botanical Gardens and seemed to enjoy the ambience. The President was mobbed by Indonesian admirers.
This month, Prabowo and Albanese smiled for the few allowed cameras, but there was no feeling that this was “fair dinkum”. Indonesia said the trip was “also a form of reciprocation for Prime Minister Albanese’s trip to Jakarta last May,” another one-day come n’go chore.
Analysing the treaty needs some mental athleticism and linguistic skills because the Republic likes to call itself part of a “non-aligned movement”, meaning it doesn’t couple itself to any other world power.
The policy was developed in the 1940s after the new nation had freed itself from the colonial Netherlands and rejected US and Russian suitors.
It’s now a cliché — “sailing between two reefs” and “a friend of all and enemy of none”. Two years ago, former Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi explained:
“Indonesia refuses to see the Indo-Pacific fall victim to geopolitical confrontation. …This is where Indonesia’s independent and active foreign policy becomes relevant. For almost eight decades, these principles have been a compass for Indonesia in interacting with other nations.
“…(it’s) independent and active foreign policy is not a neutral policy; it is one that does not align with the superpowers nor does it bind the country to any military pact.”
Pact or treaty?
Is a “pact” a “treaty”? For most of us, the terms are synonyms; to the word-twisting pollies, they’re whatever the user wants them to mean.
We do not know the new “security treaty” details although the ABC speculated it meant there will be “leader and ministerial consultations on matters of common security, to develop cooperation, and to consult each other in the case of threats and consider individual or joint measures” and “share information on matters that would be important for Australia’s security, and vice-versa.”
Much of the “analysis” came from Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s media statement, so no revelations here.
What does it really mean? Not much from a close read of Albanese’s interpretation: ”If either or both countries’ security is threatened,
to consult and consider what measures may be taken either individually or jointly to deal with those threats.”
Careful readers will spot the elastic “consult and consider”. If this were on a highway sign warning of hazards ahead, few would ease up on the pedal.
Whence commeth the threat? In the minds of the rigid right, that would be China — the nation that both Indonesia and Australia rely on for trade.
Indonesia’s militaristic president Prabowo Subianto is seizing books which undermine his political agenda. Duncan Graham #indonesiahttps://t.co/akvGdOqC9d
Keating and Soeharto
The last “security treaty” to be signed was between PM Paul Keating and Soeharto in 1995. Penny Wong said the new document is “modelled closely” on the old deal.
The Keating document went into the shredder when paramilitary militia and Indonesian troops ravaged East Timor in 1999, and Australia took the side of the wee state and its independence fighters.
Would Australia do the same for the guerrillas in West Papua if we knew what was happening in the mountains and jungles next door? We do not because the province is closed to journos, and it seems both governments are at ease with the secrecy. The main protests come from NGOs, particularly those in New Zealand.
Foreign Minister Wong added that “the Treaty will reflect the close friendship, partnership and deep trust between Australia and Indonesia”.
Sorry, Senator, that’s fiction. Another awkward fact: Indonesians and Australians distrust each other, according to polls run by the Lowy Institute. “Over the course of 19 years . . . attitudes towards Indonesia have been — at best — lukewarm.
And at worst, they betray a lurking suspicion.
These feelings will remain until we get serious about telling our stories and listening to theirs, with both parties consistently striving to understand and respect the other. “Security treaties” involving weapons, destruction and killings are not the best foundations for friendship between neighbours.
Future documents should be signed in Sydney’s The Domain.
Duncan Graham has a Walkley Award, two Human Rights Commission awards and other prizes for his radio, TV and print journalism in Australia. He now lives in Indonesia. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission.
Ah, those were the days. The UN had been blocked by a worldwide popular movement from approving of a war on Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair had dragged the UK along after secretly demanding that George W. Bush first attack Afghanistan, because Blair believed he would be better able to sell a war on Iraq once there was a war on Afghanistan. And once the destruction of Iraq was well underway, the UN crept out of some New York sewer pipe to support the occupation, er, excuse me, the peaceful transition to paradise.
Blair once had a meeting with Bush in which Bush schemed up plans to get a war in Iraq started, such as painting an airplane with “UN” on it, flying it low, and hoping to get it shot at. Then Bush and Blair wandered out to a press conference at which they swore they were doing everything possible to avoid a war. To my knowledge, neither the UN nor any “journalist” in the room that day has, since the exposure of the pre-press-conference conversation, publicly expressed the slightest concern.
Fun fact: no war has ever been launched by people doing everything possible to avoid it.
Bonus fun fact: no modern war has ever been launched by people not claiming they were doing everything possible to avoid it.
The United Nations has now voted — the “Security” Council that is (with Russia and China abstaining, as if they have some other planet to live on) — for an Orwellian “Peace Board” concocted by Donald Trump, to be run by Tony Blair, to oversee a military occupation of what’s left of Gaza.
If there were ever a moment for the nations of the world to save themselves, to step forward and override the Security Council through the General Assembly with a “Uniting for Peace” measure (such as this) this is it!
Sadly, some opponents of genocide raised in a culture unable to imagine solving certain problems without a military have convinced millions of people that any “Uniting for Peace” action must involve a military force. The Security Council has now provided the military force under Viceroy Blair. The General Assembly would now have to not only take bold action it has refused to take for years, but also reverse the action taken by the Security Council in the name of “peace,” and bar the use of a military labeled “peacekeepers” in favor of nonmilitary solutions beyond the imagination of millions of people. This is what one might call a big ask.
The alternative is the normalization of not just genocide but also colonialism. By this precedent, which country will elder statesman Benjamin Netanyahu oversee the Peaceplundering of in some future decade?
If that course is unacceptable, and the United Nations is thoroughly useless, and giving up is not an option, what should we do?
The fact that not everyone immediately knows the obvious answer to that question is the fundamental educational dilemma of our time.
We should of course multiply our nonviolent activism 1,000 fold. We should send daily flotillas. We should block the doors to all government buildings and the path of all weapons shipments. We should general-strike every country with a genocide-supporting government. Why should Italians have all the fun? We should not allow a moment’s tranquility to any war profiteer or to any elected official not actively working to
Arrest Israeli or any other officials facing arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court.
Prosecute Israeli criminals under universal jurisdiction.
Establish a complete embargo on weapons or weapons parts to or from Israel and to or from any nation not upholding such an arms embargo on Israel.
End diplomatic relations with Israel.
End financial transactions, trade, and travel to and from Israel.
Train and send unarmed civilian defense teams, food, medicine, doctors, and aid workers to Palestine.
Develop a major public educational campaign about the genocide in Gaza and the propaganda that has facilitated it.
Halt membership or support for weapons-dealing institutions that do not uphold an arms embargo on Israel: the Abraham Accords, NATO, etc.
Prevent any support or participation in the War Board Occupation of Gaza.
How can we find the resources to do all that and also take on the devastating and omnicidally risky wars in Ukraine, Sudan, and elsewhere — with more coming in Venezuela, etc.?
The answer to that is much easier and simpler, and yet even more elusive for even more people. The answer is to stop distinguishing good from bad mass slaughters, to drop the idea of a theoretical good one, and to work for the immediate reduction and abolition of all militarism. Here’s the to-do list:
1. Make governments reduce military spending to zero.
China asked the Group of Seven (G7) countries to abandon their Cold War mentality and ideological bias on Thursday, November 13, after they accused China of causing instability in the East Asian region.
The G7 should “take a clear grasp of the global trend, abandon the Cold War mentality and ideological bias and stop manipulating issues related to China,” said Lin Jian, spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while answering a question related to the allegations made by the G7.
On Wednesday, a joint statement issued after the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Niagara in Canada expressed support for “Taiwan’s meaningful participation in appropriate international organizations” and accused China of causing political and economic instabilities.
Yet when one tech boss raised the alarm to the British government, he was told that nothing could be done.
The 2010s was a surge of Chinese investment in the UK. The £45bn Chinese spending spree included the purchase of a firm that developed technology with potential uses for drones and missiles. An investigation by BBC’s Panorama will reveal how the last Tory administration (2010-2024) did not intervene, instead standing by the sidelines.
A former British intelligence chief has warned that the UK was too permissive in allowing investments that carry security risks, without addressing the question of how to trade with China:
This is the trillion-dollar question […] My personal view is that we have been far too free in allowing access to strategically important industries in science and technology.
Canyon and Imagination deal
The concerns centre on Imagination Technologies, a Hertfordshire-based tech-firm.
Having lost a major contract in 2019, the equity firm Canyon Bridge brought out the company.
Canyon Bridge has one investor: Yitai Capital, owned by the Chinese state-linked body, China Reform.
Imagination’s engineers made semi-conductors used for a range of civilian tech like smart phones. As the BBC reported:
A potential buyer would be buying into this expertise. What is more, the algorithms behind its technology, although developed for other products, could be put to military use in missiles and drones.
Imagination’s CEO states that at the time he was told that the takeover was purely profit-driven. Later, the Chinese investors told him they were appointing new directors and would focus on leveraging its expertise and technology.
Black warned the British government, but officials said there was little they could do.
Concerned about the potential transfer of military-grade technology, Mr. Black resigned. Following his departure, he claims, the UK government began to take notice, and China Reform abandoned its efforts to appoint new C-suite directors.
Although Mr Black withdrew his resignation he was dismissed by the firm. He and sought legal recourse for unfair dismissal through an employment tribunal which ruled in his favour.
The firm involved and the Chinese embassy deny any wrongdoing. The Foreign Office said it had not published its full audit, citing security reasons and non-disclosure protocols.
On 14 November 2025, Scilla Alecci of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Inc. (ICIJ) wrote about a parliamentary report which identified China and other authoritarian regimes as harassing and attacking dissidents abroad, echoing findings from ICIJ’s China Targets.
European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium.
The European Parliament has adopted a resolution urging member states to confront efforts by authoritarian regimes to coerce, control or silence political opponents and dissidents living in Europe. “Human rights defenders are a key pillar of democracy and the rule of law, and they are insufficiently protected,” a statement from the parliament said.
The resolution, adopted with a majority of 512 votes (to 76 against and 52 abstentions), called for targeted sanctions against perpetrators, market surveillance of spyware and better coordination among European authorities to counter what lawmakers labeled “transnational repression.”
The resolution is not legally binding but signals that European lawmakers want to take a clear position on the issue and draw attention to it, Elodie Laborie, a spokesperson for the Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights, told the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in an email.
It confirms findings by ICIJ’s China Targets investigation, which revealed how Beijing continues to use surveillance, hacking and threats against Chinese and Hong Kong dissidents, Uyghur and Tibetan advocates and their families to quash any criticism of the regime abroad.
workers as a whole have endured a lot of losses in the class war. Globally-mobile companies have deserted communities with unionized workforces, successive administrations raised up oligarchs by slashing taxes on the rich, a major epidemic put the country on edge, and landlords are using technology to collude on raising rents more rapidly. But all this conventional class war is now…
Michael West (@MichaelWestBiz) 
