As many expected, former US President Donald Trump is not going away quietly following his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. He reportedly wants to set up his own MAGA (Make America Great Again) party to challenge disloyal Republicans who helped impeach him in the House or else are considering voting to convict him in the upcoming Senate trial.

Other news reports suggest that the party could be called the Patriot Party.

Trump Has Massive Electoral Appeal

The prospect of setting up a new political party has many advantages. Last year, Trump won more than 70 million votes, the second highest total in American history. Nationally, he obtained more than a 47 percent share of the vote and despite his defeat, he won the decisive state of Florida.

He has an incredible grip over large swathes of the US electorate, many of whom are devoted to him. Trump managed to win over voters that the Republicans have struggled to win in the past and he remains the GOP’s greatest asset even after his defeat. Who else in the current Republican establishment can inspire such a following?

Of course, if the Senate succeeds in impeaching him, then he would not be allowed to stand for election ever again. But should he survive impeachment, Trump will focus on regaining the White House in 2024.

Third Parties Have a Patchy History in the US

Third parties have always underperformed in US presidential elections. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt established the Progressive Bull Moose Party and despite his resounding success, it has been argued that by splitting the center-right vote, the former US president actually made it easier for Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win the presidency that year.

Eighty years later, Ross Perot stood as an independent candidate in the 1992 US election and caused Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush to lose the presidency to Bill Clinton.

No matter how well a MAGA party performs in 2024, American elections are a two-horse race and it would be more advantageous for Trump to stand for the Republicans again. But the former president would need to make some changes to appeal to the highly-educated GOP voters who deserted him during the 2018 mid-term elections and again in 2020. An analysis discovered that many of these people found his presidency too off-putting and often offensive, though they gave him a chance in 2016.

To succeed, Trump would need to expand his support beyond his base.

Trump Should Campaign on a Return to Prosperity

Compared to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden was seen as hard to demonize, and that is why the Democratic establishment were keen to make him their candidate. He appealed to white working-class voters in the Rust Belt and he did not carry the same baggage as Clinton, despite reports about Hunter Biden’s dealings emerging before the election.

In 2024, Trump will have two distinct advantages: his handling of the coronavirus won’t haunt him as badly, since the pandemic should have been dealt with by then. American elections are often fought on the premise of how better the country is compared to four years ago, and if the economy has not improved by then, Trump can play on his strong pre-COVID-19 economic record. The coronavirus devastated the former president’s economic record, but there are already signs that Biden has made the economic situation worse by implementing a fracking ban that has cost jobs in the oil and gas industry in New Mexico. 

The Democrats fought the 2020 election by campaigning for a return to “normalcy” and civility, but Trump should focus his energy on uniting the Republicans behind a message of a return to prosperity.

Establishing a third party is a waste of time and energy and it is doubtful that the likes of Senator Liz Cheney, who many commentators believe is launching her own 2024 bid, can appeal to Trump voters. Division will only play into the Democrats’ hands. To add further insult to injury, Trump has dismissed the idea himself and has announced that he is concentrating on helping the Republicans win back control of Congress in 2022.

L'articolo Will Creating a MAGA Party Work for Trump? proviene da InsideOver.

The Turkish, Russian and Iranian governments begged the Syrian Constitutional Committee on Thursday to seek compromise and consensus among the sides of the country’s decade-long civil war.

Following consultations on the margins of the fifth meeting of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, the three nations produced a joint statement underlining their support for an independent, united and sovereign Syria.

According to AA, the statement specified that the body had been created by the Astana guarantor nations to support efforts for a political and peaceful solution to the conflict. It also stated that the committee should work independently from ‘foreign interference’ and aim to develop a consensus between its members to gather the broadest support among Syrians.

Peace in Syria Won’t be Easy

Furthermore, the statement concluded that the next international meeting on Syria in the Astana format will take place in Sochi on February 16-17, 2021.

Since January 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have been working on the Astana peace process in a bid to end a war that has so far cost the lives of 10 million people, according to UN estimates.

However, peace will not be easy. 2021 is different to previous years that Constitutional Committee meetings took place because the US has a new president who will adopt his own approach toward Syria: Joe Biden. As Kerry Boyd Anderson wrote for Arab News, the Biden administration will do everything in its power to prevent the resurgence of ISIS, but it will also view the refugee crisis, regional stability, human rights, and limiting Russian and Iranian interference as vital issues in its Syria policy.

Biden’s Unclear Approach to Syria

Though Biden has said very little about his approach toward Syria, it is likely that he will exert diplomatic pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This strategy includes rebuilding coalitions to end the war and to maintain the US’s military presence to prevent ISIS from re-emerging. In 2019, the then former vice president criticized the Trump administration for withdrawing US troops from Syria.

The US President will also be far less accommodating toward Putin and Erdoğan, and the sanctions under the Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act will likely remain in place. But Biden will feel the pressure to deal with Syria far better than Barack Obama did. Yet the Biden administration faces another obstacle: how can it be tough on Iran’s continued presence in Syria when it is trying to persuade them to support the Iran Deal that Obama signed?

Also, it is unlikely that the Turkish, Iranian and Russian leaders will support a peace process that is headed by Biden. As I wrote in May last year, Putin, Rouhani and Erdoğan want to weaken Washington’s grip over the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Forces, and they may well break up Syria between them one day if all attempts at peace through the Constitutional Committee fail.

The Nightmarish Alternative to a Diplomatic Solution

Phylliss Bennis once wrote for TNI that the US should engage with Putin to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Syrian conflict, but considering Biden has made it clear that he views the Russian leader as ‘a thug’, and that he may well sideline the Turkish President, there are no signs of a peaceful dialog emerging so far.

For now, it is unclear whether there is an end in sight to Syria’s ten-year war; that will become more apparent when the next Astana meeting takes place in February. The only way that peace can be restored to Syria is if the four superpowers and Assad can work together to carve out a diplomatic solution, but given that Biden has aims that contradict those of his Iranian, Russian, Turkish and Syrian counterparts, an end to the war only feels like an aspiration, not a realistic goal.

L'articolo Is There an End in Sight to the Syrian Conflict? proviene da InsideOver.

The race to succeed German Chancellor Angela Merkel is coming to an end as Armin Laschet has been elected leader of the Christian Democrats (CDU), Merkel’s party.

During the party’s virtual conference, the premier of North-Rhine Westphalia state triumphed over his two rivals.

For now, it is more than likely that he will succeed Merkel when she retires as Germany’s Chancellor in September, after serving 16 years in office.

Laschet has some big boots to fill. Having served as Germany’s Chancellor since 2005, Merkel has helped shape the German political landscape and Germany’s role in the world. The scale of the challenges that she has faced in office have been substantial. These include the 2008 recession, the 2012 eurozone crisis, the 2015 Greek bailout crisis, Brexit, and the coronavirus.

Big Challenges Ahead for Laschet

Merkel has served four terms in office and the key to her success has been positioning herself as a centrist politician. It is rather telling that she influenced the outcome of the CDU’s virtual conference last weekend, as she provided the North-Rhine Westphalia premier with her tacit backing, which proves that she wants her centrist discourse to continue.

As the new leader of the CDU, Laschet has many problems that he must address immediately. Firstly, it would be in his best interest to ensure that there is stability within the cabinet. Leading conservative and former investment banker Friedrich Merz was the favorite to succeed Merkel, and despite his defeat, he has requested the position of economics minister. Yet a spokesman for the German Chancellor confirmed that there were no plans to replace the current Economic Minister, Peter Altmaier, or to reshuffle the cabinet. But Merz still retains considerable influence over his large band of supporters within the CDU, and it will be impossible not to include him in a new lineup without upsetting party unity.

Maintaining Coalition Unity Could Cause Laschet’s Political Death

Beyond the CDU’s internal unity lies the challenge of maintaining unity within Germany’s coalition government. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, who resigned as Merkel’s successor last year, also promised to preserve Germany’s grand coalition with the Social Democrats, but despite her best intentions, she failed to do so. Perhaps Laschet could deliver a breath of fresh air to the coalition government.

But just because Laschet has succeeded the German Chancellor as party leader does not mean that his path to succeed Merkel in that role is guaranteed. Upcoming regional elections in the states of Rheinland-Pfalz and Baden-Württemberg will become Laschet’s first test of popularity since he became CDU leader, and they will determine whether he is capable of then becoming the next German chancellor. If he fails, it is almost guaranteed that Jens Spahn, the Health Minister, and Markus Söder, the state leader of Bavaria and head of the Christian Social Union, the CDU’s sister party, will attempt to throw him out of his current position.

Who Will Be Germany’s Next Chancellor?

Although the coronavirus has damaged Alternative for Deutschland’s (AfD) support in the opinion polls to around 9 percent in the latest survey, they still remain the largest opposition party with 89 seats. The AfD’s fortunes could go two ways and anything could change in Germany’s political landscape this year. They could attract support from voters disillusioned with the economic damage COVID-19 has caused so far. Equally, the party is divided as its co-leader, Jörg Meuthen, attacked the right-wing of the party during the AfD’s convention last November due to its use of the term “corona dictatorship.” Party divisions could make the AfD unattractive in many voters’ eyes and the CDU/CSU could win over a lot of their voters.

September is fast approaching and the way Laschet deals with the obstacles laid before him will determine whether he could become the next German Chancellor by then. But for now, nothing is certain.

L'articolo What are the Challenges Awaiting Merkel’s Successor Armin Laschet? proviene da InsideOver.

North Korea’s Workers’ Party hosted a rare meeting that resulted in the nation’s leader, Kim Jong-un, being awarded a symbolically important position solidifying his authoritarian grip on the nation. It’s been almost a decade since Kim succeeded his father, Kim Jong-il, becoming the third member of the Kim dynasty to rule the country.

But this past weekend, only days after his 37th birthday, Kim was anointed the ruling party’s General Secretary, a post once held by his father and his grandfather, Kim Il-sung.

Takeover Displays Kim’s Growing Confidence

Some analysts have concluded that this move was intended to strengthen his grip on power. Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, told the Guardian that Kim’s takeover “shows his confidence, that he has now officially joined the ranks of his father and grandfather.”

According to the Charter of the Workers’ Party of Korea, the General Secretary is the Supreme Leader of the Workers’ Party. The Party Congress nominates and elects the General Secretary. The Party Conference is also allowed to nominate and subsequently elect the General Secretary. What this means in practice is that the General Secretary is also a member of the Presidium of the Political Bureau, which is a committee consisting of the top leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea.

Kim will also act as head of the Executive Policy Bureau. This body manages the work of the Politburo of the Workers’ Party and its Presidium, headed by the Chairman and made up of party secretaries.

Kim’s Made it Clear He’s King of the Castle

Kim has expanded his influence over the management of the Workers’ Party and his latest actions indicate that he has centralized his power base. His recent changes also provide observers with a hint as to what his policy concerns are going to be over the next few years. First Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui, who was involved in negotiations with Washington, has not been elected to the Politburo. No diplomatic official has been appointed to one of the seven newly created secretary posts. This proves that Kim will focus on economic sanctions and the effects of COVID-19 instead of foreign policy. It is more than likely that he will concentrate on building up Pyongyang’s military forces too.

Despite the fact that Kim has not hurled any insults toward Joe Biden, the incoming US President, he still labeled the US as North Korea’s ‘biggest enemy’ during the first Congress of the Workers’ Party in five years. His challenge to Washington included the prospect of a nuclear-powered submarine, now supposedly in the testing stage. He also intends to build on existing nuclear technology with smaller nuclear warheads.

Kim Intends to Take Full Control of His Country’s Destiny

Although Kim will be focusing on domestic issues, he is still open to the prospect of denuclearization so long as Washington ends its “aggressive” policies toward Pyongyang. US President Donald Trump’s move to meet Kim was ballsy, but it failed to persuade Kim to end his nuclear program. Unless Biden can somehow end the current deadlock, there is no reason why the North Korean leader won’t continue to build up his country’s military arsenal.

What is also interesting is that the North Korean leader removed his sister, Kim Yo-jong, from the Politburo, yet she retained her membership of the Central Committee. Some may argue that this could be interpreted as a demotion, but Yo-jong exercised considerable influence during Kim’s summits with the Trump administration, so it is more than likely that she will oversee Pyongyang’s relations with South Korea.

The timing of Kim’s latest actions is no coincidence. They come just as Joe Biden is about to be sworn in as the next US President. What they also suggest is that Kim intends to take full control of North Korea’s destiny.

L'articolo North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un Gets Big Power Boost proviene da InsideOver.

A British judge recently ruled that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the US to face charges of espionage and of hacking government computers.

Judge: Assange is a High Suicide Risk

Delivering her ruling, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser said Assange was likely to be held in conditions of isolation in a so-called supermax prison in the US. She said that safety procedures described by US authorities would not stop him from potentially finding a way to take his own life, which she believes is a real possibility given his struggles with serious depression.

Lawyers for US authorities are to appeal against the ruling, which was delivered at the criminal court by Baraitser on Monday, Jan. 4.

Assange is currently incarcerated at HMP Belmarsh, a high-security prison facility that houses some of Britain’s most dangerous criminals. Assange is there because he was found guilty of skipping bail in 2012; he previously escaped to Ecuador’s embassy rather than hand himself in to British authorities for possible extradition to Sweden. Investigators in the Scandinavian nation wanted to question him over sexual assault allegations linked to two women.

Was it Right to Deny Extradition?

The US Department of Justice has indicted Assange on 18 counts, alleging 17 forms of espionage and one instance of computer misuse crimes linked to Wikileaks’ dissemination of caches of secret US military documents provided to him by former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

However, if Assange’s mental health is at risk, then it is only right that the Wikileaks founder is not extradited back to the US. This is similar to the case of self-confessed hacker Gary McKinnon, who was wanted for targeting US government computers. In 2012 the British government barred his extradition, saying that he was too ill to face trial abroad. The same principle applies in the Assange case.

There are Powerful Arguments in Favor of Granting Assange Freedom

Of course, there is a strong case as to why the Wikileaks founder should not be prosecuted for espionage other than for mental health reasons. Edward Fitzgerald QC, the activist’s lawyer, argued over a year ago that his offences were political, so were not sufficient to merit his extradition to America.

This argument is supported by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), which states that a potential extradition of Mr. Assange from the UK to the US would:

• be in contravention of Article 4 (1) of the Extradition Treaty between the US and the UK;
• constitute a violation of freedom of expression;
• set a dangerous precedent in the restriction of press freedom in the UK and the US;
• potentially subject him to an unfair trial in the US.

Assange Should Stay in the UK for Now

Despite this, certain figures within the US believe that Wikileaks should not be classed as a media organization. When Secretary of State Mike Pompeo served as the CIA’s director, he said during his first public speech as head of the spy agency that “Wikileaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service.”

Assange’s detractors claim he does not write stories or interview anyone and that the dissemination of unclassified documents should not count as journalism. Yet the weakness with this argument is that it is a slippery slope toward clamping down on national security journalism that holds the powerful to account. The Obama administration ultimately decided they could not prosecute the Wikileaks founder for revealing national security secrets for that reason.

Regardless of whether the government classes Wikileaks as a news organization is besides the point. Prosecuting Assange would result in the gradual erosion of press freedom. John Kiriakou, a former CIA analyst who blew the whistle on a U.S. government-sanctioned torture program in 2007, states that if you are able to prosecute someone who has a powerful case to be classed as a publisher, what is next?

Much to the US government’s disappointment, it appears unlikely that Assange will ever face trial in the near future. But until they can guarantee that his trial will be fair and that they can safeguard his mental health, he has every right to stay in the UK.

L'articolo Was the UK Right to Refuse to Extradite Assange to the US? proviene da InsideOver.

The transition period for the UK’s exit from the EU has ended after both sides miraculously drafted a trade agreement before the end of 2020. It did not take British and European politicians long to approve of the pact prior to January 1, and the anticipated disaster of a no-deal Brexit was avoided.

Brussels has proven yet again that it is notorious for approving of deals at the last minute.

What’s Next?

Now that Britain has left the EU, its member states no longer have to deal with a nation that was seen as an obstacle to its integrationist ambitions. The UK was once a valued member of the bloc thanks to its influence in the US and its significant contributions toward the EU budget, yet it was always the awkward partner when it came to further integration, particularly under Conservative governments. Brussels’ approval of a trade pact managed to prevent economic disruption. However, the EU’s greatest challenges lie ahead.

Further EU Integration is Likely on the Way for the Sake of Survival

In theory, integration should be a lot simpler, particularly when it comes to monetary union. Former British chancellor Gordon Brown vetoed the UK’s participation in the eurozone and his successors have followed suit. This always made economic integration harder, but now the EU no longer has that excuse.

Last year, the coronavirus exposed the eurozone’s weaknesses. In July, the European Council hosted its longest meeting that it has had since the Nice, France gathering in 2000, and agreed upon a €750 billion recovery package. The package consisted of grants and loans to counter the economic impact that the coronavirus has inflicted on the bloc since March 2020.

Yet the negotiations revealed how divided the EU is as Sweden, Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands and Finland opposed grant extensions, whilst Spain and Italy favoured this outcome. Should the coronavirus continue to devastate the EU’s economy, some longer-term solutions will be necessary to ensure that the bloc can survive.

Strong Eurozone? Not So Fast

Milton Friedman and Martin Feldstein warned in 1999 that the eurozone cannot succeed without a political union. Given how the 2008 recession and the coronavirus pandemic revealed how vulnerable the euro is, they were right to make this argument. Even though Britain has left the EU, a strong eurozone is in the UK’s best interest as Europe will remain London’s strongest trading partner for now. Despite this, a strong eurozone may be nothing more than wishful thinking.

Now that Brussels has awarded Britain a free trade deal, many remaining EU member states could realize that they may be able to achieve the same outcome should they leave the eurozone or the bloc itself. The economic impact of the coronavirus has frustrated the populations of EU nations who have suffered as a result of the pandemic.  The Daily Express reported on one survey which suggests that 50 percent of Italians support an “Italexit,” or Italy’s exit from the EU, whilst 27 percent of Italians prefer to remain within the bloc.

Eurozone membership makes it impossible for Italy to devalue its own currency which is part of the reason why Italy’s economy has stagnated since 2008. This makes the prospect of southern European countries leaving the eurozone a possibility, should Italians vote for a coalition government committed to this pledge in the future.

Political Union isn’t Easy

Political union will be impossible to achieve without the full support of all of the EU’s member states. Polish Prime Minister Andrzej Duda and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban blocked the approval of the EU budget in November 2020. Both Poland and Hungary seem to be pursuing their own paths contrary to the democratic principles the EU is meant to uphold.

This led to Tom Theuns of EU Observer suggesting that a new EU could be founded without the support of Budapest and Warsaw.  This is a radical idea, but one that could gain momentum in the future should Brussels get even more frustrated with Orban and Duda.

Brexit is an exciting opportunity for both the UK and the EU. Regardless, the latter may find its ambitions could be thwarted by obstacles that are still prevalent post-Brexit. What happens to Europe next is anyone’s guess.

L'articolo Brexit: U-Turn for the Whole EU proviene da InsideOver.

According to the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is working to make peace in Libya a reality in the near future.

Specifically, Conte extended an offer from the head of the country’s presidential council Fayez Al-Sarraj, to field marshal the head of the Libyan National Army (LNA), General Khalifa Haftar. The offer asks Haftar to nominate a new prime minister for the national government as part of a political solution.

Italian diplomatic sources were quoted as saying that allowing Haftar to nominate a new leader has “a thousand flaws” as he could nominate someone who may be very good at the job, or he may choose someone weak enough to allow militia leaders to manipulate him.

Al-Serraj previously announced his willingness to resign his position when there is a new head of the council, but due to the failure to reach a consensus on who his replacement should be, he was forced to withdraw his resignation and continue his role.

Enabling Haftar’s Control Over Libya’s Government Has Big Risks

La Repubblica is right to argue that enabling the LNA chief to decide who should become the next Libyan prime minister carries many risks. He may well choose a leader who he can easily manipulate, but as Aidan Lewis wrote for Reuters, he holds significant sway over the Libyan peace process regardless. 

Haftar may have suffered some significant setbacks this year such as his troops being driven out of western Libya, and his failure to take control of Tripoli, but over the last six years he has built up a massive security apparatus in eastern Libya.

The blockade that the LNA general imposed on Libya earlier this year led to the closure of the main eastern oil terminals. Haftar then allowed oil to flow again in September, which demonstrates that he still has relevance left.

Haftar Still Enjoys Significant Support from Russia

Furthermore, it has been reported that the LNA can still depend upon support from France, the UAE and Russia. Moscow has recently been accused of using a Syrian airline to send mercenaries to Haftar, alongside Paris and Abu Dhabi. This has led to accusations by Dr Guma el Gamaty, a special envoy to Libya’s UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) to Northwest Africa, that such a move adds strength to Haftar’s forces. With the support of three important nations, it is impossible to ignore the LNA.

Moscow is particularly anxious to not let the Turkish-backed GNA control the strategic city of Sirte, which remains under Haftar’s influence, as it could provide Russia with a gateway to dominate the ports of Sidra, Ras Lanuf, Marsa al-Brega and Zuwetina, where three gas conduits and 11 oil pipelines reach the Mediterranean coast. The Russian Government will continue to support Haftar so long as he can help the Russians advance their interests in Libya. This makes a permanent ceasefire even more complicated.

Peace is Better Than More War

Recent events have proven how difficult it is to end the Libyan conflict. Earlier this month, Libyan Defense Minister Salahaddin Namroush threatened to withdraw from a ceasefire agreement in his country because of Haftar’s actions. He called on the UN and peace-supporting nations to curb the LNA general following his attack on the southern town of Awbari, 964 kilometers south of Tripoli. Libya’s High Council of State decried it as a new violation of the ceasefire by the eastern warlord. In many ways, peace  nowdepends upon the LNA chief ending military action altogether.

Western influence has only made the Libyan war worse. For example, the 2018 Paris summit failed to consult the Libyan people or make significant progress on bringing together the war-torn nation.

But this time, Conte may be right to argue that Haftar should be provided with the opportunity to determine who becomes Libya’s next prime minister. He may select someone who is an utter disaster for the war-torn country, yet this could still be a better solution for the Libyan people than continuous fighting.

L'articolo Why Haftar’s Support is Crucial for the Libyan Peace Process proviene da InsideOver.

Christmas is an opportunity to reflect upon how fortunate many of us are to spend time with loved ones, particularly after a devastating year like 2020.

But for many Christians around the world the holiday season offers no respite from suffering and persecution.

Christians are Suffering around the World

Many Christian families in Aleppo have suffered since the Syrian civil war started in 2011. Furthermore, the coronavirus pandemic has made things worse for them in many ways, because those who have needed urgent hospital treatment have been left at a particular disadvantage due to the unsuitability of many hospital beds badly damaged by the conflict.

In the city, large numbers of Christians live in extreme poverty. Because of Syria’s circumstances, many have lost their jobs and their survival becomes increasingly difficult each day.

The Church of Aleppo, which has been on the front-line since the beginning of the war, has informed the Catholic foundation Aiuto alla chiesa che soffre (Aid to the Church in Need) that supports Christians wherever they are persecuted, oppressed or in need, that 6,190 Christian families with children and the elderly are in need of help. They are working hard to provide these families with a new emergency initiative that will help them with food and medicines.

Aiuto alla chiesa che soffre is also aiming to help the diocese of Maiduguri in Nigeria, which includes the city of Baga in the Nigerian state of Borno. The area was previously invaded by the violent Islamic extremist group Boko Haram. The invasion caused 8,000 women to become widows. The Catholic foundation aims to build a center designed to allow Christians who have been sexually abused by Boko Haram terrorists, as well as countless widows, to be adequately assisted by a team of experts.

China and Pakistan are ‘Countries of Particular Concern’ for Christians

Nigeria and Syria are not the only countries where Christians are suffering. The US again recently designated Pakistan and China as “countries of particular concern” for their “systemic and egregious violations of religious freedom.” The Trump Administration further noted that these nations’ treatment of Christians and other religious minorities “could lead to the imposition of certain sanctions against them.”

In particular, this is because China authorized the formation of the “Administrative Measures for Religious Groups” in February this year. The laws aim to strengthen the Chinese Government’s resolve against unregistered church gatherings, stipulating stiff fines for participants, and those who host such activities. According to Christianity Today, many Chinese Christians would agree that restrictions on religious freedom are increasing in Xi Jinping’s China.

Furthermore, Pakistan also has many anti-Ahmadiyya laws and enforces the culture of impunity for violence against religious minorities including Christians, leading to a culture of false accusations against Christians of blasphemy and religious-fueled violence.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also added Eritrea, Iran, Nigeria, Myanmar, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan to the list of nations that are currently violating the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.

Some Areas are Getting Better for Christians

Despite this, some Christians are experiencing positive changes across the world. In the Central African Republic, Bambari’s Kidjigira market remained a no man’s land separating the Muslim and Christian districts of Bambari. However, since 2017, international donors and humanitarian agencies have helped transform the town into a place where people of all faiths could come together.

Iraq has experienced an exodus of Christians in recent years, and Pope Francis’ visit in March 2021 is being viewed as an opportunity to support all Iraqis. Iraq’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement: “It also represents a message of peace to Iraq and to the region as a whole.” The Pope has long sought a trip to Iraq and told a meeting of Catholic aid agencies last year that he wanted to travel there in 2020.

As Christmas approaches around the corner, it is important to remember that the festive season celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, who founded the Christian religion. There will be no opportunity for many Christians around the world to celebrate this occasion in a safe and secure environment.

We can only hope that their fortunes change soon.

L'articolo Special Report: Violence Against Christians Around the World proviene da InsideOver.

Following months of devastation around the globe as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, we may finally learn more about COVID-19’s origins. The World Health Organization (WHO) has announced that a team of 10 international scientists will travel to the Chinese city of Wuhan in January to investigate how the virus emerged.

Until now, the Chinese Government has been reluctant to agree to an independent inquiry. It has taken the WHO many months of negotiations to be allowed access to the city.

The Investigation Doesn’t Intend to Blame China

Fabian Leendertz of Germany’s Robert Koch Institute told the BBC that the aim of the inquiry is to try to reduce the risk of a future pandemic, and not to apportion blame. Despite this, it is fair to say that many world leaders believe China is responsible for the COVID-19 outbreak and an insufficient immediate response to it, particularly US President Donald Trump.

The coronavirus pandemic has divided the political spectrum across the globe, with politicians, experts and voters divided over how long lockdown should continue to last for, and whether such a measure was necessary in the first place. Nonetheless, the findings of the WHO’s investigation will bring peace of mind to billions of citizens around the world who are angry and confused about the coronavirus’s origins, and the devastating impact it has had upon their lives.

From the beginning, many contrasting theories have emerged about how the virus started. It was originally traced by some scientists and media outlets to a so-called “wet market” in Wuhan, Hubei province, and it was suggested that this was where COVID-19 made the jump from animals to humans.

Questions About the True Origin of COVID-19 Might Finally be Answered

Research suggests that the coronaviruses capable of infecting humans may have been circulating in bats for decades. In April, suspicions and allegations emerged that COVID-19 might have leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan.

When the report’s findings are finally published, the impact that it will have on China’s reputation is likely to be devastating.

Recent reports in the Chinese media have suggested that COVID-19 could have originated outside of China, but analysts say that these claims have no foundation and that it is part of a campaign to prevent Beijing’s image from being further damaged abroad.

Prior to this investigation, the coronavirus caused many Western leaders to start taking the threat that China poses to global stability seriously, especially Donald Trump.

Even incoming US President Joe Biden has referred to Chinese President Xi Jinping as a “thug” in the past.

Trump’s stance toward Beijing has transformed American politics for good, and it will be impossible for future presidents to ignore America’s rivalry with China.

China is a Clear and Present Danger to the World

Rather like the US, Australia has engaged in its own cold war with Beijing this year, and the country’s government was rather vocal in calling on the WHO to launch an inquiry into COVID-19’s Chinese origins.

Earlier this month, I wrote that the EU wants to form a new alliance with the US to confront the challenges posed by China. Yet the EU’s dependence upon Chinese investments proves that Brussels’ tough stance toward the Chinese Government will be rather limited, particularly when they are on the verge of signing a fresh investment deal with Beijing.

As of March 2020, the number of countries that have joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative stands at 138, and 38 of those nations are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Once the COVID-19 pandemic is over, it is going to be hard for many countries to sever their ties with Beijing, considering how much of the globe depends upon Chinese investments.

It will be a relief for the global population once the coronavirus’s origins become public knowledge, but the greatest long-term challenge for many politicians is how to defeat China. Given how influential Beijing is, that is going to be easier said than done.

L'articolo What Impact Could the WHO’s Investigation into the Coronavirus Have? proviene da InsideOver.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has informed his annual news conference that Russia is developing new “hypersonic weapons” in response to a new arms race, which he claims was triggered by the US.

The Russian leader urged Washington to agree to a one-year extension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which maintains a nuclear balance between the two countries. The treaty expires in February.

Putin wanted more cooperation from Washington and added that he reckons US president-elect Joe Biden was more open to talking about negotiations on the issue, as opposed to current President Donald Trump.

Also known as New START, the current treaty replaced the Treaty of Moscow that was set to expire in December 2012. It calls for halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers.

START Negotiations Have Been Difficult

In October, the US and Russia came close to concluding negotiations over a short-term extension of New START. Putin put forward an offer to extend the treaty, but Trump’s national security advisor Robert O’Brien rejected the proposal, calling it insufficient.

In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued a statement clarifying Moscow’s offer by saying that the Russian President envisioned a one-year extension as well as a freezing of nuclear warheads by each side.

During a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels later on in October, the US ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchinson said that an agreement was close at hand.

However, Lavrov produced another statement clarifying that the Russian Government was – and still is – awaiting an official response from the Trump administration.

Another Nuclear Arms Race is the Last Thing the World Needs Right Now

This will be one of the most pressing issues that Biden will have to deal with when he comes to office in January. Without NEW Start, both Russia and the US would be free to deploy unlimited numbers of strategic warheads and the missiles, submarines and bombers to deliver them.

As Bloomberg argued, letting the treaty lapse could open the doors to a new arms race between Moscow and Washington. As a result, there would be less transparency about each side’s intentions and that would have a destabilizing effect on global stability. It might even encourage China to expand its own nuclear arsenal. New weapons and new means to spy on rivals’ stockpiles would drain money from the conventional weapons the US needs to maintain its deterrence.

New START’s demise would also end on-site inspections that the world’s two largest nuclear powers conduct of each other’s armed forces. That would remove a critical source of intelligence used to detect cheating and to give insight into each other’s arsenals.

Is Biden Strong Enough to Stop Putin from Gaining the Upper Hand?

Biden supports an extension but he has failed to specify for how long. Meanwhile, Putin favors an unconditional five-year extension. As Reuters reported, this is because the Russian leader has learned from the Cold War that Ronald Reagan succeeded in bankrupting the Soviet Union by forcing a nuclear arms race, which he wants to avoid.

The argument is that by cutting the treaty’s length, it would tie the negotiations to all aspects of military power. Also, if New START is extended to February 2026, that would put its expiration beyond the incoming US President’s four-year term, potentially reducing his leverage to secure a follow-on pact. Biden must do everything he can to prevent Putin from gaining the upper hand in nuclear talks, which is why slashing New START’s duration seems like the most sensible option.

At some stage, China will also need to be brought into an agreement as they possess a growing stockpile of nuclear warheads.

As Trump’s four-year term comes to an end, it appears unlikely he will renew START before his term in office expires. It is a shame he will leave the White House without making progress on this issue, but there is no doubt that Putin is keen to hear how Biden intends to conclude the New START negotiations.

L'articolo Should the US and Russia Extend the START Treaty? proviene da InsideOver.