Ankita M. Kumar”
post_date=”September 15, 2024 06:28″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-the-truth-about-the-rape-case-that-sent-west-bengal-into-a-tailspin/” pid=”152270″
post-content=”
In this edition of FO° Talks, FO° Assistant Editor Elizabeth Tate sits down with Indian-American journalist Ankita M. Kumar to discuss the harrowing case of Dr. Moumita Debnath, a 31-year-old doctor found murdered at R.G. Kar Medical College in Kolkata. The brutal crime has sparked protests and outrage, but even more disturbing is the attempt by college officials to cover it up. Ankita delves into the details of the case, the protests by doctors, and the political implications for West Bengal, including the role of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Together, they explore what this case reveals about the state’s leadership, safety for women, and the need for reform.

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
In this edition of FO° Talks, FO° Assistant Editor Elizabeth Tate sits down with Indian-American journalist Ankita M. Kumar to discuss the harrowing case of Dr. Moumita Debnath, a 31-year-old doctor found murdered at R.G. Kar Medical College in Kolkata. The brutal crime has sparked protests and…”
post_summery=”In a seminar room at R.G. Kar Medical College in Kolkata, India, the body of a young doctor was found. She had been raped and subsequently murdered. Following the brutal crime, state officials attempted to cover it up. This case highlights deeper issues of corruption and concerns about women’s safety under West Bengal’s leadership.”
post-date=”Sep 15, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: The Truth About the Rape Case That Sent West Bengal Into a Tailspin” slug-data=”fo-talks-the-truth-about-the-rape-case-that-sent-west-bengal-into-a-tailspin”>

Jaewoo Choo”
post_date=”September 13, 2024 05:25″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-live-can-south-korea-be-useful-to-the-quad/” pid=”152239″
post-content=”
In this episode of FO° Live, FO° Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Jaewoo Choo, a professor of Chinese foreign policy in the Department of Chinese Studies at Kyung Hee University, South Korea, and Haruko Satoh, a professor at the Osaka School of International Public Policy, Japan. The matter at hand is South Korea’s potential membership in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad.

The Quad is a grouping of four major Indo-Pacific democracies: the United States, India, Japan and Australia. It was relaunched in 2017 to counterbalance China’s growing influence by promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific through cooperation in security, infrastructure and trade.

Despite this ambition, the Quad faces significant limitations. Critics argue it remains a “talking shop,” where dialogue seldom leads to concrete action. Additionally, some members have limited bilateral experience working together, which hampers effective collaboration.

South Korea was notably absent when Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe first conceived the Quad in 2007. Abe’s vision was geographically focused; he pictured a rhombus with its corners in Japan (north), Australia (south), the US (east) and India (west). The idea was to cover ground and secure critical shipping lanes. This left South Korea, located in the middle, outside the equation.

Yet, South Korea has considerable strengths. South Korea and Japan, are the only two economic powers in the region that can plausibly compete with China in building infrastructure rapidly and at scale. South Korea is also a strong defense partner of the US, with a technologically advanced military boasting half a million active personnel — ten times the size of Australia’s. Moreover, South Korea is a leader in global industries like shipbuilding, memory chips and electric vehicle batteries, making it not just a regional player but a global one. Most importantly and obviously, it is a vibrant democracy. For all these reasons, it merits membership in the Quad.

The broader context is the growing security threat posed by China, which seeks to control sea lanes in the East and South China Seas and use its economic power to influence its neighbors. While it makes sense for South Korea to join the Quad, it is unlikely to make provocative moves against China, its largest trading partner and greatest military threat, without a security guarantee from the US. Ultimately, the Quad (or Quint) seems destined to evolve into a military alliance.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
In this episode of FO° Live, FO° Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Jaewoo Choo, a professor of Chinese foreign policy in the Department of Chinese Studies at Kyung Hee University, South Korea, and Haruko Satoh, a professor at the Osaka School of International Public Policy, Japan. The…”
post_summery=”The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, consists of the US, India, Japan and Australia. The four powers want to counter China but have had trouble finding a common direction. Including South Korea, a strong democracy, US ally and key high-tech manufacturer, could breathe new life into the group — but only if it is willing to accept that taking a hard line against China will involve forming a military alliance with security guarantees.”
post-date=”Sep 13, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Live: Can South Korea Be Useful to the Quad?” slug-data=”fo-live-can-south-korea-be-useful-to-the-quad”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”September 06, 2024 05:40″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-exclusive-new-twists-and-turns-in-astonishing-us-presidential-election/” pid=”152150″
post-content=”
If the near-assassination of former US President and Republican candidate Donald Trump did anything, it certainly made him a living martyr. The image of blood streaking his face as he stood, fist raised, against the American flag made his popularity skyrocket. It’s no surprise that Trump secured the candidacy nomination at the Republican National Convention soon after.

However, Trump took a hit in the polls when President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the new Democratic candidate. Harris’ replacement of Biden has fundamentally changed the dynamics of the election. A historical shift is happening before the country’s eyes.

Voter psychology is changing

The Marxist theory of base and superstructure can help define the shift. The base includes the modes of production that make up the structure of society. The superstructure refers to concepts not directly related to production — in other words, ideology and beliefs. Both the base and the superstructure continually bolster and maintain one another, and they are cyclically linked. 

Harris managed to raise $200 million within eight days of the announcement. She has campaigned on policies different from Biden’s platform. All of this is the base of the election season. The superstructure, on the other hand, manifests in the changing psychological aspects of the voter population based on demographics, geographics and candidate perception. 

With only 53% of the US population identifying as white — compared to the 89% at the country’s inception — the symbolism of Harris’ identity motivates different voter groups. She represents several minorities, as she is a black, South Asian-American female. It could be said that her popularity is reflective of democratization — leaders more representative of the voter population have a certain appeal.

Yet despite Harris’ success, Trump still remains popular among large demographics. Why? White, male and Christian populations have become increasingly aware of the shifting caste structure and their own loss of social power. Individuals within these demographics believe the identity of US society and government is at stake. Trump and his Republicans have taken advantage of this. They use racist attacks against Harris and her platform to appeal to the disenfranchised White voters. 

The Electoral College might be a hindrance for Harris

While Harris’ entrance into the campaign has already garnered immense support, that support comes from populations geographically centered in already-blue regions. Harris simply gained “Back the Blue” voters previously discouraged by Biden’s campaign. Swing states remain unclear in their support.

Even if Harris wins the popular vote, it doesn’t guarantee a win in the Electoral College. Presidential elections in the US aren’t decided by a national popular vote like they are in France. Rather, US elections are determined by a college of electors from each seat. Every state has as many votes as it has delegates (two senators plus however many representatives) in Congress. Because of this, some states have more votes than their population would suggest.

Wyoming is the most extreme case. It gets three electoral votes because it has two senators and one representative. Yet the state’s 581,000 residents — less than 0.2% of the US population — control all these votes. Thus, a vote in Wyoming is 36 times more influential than a vote in California, where 39 million people control just 54 electoral votes. This means a candidate can win a popular vote but lose the electoral vote, leading to the loss of the presidency.

In practice, most states are reliably red or blue. California will almost certainly elect Harris, and Texas will almost certainly elect Trump, canceling most of California’s influence out. Thus, only a few states where Democrats and Republicans are equally balanced are likely to influence the election. And these states may well have different priorities than the rest of the nation.

A number of these states — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — are in the “Rust Belt,” a former manufacturing zone hit hard by deindustrialization. Trump has been able to capitalize on the disaffection of these working-class voters in the past. It is thus little surprise that Harris has chosen Tim Walz, the Democratic governor of neighboring Minnesota who is popular among factory workers, to be her running mate.

Harris must reshape voter perception of the Democratic party

Narratives and assumptions attributed to a candidate can influence the electoral college as well as the popular vote. People’s perception of Harris has definitely improved the Democrats’ chances in swing states. This is especially true for policy-conscious voters who look at personal rights issues like women’s access to birth control and right to abortion. Harris has vocalized her support for policies that protect them, in line with the majority of Americans.

However, many voters fault Harris for the Biden administration’s poor handling of immigration. Biden had entrusted Harris with addressing the causes of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration, however, surged dramatically. In a televised interview, Harris spectacularly failed to explain herself to the audience, an embarrassment that caused her to retreat for some time from the public eye. As a presidential candidate, this reputation could hurt her chances in more conservative states, especially among laborers who are wary about being undercut by cheap labor from illegal immigrants willing to work below minimum wage.

Harris must change the narrative surrounding immigration, as well as the struggling US economy, if she wishes to secure the presidency. Simple demographics alone will not take any candidate into the White House. The future depends on both campaigns’ abilities to shape the public narrative.

[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
If the near-assassination of former US President and Republican candidate Donald Trump did anything, it certainly made him a living martyr. The image of blood streaking his face as he stood, fist raised, against the American flag made his popularity skyrocket. It’s no surprise that Trump secured…”
post_summery=”US President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the US presidential campaign and subsequent endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy has shifted election dynamics irreversibly. Changing voter demographics and policy support has indicated that the US is polling in Harris’ favor. However, the geography of the electoral college as well as disenfranchised white voters may prove to be barriers against a Democrat win.”
post-date=”Sep 06, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: New Twists and Turns in Astonishing US Presidential Election” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-new-twists-and-turns-in-astonishing-us-presidential-election”>

Haruko Satoh”
post_date=”September 05, 2024 07:54″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-now-is-the-time-to-invite-south-korea-in-and-turn-quad-into-quintet/” pid=”152127″
post-content=”
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,” is a diplomatic forum that includes India, Australia, the US and Japan. It’s an unusual grouping, since these four countries have little history of acting as a collective. However, some members have strong bilateral ties, especially the US with Japan and with Australia. India is somewhat of an outlier.

There is no clear agreement on the Quad’s purpose. Is it a group of friends, or a security alliance? If it serves any purpose, it’s because these democracies, neighboring China, feel the need to unite. While wary of China, they claim not to be forming an alliance to contain it.

If that is the logic, excluding South Korea seems illogical. South Korea, sharing a border with North Korea and with China nearby, is more vulnerable than any Quad member.

Why is South Korea not in the Quad?

It’s important to note that the Quad is originally a Japanese concept. Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe envisioned it as a platform for future economic cooperation. India, the US, and Australia were key trading partners for Japan, and protecting sea routes to them was essential. This required international cooperation.

From Japan’s perspective, this still makes sense. However, the broader purpose of the Quad has shifted. In 2017, the group “rebooted” and rebranded itself with the slogan “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” — opposing China’s attempts to claim the East and South China Seas as its territorial waters. But if that’s the goal, why exclude South Korea? Or, for that matter, countries like Vietnam and the Philippines, whose maritime sovereignty China threatens?

The AUKUS deal, which includes the US, UK, and Australia, further complicates things. It suggests the US and Australia are moving toward alliances based on cultural ties rather than democracy. Britain has little role in East Asia today, yet it was included while regional powers like France were not. However, Anglo unity doesn’t have to clash with democratic solidarity. The US and Australia could deepen ties with Asian democracies, and including South Korea in the Quad would be a vital step.

Why the Quad needs South Korea

South Korea is more than just one more adversary of China that could cooperate in military matters. Including South Korea is a matter of defining the Quad’s identity. If the grouping aims to be a significant regional actor, it needs to inspire a sense of purpose. Right now, it looks like a ragtag team with little justification beyond each actor’s personal interest. The Quad needs an identity. Democracy is the obvious defining characteristic of the grouping, but if that is the case, South Korea must be involved. If South Korea remain excluded, observers may wonder whether something other than democracy is the real criterion.

There some flies in the ointment, though. South Korea has strong security ties with the US but is economically dependent on China, its largest trading partner. Joining the Quad could strain this relationship, especially since China has a history of using economic pressure to influence political decisions. In 2017, China’s boycott over South Korea’s decision to host the US THAAD system heavily impacted South Korea’s economy.

Another issue is the historical animosity between South Korea and Japan, stemming from Japan’s 35-year occupation of Korea. Many Koreans still harbor resentment for Japan’s actions during World War II, though tensions have eased since Abe’s tenure.

South Korea is more physically threatened by China than any current Quad member. The threat of a Chinese or North Korean invasion overland is a real danger (and one that has already occured, during the Korean War). For Japan, an island nation, the possibility of a Chinese naval threat to the homeland remains somewhat more theoretical. So, South Korea may hesitate to take a strong stance on issues like maritime freedom. However, due to its ties with the US from the Korean War, South Korea is even more integrated into the US security network than Japan. Will it be willing to join an alliance likely seen by Beijing as anti-China?

For now, it’s unclear. But South Korea’s inclusion would make sense. Both South Korea and Japan have strong infrastructure development sectors and, together, could offer an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. What the Quad needs is a clear identity that other nations can buy into. Without this, it will inspire neither moral nor strategic trust.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,” is a diplomatic forum that includes India, Australia, the US and Japan. It’s an unusual grouping, since these four countries have little history of acting as a collective. However, some members have strong bilateral ties, especially the US with…”
post_summery=”The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (India, Australia, the US and Japan) is having an identity crisis. If the world is to take the Quad seriously, it needs to understand its purpose. Promoting democracy and freedom of navigation is a good start, but if that is the mission, it is no longer rational to exclude South Korea from the club.”
post-date=”Sep 05, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Now Is the Time to Invite South Korea in and Turn Quad Into Quintet” slug-data=”fo-talks-now-is-the-time-to-invite-south-korea-in-and-turn-quad-into-quintet”>

Gary Grappo”
post_date=”August 24, 2024 03:16″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-americas-new-fast-changing-role-in-the-middle-east-part-2/” pid=”151936″
post-content=”
[See also: FO° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East, Part 1]

In the early 2000s, the United States’ hegemonic position in the Middle East changed. The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the need to contain communist influence and decreased the urgency of refereeing regional disagreements or addressing the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

However, the Middle East came sharply into focus when the Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil, killing 2,977. The George W. Bush administration declared a “War on Terror,” training its guns not only on groups like al-Qaeda but also states like Baathist dictator Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Claiming that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction, the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and toppled his regime.

With the invasion, the generally successful half-century of US foreign policy in the Middle East that had begun with the 1953 Iranian coup d’état came to a close. The US found itself mired in a destabilized Iraq, unable to pull out as the newly installed democratic government could not combat Islamist insurgencies on its own.

Disengagement and reengagement

The Barack Obama administration attempt to reduce Middle East involvement and “pivot towards Asia.” The rise of the brutal and initially successful Sunni terrorist group ISIS, the 2011 Arab Spring and the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War prevented the US from disengaging. Obama did make progress by striking a deal with Iran, agreeing to lift financial sanctions in exchange for the cessation of the Islamic republic’s nuclear program. However, Obama’s successor Donald Trump later scrapped the deal.

Despite these setbacks, the US succeeded in protecting its interests while attempting to resolve regional wars and the enduring Arab–Israeli conflict. The Trump administration brokered the Abraham Accords, in which Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) normalized ties with Israel. Morocco soon followed suit. Saudi Arabia also entered negotiations with Israel, but the prospect of normalization stalled following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza. Since the war broke out, the US has seen decreased popularity among Arab populations as they blamed the hegemonic power for backing up what they saw as Zionist aggression in Palestine. However, a bilateral security agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia remains possible.

In recent years, the US reduced its dependency on imported fuels by exploiting its own fossil fuel reserves. The US is rich in oil and natural gas, but they are usually in a form that requires more effort to extract than in the Middle East. Fracking and other technological advancements have helped close this gap. However, Saudi Arabia continues to be the biggest figure in oil production.

The region continues to evolve. Gone is the binary US–Soviet dynamic, and gone, too, is unipolar US preponderance. More independent actors like China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UAE now shape the region. China, heavily reliant on Middle Eastern oil, is increasing its economic and political presence.Domestically, American attitudes toward the Middle East are also in flux. Younger Americans are growing more critical of Israel. Having grown up during the Iraq War, this generation is leery of US involvement in the region. For now, though, the US continues to prioritize regional stability, oil price stability and containment of Iranian influence in its Middle East policy.

[Tara Yarwais wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”

In the early 2000s, the United States’ hegemonic position in the Middle East changed. The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the need to contain communist influence and decreased the urgency of…”
post_summery=”The United States’ role in the Middle East took a turn in the early 2000s after the Bush administration’s War on Terror. The disastrous US invasion of Iraq changed the public perception of the US’ role. While the Obama administration attempted to pivot to Asia, the 2011 Arab Spring, the Syrian Civil War and the ISIS emergency required reentry. At the same time, the domestic fracking boom brought some self-sufficiency in terms of fossil fuels.”
post-date=”Aug 24, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East Part 2″ slug-data=”fo-talks-americas-new-fast-changing-role-in-the-middle-east-part-2″>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”August 18, 2024 05:59″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-exclusive-warm-middle-east-is-now-getting-boiling-hot/” pid=”151835″
post-content=”
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has now entered its tenth month, with over 39,000 casualties reported. Recent developments have further escalated tensions in the Middle East, notably Israel’s assassinations of two high-ranking leaders: Fouad Shukur, a senior Hezbollah military commander, in Beirut, and Ismail Haniyeh, the top Hamas political official, in Tehran. Just before these two events, a Hezbollah rocket slammed into a soccer field in the Golan Heights, killing 12 children.

These events have been alarming, and there is a legitimate fear that they could spark a wider war in the region. However, all parties have expressed a desire to avoid full-scale war. While tensions are high, a regional conflict involving Hezbollah, Israel and Iran — potentially drawing in the US and other nations — may be less imminent than it appears. These offensive actions might be part of a calculated strategy to signal boundaries and demonstrate power without crossing the line to broader conflict.

Perhaps the greater issue Israel faces is its growing internal tensions, particularly the widening rift between the far right and more moderate elements of the government. An arrest of 10 Israeli soldiers on July 29 for sexually assaulting Palestinian prisoners ignited heated protests. This has heightened concerns that Israel could be on the brink of internal conflict and destabilization.

Who did Israel assassinate, and why? 

Israel’s assassination of Fouad Shukur was reportedly in retaliation for a Hezbollah rocket attack that struck the occupied Golan Heights, tragically killing 12 children. Shukur was allegedly behind this attack. He had also been wanted in the US for decades due to his involvement in the 1983 bombing of a Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, which killed 241 American service members. 

Assasinating the Hezbollah commander thus appears to be a more or less rational move. However, the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh seems less logical from a strategic perspective.

Haniyeh was killed when an Israeli rocket hit his official residence in Tehran while he was attending the swearing-in ceremony of Iran’s new president. Iran has long used Hezbollah as a proxy in its broader strategy against Israel. Haniyeh was the the head of Hamas’s political wing and widely known for his more moderate and cosmopolitan approach, compared to his counterparts. He was a central figure in the ongoing efforts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza. The killing of Haniyeh likely silenced a moderating voice within Hamas and could push his successor toward a harder, less compromising stance against Israel. 

Domestic political pressures, rather than military necessity, may have driven the assassination. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have felt the need to strike Iran in order to assuage the far right and maintain domestic stability. 

There is a concern that events could escalate into a broader conflict in the Middle East, all parties have continuously expressed a desire to avoid full-scale war. Each side appears to be carefully navigating the situation, using targeted strikes and other “tit for tat” tactics to communicate their limits while avoiding escalation. For instance, when Iran launched 300 missiles and drones at Israel, they made it clear through backchannels that they were not seeking war. Israel responded in a similar manner, signaling its intent to avoid a broader conflict. 

Israel’s growing internal tensions

While external threats are significant, the growing rift between the far right and more moderate elements of the Israeli government poses a greater risk to the country’s stability. 

On July 29, Israel arrested 10 soldiers for the sexual assault and abuse of Palestinian prisoners. Following their arrest, far-right protesters stormed two military bases in Southern and Central Israel. Protests have continued into this month, with right-wing demonstrators effectively rallying for the right to rape and mistreat Palestinian detainees as they see fit. 

In this situation, Netanyahu has positioned himself as a moderate figure, and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called for peace, emphasizing that no one is above the law. However, the far right remains defiant, rejecting these calls. The growing schism within Israel is becoming increasingly serious, raising concerns that the country could be on the verge of internal conflict — potentially even civil war.

The big issue for Israel may be the internal struggle between its more secular, democratic heritage and the rise of ultra-Orthodox factions. This internal struggle is harder to see than the immediate external conflicts but potentially even more destabilizing in the long run.

[Ting Cui wrote the first draft of this piece] 

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has now entered its tenth month, with over 39,000 casualties reported. Recent developments have further escalated tensions in the Middle East, notably Israel’s assassinations of two high-ranking leaders: Fouad Shukur, a senior Hezbollah military…”
post_summery=”The Israel–Hamas conflict has escalated with the recent assassinations of a senior Hezbollah commander and a Hamas leader, raising fears of a broader regional war. As Israel contends with growing external pressures from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, it also faces significant internal tensions from its far right that could destabilize the country.”
post-date=”Aug 18, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Warm Middle East Is Now Getting Boiling Hot” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-warm-middle-east-is-now-getting-boiling-hot”>

Jean-Daniel Ruch”
post_date=”August 17, 2024 02:08″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-can-the-us-handle-an-international-system-under-enormous-strain/” pid=”151824″
post-content=”
There is a structural problem within the US government: It cannot define a long-term foreign strategy. As the presidential position cycles every four or eight years, it is difficult for presidents to establish a policy that lasts after their term. The implications of this situation are evident in the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Despite US President Joe Biden’s desire to halt the violence, his ability to act is constrained by the lack of assertive policy when it comes to Israel. There is also significant doubt whether Biden even has enough power to influence Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

So is the Republican candidate, former US President Trump, the only option to stop the violence? Trump has prominently campaigned on his strong support for Israel. Whether this is for tactical or genuine purposes is unclear. In his first term, his government took the most pro-Israel approach of any administration. He took the initiative to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem. Furthermore, he provided financial incentives to Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and other nations to normalize their relations with Israel. 

However, future developments in regard to Trump’s Israel policy are difficult to predict. Rumors even suggest that Trump and Netanyahu have a strained relationship. If this is true, Trump’s unpredictability might lead him to exert tough pressure on the Israeli government in order to reshape himself into a peacemaker. Conversely, Biden has shown a reluctance to invest significant political capital in applying serious pressure on Israel. 

Israel also suffers from the West’s inaction

Lack of a firm US policy may not bode well for Israelis and Palestinians. Following the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, there was a global consensus that a two-state solution was the only political perspective imaginable. For various reasons, a one-state solution appears highly undesirable — and a solution involving ethnic cleansing, of course, would be even less desirable. Thus, the least problematic solution is a two-state solution. 

A few problems arise here, primarily the question of what must be done with Israeli settlers in Palestine. In a recent study, settlers were asked under what conditions they would be willing to leave their homes, which are considered illegal under international law. Approximately 80% of settlers indicated that they would have no issue relocating to the other side. They only stay for economic reasons. Among the approximately 20% who did not agree, only a small proportion expressed a willingness to resort to unlawful means, such as violence, to defend their communities.

If the Israeli leaders understood this issue, they would do the opposite of what they appear to be doing: arming the settlers. Thus, the true intentions of the Israeli government in Gaza and in the West Bank are being questioned. Is the objective to liberate the hostages and destroy Hamas? Or is there a more sinister intent? These are important questions to answer, especially as Israel faces serious, existential consequences as a result of the war. 

Recently, the Population and Immigration Authority released statistics indicating that approximately 550,000 individuals have left Israel since October 7. The majority of these individuals appear to be high-tech entrepreneurs who may have sought safer environments such as California or Berlin for their operations. Because of this, there has been a dramatic economic impact on Israel with a 20–25% loss in GDP. It would be in Israel’s interest to end the bloodshed promptly and to facilitate the restart of the economy.

Uncertainty has become the world order

It is in the interest of the West and Israel to find a solution. However, the West is currently suffering from a lack of the ability to apply and enforce serious measures against violations of international law. In discussions about a rules-based international order and the primacy of international law, the US appears inconsistent. The US criticizes other actors for breaching international laws and imposes stringent sanctions. Why not Israel?

This inconsistency provides a rationale for authoritarian regimes and non-democratic governments to justify their own human rights violations. Iranians point out that the Israeli bombing of their embassy in Damascus has gone without condemnation from Western countries. They argue that if Iran had bombed an Israeli embassy anywhere in the world, the international reaction would have been severe. 

It would be in the interest of the West to join forces and develop a comprehensible strategy for the future. Yet, following the latest NATO Summit, it appears that the US aims to create conflict with the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). This stance seems contrary to the interests of Germany and other European nations that have dynamic economic and trade relationships with China. It is contrary to US interests as well. Such a move indicates the need for a reassessment of the global role of the US.

However, international measures are also falling short of solutions. The EU, like the US, is facing uncertainty after elections. France’s elections in particular have shown that people are not ready to accept every policy that filters down from the top. It seems like government committees, rather than the people, are making all the serious decisions. There is a clash between the personalities running governments and the common people. Uncertainty has become reality.

In this period of uncertainty, it is highly unlikely that significant decisions will be made. The recent BRICS summit — which will be followed by another in October — indicates that, at least until the US election, other regions of the world are reorganizing at a pace faster than anticipated. The US must tackle its foreign policy issues if it wishes to stay at the top of the world order.

[Tanisha Desai wrote the first draft of this piece.]

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
There is a structural problem within the US government: It cannot define a long-term foreign strategy. As the presidential position cycles every four or eight years, it is difficult for presidents to establish a policy that lasts after their term. The implications of this situation are evident in…”
post_summery=”As the world grows increasingly unstable, leadership from the US is noticeably lacking. The so-called global hegemon seems unable to exert pressure even on states with which it has close relations, like Israel. The upcoming US presidential election adds a layer of uncertainty; the fact that one of the two possible winners is Donald Trump adds another layer. When the US is unpredictable, global volatility deepens as other states seek to craft their own solutions. The US must take a new approach on its foreign policy if it wishes to remain the primary world power and ensure a stable international system.”
post-date=”Aug 17, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Can the US Handle an International System Under Enormous Strain?” slug-data=”fo-talks-can-the-us-handle-an-international-system-under-enormous-strain”>

Andrew Morrow”
post_date=”August 16, 2024 05:31″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-scotus-creates-tantalizing-opportunities-to-overturn-40-year-old-rules/” pid=”151810″
post-content=”
On June 24, the US Supreme Court shocked legal observers with Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The decision overturned the 40-year-old doctrine of Chevron deference.

Stemming from the 1984 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Chevron deference doctrine required US courts defer to the administration’s interpretation of ambiguous laws. This means that myriads of closed cases are now open for litigation as individuals and corporations across the country can and likely will seek to challenge old administrative decisions.

How did Chevron deference work?

When Congress makes laws, it cannot possibly predict every set of circumstances to which the law may be applied. This means that, when applying laws, the federal bureaucracy — which ultimately answers to the president — has to use its best judgment to apply the law in ambiguous instances. Agencies like the Department of Labor, the Securities and Exchange Commission and even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employ not only lawyers but subject matter experts to help them make these decisions. 

In 1981, the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, successfully challenged the validity of the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act in the District of Columbia circuit court. Chevron Corporation, an oil and gas firm, appealed the ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chevron and the EPA’s interpretation. The Court reasoned that administrative agencies would be crippled if federal courts constantly questioned their regulations and overturned their decision. So, the Court stipulated that, as long as an agency follows a plausible interpretation of the law, federal courts are not to contradict it.

Originally, conservatives welcomed the decision, because the outcome favored their interests in fossil fuels. The principle on which Chevron was based was not, at the time, a partisan issue, and few observers expected the decision to be very significant. However, in succeeding years Chevron took on a life of its own. Federal courts cited the decision thousands of times.

Conservatives complained that Chevron was making it difficult for private parties to challenge any action of the bureaucracy. They also accused Democrats of deliberately passing ambiguous laws so that their allies in the administration could use “interpretation” to push liberal agendas.

Cases are tailored to attack specific laws

The United States is a common law jurisdiction — a trait which it inherited from England. In the common law tradition, courts cannot simply intervene to reinterpret the law when asked to do so. They must wait for a case to arise in which an injured party requires relief and granting that relief requires reinterpreting the law. Lawyers know this, and over the years they have developed the art of intentionally crafting a case so that the courts will need to reinterpret the law as desired. Loper Bright was one such case; it was designed to run afoul of Chevron.

Loper Bright Enterprises, a herring fishery, was required by law to keep a third-party monitor on every boat to prevent overfishing. The government had been paying the monitors, but the money ran out; the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a branch of the Commerce Department thus instituted a new rule to shift the sudden burden: the fisheries themselves would have to pay the monitors’ salary. This caused an uproar amongst the herring fishermen. Their own salaries depended on the catch; sometimes, fish were scarce. But the monitors received a flat fee, regardless of the catch. Often, the monitor was the best-paid person on the boat, even including the captain.

Loper Bright sued Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, claiming the NMFS was misinterpreting the law. Naturally, the initial court dismissed the suit, citing Chevron. Loper Bright appealed up to the Supreme Court. Loper Bright found a ready audience in a Court packed with conservative textualists who disliked the idea of bureaucracies loosely applying the law. The court took the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as requiring courts to use their own interpretation of the law when ruling cases. In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the Court ruled in Loper Bright’s favor, overturning Chevron.

The consequences of overturning Chevron

The Loper Bright decision was not retroactive, which means it did not disestablish the past rulings in favor of the administrative state. However, dissenting justices pointed out that another recent case, Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, allows litigants to bypass the six-year statute of limitations for civil suits. This means that all 40 years of Chevron-based decisions may now be thrown into question.

This will have extensive ramifications for the administrative state. There is likely to be a feeding frenzy of lawsuits within the coming years seeking to overturn any number of administrative rules. At present, there is no telling what the outcome will be, which policies will be overturned and how. For now, many are hopeful that this will result in a sharp curtailing of administrative power.

[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
On June 24, the US Supreme Court shocked legal observers with Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The decision overturned the 40-year-old doctrine of Chevron deference.

Stemming from the 1984 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Chevron deference doctrine…”
post_summery=”The US Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron deference doctrine in a recent landmark case, voiding 40 years of judicial standard. Now, US courts will not have to defer to the administration’s interpretation of ambiguous laws. The Court has thus limited the power of the federal bureaucracy.”
post-date=”Aug 16, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: SCOTUS Creates Tantalizing Opportunities to Overturn 40-Year-Old Rules” slug-data=”fo-talks-scotus-creates-tantalizing-opportunities-to-overturn-40-year-old-rules”>

Sebastian Schäffer”
post_date=”August 15, 2024 04:58″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-can-europe-vote-itself-out-of-its-crisis/” pid=”151801″
post-content=”
In this edition of FO° Talks, Peter Isackson, Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer, discusses the 2024 European Union Parliament elections with Fair Observer Editor at Large Alex Gloy and Institute of the Danube and Central Europe Director Sebastian Schaffer.

Politics in France have been coming to a boil. The past elections symbolize the lessons people have drawn from the fact that there is a more substantial influence of the extreme right, including Germany and Austria. French President Emmanuel Macron called for snap elections after the European Union Parliament elections. This move concerned many, seemed counterintuitive and provided further momentum toward the National Rally candidate, Marine Le Pen. On the other hand, there is hope that the next election will be different.

Surging right wing

Germany and Austria are other countries where the extreme right surged in the most recent European parliamentary election. Right now, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), a center-right political group, holds a majority of the seats with 188 out of 720 total seats. However, the far-right, represented in Germany by Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), has been on the rise. AfD is the strongest in East Germany and among new voters. It finished second, with 15.9% of the national vote, behind the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CDU/CSU).

In Austria, the Freedom Party has seen a similar rise in popularity. Austria will hold its regular parliamentary elections in September.

It is helpful, however, to take a step back and avoid drawing strict comparisons between different nations’ political situations. The media has been permanently interested in the far right challenging the center. This obscured the meaning of the center, with the media distorting perceptions of political alignment. If Le Pen were an American, she would be to the left of the democratic party. She advocates for social programs and supports the working class, something that no accepted party in the US is willing to do. Yet the media creates the perception that she is far-right and that the far right is therefore on the rise in France.

Since World War II, France has had a very solid right wing which consolidated around Charles de Gaulle. Francois Mitterand emerged after World War II and formed France’s left wing. Mitterand increased greatly in electoral appeal. He nationalized all big banks and major industries. Until 2017, France expected either the socialist party or a rightwing party more or less in the Gaullist tradition to rule, but that is when France started shifting to legitimizing the far right as an alternative to the two establishment wings of the ruling political spectrum: the socialists and the traditional post-Gaullist right. 

How united is Europe?

The EU Parliament elections are not just a single election; they are 27 national parallel elections. A question that many may ask “Are people voting for the whole of Europe or just their country?” This is what makes elections so difficult on a European level. For example, people in Bratislava will not be interested in issues such as those of the Social Democratic Party in Austria. Voters will focus on the issues and problems of their own countries. This has created an identity problem in Europe.  Europeans are more focused on their national identity and national issues rather than being united as Europeans with European problems. 

The European project must move forward. Countries that trade with each other should not go to war. Europe has progressed in the past decades. When traveling in Europe, people once had to stop at border checkpoints, but now people can drive straight through. Europe also adopted the Euro in 1999, providing a universal currency for Europe. This has allowed for swift and easy transactions and removed the need to calculate exchange rates.

The gradual rise of far-right parties and the challenges to the political center have sparked intense debates about the nature of political alignment and the identity of the electorate. The issue of European unity remains a complex and pressing concern, as national interests often overshadow the broader European agenda. Despite the challenges, hope still exists for a more united and prosperous Europe. 

[Liam Roman wrote this first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
In this edition of FO° Talks, Peter Isackson, Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer, discusses the 2024 European Union Parliament elections with Fair Observer Editor at Large Alex Gloy and Institute of the Danube and Central Europe Director Sebastian Schaffer.

Politics in France have been…”
post_summery=”In the aftermath of the EU parliamentary elections, French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for snap national elections stirred concern and increased support for the opposition National Rally candidate, Marine Le Pen. Germany and Austria have also witnessed a surge in far-right influence, reflecting a larger trend in European politics. The media’s portrayal of the far right has contributed to a distortion of political alignments, prompting discussions about the true meaning of centrism and unity in Europe.”
post-date=”Aug 15, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Can Europe Vote Itself Out of Its Crisis?” slug-data=”fo-talks-can-europe-vote-itself-out-of-its-crisis”>

Gary Grappo”
post_date=”August 04, 2024 05:07″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-americas-new-fast-changing-role-in-the-middle-east-part-1/” pid=”151592″
post-content=”
The US has been a key player in the Middle East since World War II. A strategic interest in oil drove its involvement, leading to critical diplomatic engagements like President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s secret 1945 visit to the Middle East after the Yalta Conference. The British, previously the dominant hegemonic power in the region, misjudged Saudi oil potential and focused on Iran. British interests in Egypt and Iran faced complications, including the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran and an attempted invasion of Egypt with France and Israel in 1956 that sparked condemnation from both the US and the Soviet Union. This marked a transition from British hegemony in the Middle East to Cold War competition and, eventually, American preponderance. It was during this period that the US formed lasting alliances with the Gulf States and Israel that continue to impact the Middle East today.

To understand the role the US plays in the Middle East today, we need to look at history. In the aftermath of World War II, America turned to the region mainly due to its strategic interest in the Middle East’s vast energy resources, particularly oil. On February 19, 1945, President Roosevelt met with King Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman al Saud (better known in the West as Ibn Saud) aboard the USS Quincy on the Great Bitter Lake in Egypt. Despite the colorful pageantry, including the slaughtering of goats for a feast, the central focus of the talks was disposition of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees following World War II and the future relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a notable absence of direct discussions about oil.

Britain’s losing gamble in Iran

Meanwhile, the British, previously dominant in the Middle East, made a critical miscalculation regarding Saudi Arabia’s mineral potential. The British underestimated Saudi oil reserves. The Americans, adopting a more persistent approach, eventually struck oil in the eastern part of the country. This discovery solidified the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States and US oil interests, marking the beginning of an enduring alliance. This partnership involved US oil companies drilling for oil in Saudi Arabia, with an even split in profits.

The British, with a historical interest in preserving its global empire, particularly in India and the Middle East, had a vested interest in maintaining its strong influence in the region, most notably Egypt and Iran. However, their misjudgment of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves created a strategic setback, contributing to the evolution of the Middle East’s power dynamics.

As a result, the British focused on the oil in Iran; however, they had a different relationship with the Iranians. The British attempted to maintain control in Egypt and Iran but faced setbacks. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Ltd., (today known as BP), stood at the center of international tension. Under Prime Minister Mohammed Mosadegh, the Iranians sought to nationalize the oil company, which Britain vigorously opposed. The US encouraged the two parties to look to the US–Saudi partnership as a model. Yet both sides stubbornly refused and held on inflexibly. Along with Mossadegh’s obstinance, British and later American concerns about the direction of the Mossadegh government in its relationship with the Soviet Union led to the deposition of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and the reinstatement of the absolute monarchy. Years later, the CIA admitted to America’s part in backing the coup to rid Iran of its Prime Minister.

Discontentment with the new regime and anti-Western sentiment eventually led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Islamists expelled Western interests from the country and set Iran as the foremost anti-Western power in the region, which it remains to this day.

Washington takes up the banner from London

As the 1950s wore on, US influence on the world stage and participation in Middle East politics continued to grow, taking on the role of peacekeeper. When Israel, France and the UK attempted to invade Egypt in 1956 to gain canal control, the US publicly condemned the plan, leading to the breakdown of the attempted attack. This marked a break between the European colonial powers with the US, which paradoxically found itself on the same side of the dispute as the Soviet Union, which that same year had invaded Hungary..

Yet the stage had been set. 1956 marked a turning point in the global balance of power. No longer would Paris and London dictate the terms of engagement, but two new and formally anti-colonial superpowers — the US and the Soviet Union — would shape the international system. For the succeeding three and a half decades, the Middle East, like the rest of the world, would become a Cold War chessboard.

[Tara Yarwais wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
The US has been a key player in the Middle East since World War II. A strategic interest in oil drove its involvement, leading to critical diplomatic engagements like President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s secret 1945 visit to the Middle East after the Yalta Conference. The British, previously the…”
post_summery=”After World War II, the need to ensure that no single country controlled access to the region’s rich reserves of fossil fuels underscored US diplomacy in and led US diplomats to the Middle East. While the US forged an alliance with Saudi Arabia, the British had thrown their hat in with Iran. The US proved to have made the wiser choice, and with the failure of Britain’s intervention during the 1956 Suez Crisis, cemented its position as the predominant Western power in the Middle East.”
post-date=”Aug 04, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East, Part 1″ slug-data=”fo-talks-americas-new-fast-changing-role-in-the-middle-east-part-1″>

Hemant Kanakia”
post_date=”August 03, 2024 03:27″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/business/fo-talks-make-sense-of-the-maker-space-movement-in-india/” pid=”151588″
post-content=”
There is a lack of innovation in India. India scarcely produces inventions that change the world. Ironically, a nation with so many engineers, software houses and global research centers has generated few technological advances with global impact.

What innovation India does have is driven by entrepreneurs wanting to create startup companies. These are uncommon, as graduates often seek employment at existing corporations out of school. Additionally, Indians confuse innovation with incubation. Many so-called “innovation centers” — collaborative hubs where groups exchange ideas and develop projects together — are really incubation centers, designed to aid the formation of startup companies.

Innovation is a teachable skill set that, unfortunately, the Indian education system does not encourage at any level. The current system focuses too heavily on information retention and rigid testing. Young minds should learn to be curious, ask questions and invent new ideas.

Fortunately, a new movement is emerging to improve India’s higher education: the maker space movement. It challenges students to design with their hands. The nationwide spread of maker spaces — collaborative work spaces in schools and public facilities, which provide professional tools and technology — offers Indian students a chance to experiment and invent. Its goal is to kindle an innovative spirit within them.

Maker Bhavan Foundation wants to fix India’s innovation

Maker Bhavan Foundation (MBF), founded by Director Hemant Kanakia and managed by President Ruyintan Mehta, is dedicated to reforming engineering education nationwide. It does so by teaching Indian student engineers creativity, teamwork, communication and problem-solving skills.

MBF is based on Kanakia’s experiences at India’s IIT Bombay and the United States’s Stanford University. He observed that Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) were frozen in their pedagogy — the method and practice of teaching — unlike outside organizations like Stanford. The latter school has evolved and now emphasizes experiential over theoretical learning.

Indian institutions, on the other hand, teach theoretically instead of experientially. Thus, Indian graduates rarely have the practical skills to build technological devices and systems out of school. Many make great theoreticians but lackluster engineers.

MBF’s vision is to boost the education level by focusing on the top and middle tier of adult students. It modernizes the pedagogy so students work in teams, create things and develop an inventive spirit. MBF boosts its students’ confidence and teaches them a judgment of practicality through the building process.

Kanakia started the foundation at IIT Bombay in 2017. He had a dialogue with the IT officer in charge of technical education at the central government’s Ministry of Education. He was so enthusiastic that he started a similar mission called Atal Tinkering Lab, which provides the same service for children across a thousand Indian schools.

Mehta hopes to spread MBF’s movement to 50 higher education institutions covering over 250,000 students in the next five to six years. He desires to make India a land of deep thinkers who brainstorm, invent and work with their hands. In his words, MBF is about “learning by doing” and “learning by using.”

Tinkerers’ Labs and LEAP encourage creativity

MBF’s first and most important initiative is Tinkerers’ Labs. This comprises student-managed maker spaces that are open all day, every day. The labs enable students to experiment and exercise their imaginations. They can build prototypes of whatever they desire using a variety of sophisticated machines — 3D printers, laser cutters, vinyl cutters and more. This experiential education system pushes them to convert concepts into tangible, potentially workable products of engineering.

The intended goal is for students to find solutions for India-specific problems. For example, if a student’s family member had asthma, they might choose to build an inhaler tailored to the local conditions.

In the past few years, Tinkerers’ Labs has collaborated with another educational program: Learn Engineering by Activity with Products (LEAP). This project-based program helps students learn similar patterns of engineering, but operates in South Indian colleges that lack IIT facilities.

LEAP’s prototyping process goes like this: First-year students reverse-engineer products and craft small prototypes. Second-years receive mentoring to create more substantial prototypes. Third-years work on industry-provided problems, where their projects get progressively more complex. Fourth-years are instructed to go find a socially relevant problem and build a solution for it.

Over 10,000 students from more than 11 higher education institutions have flexed their creativity at Tinkerers’ Labs.

Invention Factory gets students building

Tinkerers’ Labs is not MBF’s only initiative. Invention Factory is a six-week intensive summer program developed in the US at The Cooper Union, which MBF has brought to India. In this program, undergraduate students from across India work in pairs to build prototypes for innovative inventions.

They first learn to pitch their ideas; concepts can only advance to the next stage once they are accepted by 75% of the participants and faculty. They then develop a working prototype and continually improve it. At the end of the six weeks, they pitch their creation to a panel of judges, who award the students first, second or third prize.

One notable team visited a local farm and asked farmers about the difficulties of mango picking. There is a 15% wastage, they learned, when plucking the fruit off its tree. They observed the standard-use picker and devised an improvement for it. The team’s simple instrument saved labor by both picking and packaging the fruits. As 45% of all mangoes are produced in India, this was indeed a solution to an India-specific problem.

Of the ideas prototyped at Invention Factory, to date, 104 have been patented in the US and India. Several of them had such great utility value that commercial companies approached the student teams, hoping to license or adapt their inventions.

MBF is working to develop an industry associate program, so it can place top students in industries where they can continue their work. This combats the issue of graduates discarding innovative pursuits in favor of immediate employment.

MBF funding: donors, corporations and eventually the government

MBF is a US-based nonprofit organization that Kanakia kickstarted with his own fortune. His work predominantly attracted passionate IIT workers who inspired donors to support the organization. US donors contribute 90% of its funds.

Mehta aims to get future funding from Indian companies through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). By law, Indian companies must spend 2% of their net profits on CSR — so companies could choose to spend their 2% funding MBF. So far, however, they have not.

Regardless, Mehta is confident that Tinkerers’ Labs and Invention Factory will attract Indian funds. These programs bring in industry leaders as judges, who are amazed by the students and consider supporting the organization.

MBF is currently in the “friends and family” phase. Its ambitions have expanded over the years, so the group needs to leverage the money that it has put in itself with a corporate sponsorship, like CSR.

MBF has not sought government funds, but Kanakia intends to change that in the next stage. The Indian government is good at allocating money but not monitoring its outcome or ensuring its continued success. It would want to send a minimum of 500 crore rupees (over $59 million).

It is easier to define a program as a public-private partnership; both sides chip in funds while the private portion manages the program. That’s the direction MBF will likely take with Tinkerers’ Labs and Invention Factory. But, no matter who funds it, MBF will continue to support the experiential learning and creative endeavors of young Indians.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
There is a lack of innovation in India. India scarcely produces inventions that change the world. Ironically, a nation with so many engineers, software houses and global research centers has generated few technological advances with global impact.

What innovation India does have is driven by…”
post_summery=”India has an innovation problem. Information retention and rigid testing stifle students’ creativity and critical thinking. Fortunately, the maker space movement seeks to develop students’ innovative spirit. Maker spaces provide them tools and challenge them to build with their hands, helping up-and-coming engineers find their passion for inventing.”
post-date=”Aug 03, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Make Sense of the Maker Space Movement in India” slug-data=”fo-talks-make-sense-of-the-maker-space-movement-in-india”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”July 23, 2024 06:10″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-exclusive-russia-has-kicked-off-a-new-charm-offensive/” pid=”151376″
post-content=”
Ukraine keeps warm diplomatic ties with the West. This includes Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky’s July 11 appearance at the NATO summit in Washington, DC, to bolster the provision of funds and materiel for Ukraine’s war effort against Russia. Likewise, but in the opposite hemisphere, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been doing the same. This includes a recent trip to North Korea, which has severe implications for the geopolitical landscape.

The trip was a strategic move and a successful one. Russia’s artillery-heavy style of warfare blows through materiel fast, and it needs all of the suppliers it can get, including North Korea. in In the past year, North Korea has supplied Russia with an estimated 5 million artillery shells, which is approximately a year and a half’s worth of war supplies. North Korea also agreed to send a large number of laborers to Russia. 

The trip was also a pointed response to the United States’ reversal of its policy forbidding Ukraine from using US-manufactured weapons to attack Russian territory.

What does the trip say about Russia’s status in the world?

The Russian–North Korean alignment creates further implications for the United States’ tensions with China and the general region in Southeast and Southern Asia. Putin’s trip showed that it is not a “Han tributary” and instead its own power in the region, independent of Chinese influence. It also showed Russia can help the “Global South” acquire resources and support from powerful states without pressure to abide by the democratic and humanitarian norms established by the US.

The important thing for these nations is finding who will fill their gasoline tanks in the most economical way. And the answer, right now, is Russia. If Russia only had principles to offer, these developing nations would not pay too much mind to it. Putin’s trip crystallizes the global normative order Russia is seeking: a transactional model of international relations.

The real winner of this shift is India, with a world-class technological sector and masses of cheap labor, although it will need to “get its act together” as Vietnam is also highly attractive form manufacturing. The loser is China. Even though Beijing also seeks to undo the US-led “normative” international order, on the economic front, it may lose ground to its competitors in the Global South due to its higher labor costs.

In truth, however, Moscow does not have a free hand. Putin’s strategy will be a success only as long as China believes tolerating Russia is preferable to pulling the plug on their relationship. If Chinese President Xi Jinping decides that Putin’s maneuvers create unacceptable problems between China and the US and globally, then China will exert pressure and Russia will have to back down. Russia may be a fortress economy with a formidable supply of fossil fuels, but it cannot do without the economic heft of its much more populous southern neighbor.

At the same time, Russia and China both command a significant amount of soft power. We saw this in the June 2024 Ukraine peace summit held in Bürgenstock, Switzerland: No emerging economy present in the conference sided with Ukraine. In fact, most of the world is sitting back and watching the Russia–Ukraine war because, even three decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, Moscow still has significant power in the Global South in a way China doesn’t. For its own part, China is locked in a symbiotic relationship with Russia that is much more complicated than simple comparisons of power will suggest.

Handling a troublesome partner will prove to be a thorny task for Xi.

[Lucas Gonçalves wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
Ukraine keeps warm diplomatic ties with the West. This includes Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky’s July 11 appearance at the NATO summit in Washington, DC, to bolster the provision of funds and materiel for Ukraine’s war effort against Russia. Likewise, but in the opposite hemisphere,…”
post_summery=”Russian President Vladimir Putin recently made a visit to North Korea to secure an arms and labor deal. The meeting shows both Moscow and Pyongyang eager to assert their diplomatic independence from Beijing. Although China is by far the largest economic and military power opposed to the US-backed international order, it may have considerable trouble keeping a lid on its so-called allies.”
post-date=”Jul 23, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Russia Has Kicked Off a New Charm Offensive” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-russia-has-kicked-off-a-new-charm-offensive”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”July 22, 2024 06:05″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-exclusive-volatile-europe-catches-new-election-fever/” pid=”151346″
post-content=”
Far-right fever is catching in Europe. During the recent elections for the European Parliament, far-right parties won 25% of the 720 seats. In the last election, they won 20%. While this may not seem like a big jump, it is certainly an indicator of an ongoing trend.

For example, in Germany, the ruling social democratic party was annihilated with only 13.9% of the popular vote. The Conservative Christian Democratic Union won with 30%. In a shocking turn of events, the far-right alternative party Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) came in second with 15.9%. Even though the far-right didn’t win outright, in the former East Germany region, the AFD increased their vote share from 5% to 16% among voters younger than 24. The result is a good litmus test to measure just how far Europe is sliding to the right. 

An attempt to break the far-right fever

France has also become an example of the far-right frenzy. During the elections, the far-right party Rassemblement National (RN) won 32% of the vote. That’s more than double the vote share current French president Emmanuel Macron’s centrist party received. Created in 1972 by the reactionary Jean-Marie Le Pen, the party is now led by his daughter Marine, who has moderated it somewhat. Although she curtailed the neo-fascist elements within the party, RN remains a nationalist, populist party focused on extremely strict immigration controls.

RN has already left its mark on the French market. Bondholders are wary because RN economic policies are weak and promise spending. France could very well be facing potential instability. Fearing this, Macron called for a snap election. He hoped to break the far-right fever dominating his country. If people were made to vote again, he reasoned, they may remeasure the RN. 

If the RN won, RN’s Jordan Bardella would have been declared France’s next prime minister. Because the French constitution allows the head of government to be from a different party than the head of state, Macron would face a fractured and unstable political situation. However, France appears to have avoided disaster for the moment. Leftist and centrist candidates were able to cooperate, dropping out in each other’s favor when one held the edge. In the final result, RN came merely in third place. However, they had still increased their vote share significantly.

Why is this happening?

During the Cold War, there wasn’t a call for concern regarding the far-right — most countries were more concerned about the rise of communism. Now, however, a mass reaction against uncontrolled immigration has contributed to the rise of the far-right. France, for example, needed North African immigrants for factory work. However, these immigrant workers were never integrated into the society and culture. This created a significant “us vs. them” chasm. Europeans feared immigrants would threaten their “pure” society.

The biggest issue, therefore, lies in assimilation. A new population or culture is viewed as exotic up until it reaches 10% of the dominant population. As soon as it reaches that point, the population is suddenly viewed as disruptive and is rejected from the dominant society. It also takes about three generations for an immigrant family to fully integrate. That’s a long time. Something needs to be done about integration and immigration quicker.

The far-right has chosen to point their fingers in the direction of immigration as the cause of sociological issues. In actuality, the blame lies with the political elites who have failed to formulate proper immigration policies. A modern fault line runs through politics: Politicians rely too heavily on spin and not enough on real problems to receive votes. The lack of leadership in acknowledging present problems, most notably immigration, has led to a rise in populist, far-right leaders. 

With the rise in inflation, cost of living, and unemployment, people turn to scapegoats to blame. They have found an easy one in immigration issues. So when a charismatic, populist leader comes along promising an end to such issues, it’s only natural that the voter population will begin to turn right.

As this trend continues, there will be a strengthening of nationalism. Such a rise gives way to a decline in protectionism and multilateralism. A new world order is asserting itself, and it seems like European social democracy is increasingly discredited.

[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
Far-right fever is catching in Europe. During the recent elections for the European Parliament, far-right parties won 25% of the 720 seats. In the last election, they won 20%. While this may not seem like a big jump, it is certainly an indicator of an ongoing trend.

For example, in Germany, the…”
post_summery=”In a shocking turn of events, the recent elections for the European Parliament ended up electing many far-right parties. The ongoing trend in the rising popularity of far-right and neo-fascist politics comes as a result of increasing fears over uncontrolled immigration. Political elites are more focused on containing populism than on creating solutions for the immigration problem.”
post-date=”Jul 22, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Volatile Europe Catches New Election Fever” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-volatile-europe-catches-new-election-fever”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”July 18, 2024 05:04″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-exclusive-hezbollah-and-israel-tensions-continue-to-worsen/” pid=”151309″
post-content=”
Tensions have been rising between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah — an Islamist militia that has more armed men than Lebanon’s army — has been warning of war with Israel with “no red lines.” Hezbollah has been firing missiles into northern Israel, which has led to the evacuation of 90,000 Israelis from the region. Authorities have evacuated a 20-kilometer zone in northern Israel, estimated to be about 10% of the country’s length.

Hezbollah has also threatened to implicate the southwestern Greek side of Cyprus in the conflict due to an agreement Greece has with Israel. These events all come at a time when Israel is divided and many Israeli government officials have lost faith in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel and Hezbollah have a long history of conflict 

In 1982, Israel’s conservative leaders thought that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was creating unbearable problems. There were terrorist attacks from Lebanon. Israel invaded Lebanon to push the PLO away from the border and destroy them. The Israelis very quickly took control of southern Lebanon and they fundamentally destroyed the PLO there. Since then, for the last four decades, the Iran-backed Hezbollah has replaced it.

Approximate areas of Hezbollah influence in 2006. Via Orthuberra on Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 3.0).

In 2006, Israel thought that Hezbollah was causing too many problems and went to war with Hezbollah. This war emerged as a mixed military success, but, as states learn time and time again, a military cannot fix political and social problems on its own. The 2006 war strengthened Hezbollah, and Hezbollah’s ally Iran came to back Hamas against Israel as well.

For years now, there has been tit-for-tat testing and point-making going back and forth between the two sides. Israel strikes a Hezbollah command building, killing some of Hezbollah’s leaders; Hezbollah responds by sending a commando into Israeli territory; Israeli forces killed him. The frequency of incidents like these has increased dramatically since the October 2023 breakout of war between Israel and Hamas.

[Liam Roman wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
Tensions have been rising between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah — an Islamist militia that has more armed men than Lebanon’s army — has been warning of war with Israel with “no red lines.” Hezbollah has been firing missiles into northern Israel, which has led to the evacuation of…”
post_summery=”As Israel continues its war against Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah looms across the border. War could break out at any time. FO° Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA officer Glenn Carle discuss the current tensions and the history of antagonism between the Jewish state and this Islamist militia.”
post-date=”Jul 18, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Hezbollah and Israel Tensions Continue to Worsen” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-hezbollah-and-israel-tensions-continue-to-worsen”>

Josef Olmert”
post_date=”July 11, 2024 05:59″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-divided-israel-faces-new-hezbollah-threats-and-rising-us-tensions/” pid=”151040″
post-content=”
In this edition of FO° Talks, Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh discusses the rising tensions between Israel and Hezbollah with Josef Olmert, a professor of Middle Eastern studies and former Israeli government official. Tensions in the region have been rising recently, and Hezbollah chief is warning of a war with Israel with no red lines. Relations between Israel and the United States have also worsened because Israel claims the US is not delivering weapons to support its fight against Hamas in Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dissolved his war cabinet due to the departure of two former generals, Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot. The other reason why Netanyahu dissolved the war cabinet is he wants to reassert himself as number one or “supremo” who calls the shots.

Olmert speculates that the policy Netanyahu is enacting is based on his understanding of public opinion polls and expectations from his base. It is becoming apparent that Netanyahu’s base is starting to come back to him. The public opinion polls in Israel could get slightly less than an election. This is becoming a possible trend, and it shows that Netanyahu is starting to pick up votes that he lost to the right wing because he appeared weak.

Hezbollah is ready to rumble

How does all of this affect what is happening on the ground in Gaza? Israel’s assault on the southern city of Rafah is progressing, but the overall format of the situation is still the same. Time is not on Israel’s side. The more fighting goes on, the more pressures will build, and unexpected situations can develop.

Israel risks fighting a two-front war if it does not end its war with Hamas. To the north, in Lebanon, the Shia militant group Hezbollah looms over the border. Israel heavily outguns Hezbollah and defeated them in a 2006 war, but it never succeeded in destroying the group. Hezbollah has maintained its readiness to go to war with Israel. Hezbollah is a close ally of Iran, Israel’s most powerful and implacable adversary.

Israel and Hezbollah have exchanged limited attacks across the border already. Both Lebanon and Israel have had to evacuate citizens in near the border. Israel has tried to kill as many local Hezbollah commanders as possible, and has see much success, but not enough to deter the threat. They have since started to go after specific targets beyond the south of Lebanon. So far, Hezbollah has not backed down.

Iran has been building Hezbollah up in preparation for their big war with Israel. Iran’s message to Hezbollah has been, “We are building you up for the big war with Israel for another time. Don’t waste your opportunity on something that is not important.” Tehran does not seem to want Hezbollah to enter an all-out war over Gaza, but it appears willing to let Hezbollah keep up the threat of one while harassing Israel’s northern border.

Hezbollah is the most powerful armed faction in Lebanon and has long functioned as a quasi-government in the territories it controls. However, the militant group is no longer a defender of Lebanon’s territorial integrity. Instead, it appears willing to compromise Lebanon’s security in order to punish Israel. Its leaders see it as the power that will be used against Israel whenever they do something in Gaza or wherever else. So far, they have exercised this power only in limited strikes.

There may come the day when Israel says enough is enough in the north, and they have the ability to cause immeasurable destruction. 

[Liam Roman wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
In this edition of FO° Talks, Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh discusses the rising tensions between Israel and Hezbollah with Josef Olmert, a professor of Middle Eastern studies and former Israeli government official. Tensions in the region have been rising recently, and Hezbollah chief…”
post_summery=”Tensions between Israel and Hezbollah have been rising. Israel risks fighting a two-front war if it does not end its war with Hamas in Gaza. Iran has been building up Hezbollah to prepare them for their big war with Israel, which Hezbollah has warned will be a war with no red lines.”
post-date=”Jul 11, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Divided Israel Faces New Hezbollah Threats and Rising US Tensions” slug-data=”fo-talks-divided-israel-faces-new-hezbollah-threats-and-rising-us-tensions”>

Jean-Daniel Ruch”
post_date=”June 26, 2024 06:16″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-the-evolving-role-of-diplomats-in-a-new-world-order/” pid=”150822″
post-content=”
In this edition of FO° Talks, Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson speaks with Jean-Daniel Ruch, who served as Switzerland’s ambassador to Serbia, Turkey and Israel. Ruch was also a political advisor to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Isackson and Ruch delve into the evolving role of diplomacy in the 21st century.

Traditionally, the role of the diplomat has been to promote peace by keeping political leaders informed. Diplomats serve not only as their government’s voice but as its eyes and ears in world capitals. They speak with important leaders, assess the mood and motivations of their host country and relay their assessments back home. These assessments are vital for giving political leaders the options they need to best manage relations and avoid or end war.

In the era of modern warfare, however, things have changed. The West is involved in two ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza. In these conflicts, governments increasingly rely on intelligence services and military intelligence to provide assessments and recommend policy options. This trend has reached a tipping point that has now endowed intelligence services with greater influence in defining policy than diplomats. Political leaders have largely sidelined diplomats, relegating them to the role of mouthpieces who announce decisions they have already made in consultation with intelligence.

This is a dangerous trend. An intelligence analyst is not a substitute for a diplomat. Diplomats bring a unique and invaluable perspective to the table. They seek to comprehend not only their nation’s interests but also the complex web of interests of all actors involved. Effective diplomats develop an acute understanding of the concept of indivisible security, which is to say, the security and interests of all of the actors involved. While intelligence and the military focus on security alone, diplomats have the task of bringing into the equation essential political, historical, cultural and religious aspects, making their role pivotal in shaping policy options.

The legacy of Cold War tensions

The issues in Israel have become a diplomat’s nightmare. Diplomats have been crying for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, but nothing has come of their repeated attempts. Part of the issue with a two-state solution is that no major political capital has been willing to invest in finding and implementing a solution.

Russia is the other major problem that diplomats must now deal with. Ruch maintains that the war in Ukraine could potentially have been avoided, well before the Russian invasion. When Vladimir Putin became president in 2000, US President Bill Clinton was finishing up his second term. Putin met with Clinton and suggested the idea of Russia joining NATO. Clinton appeared favorable to the suggestion, but later that same day, when the two met again, Clinton explained that his people told him Russia’s joining NATO was not possible.

Europeans have debated the question of pan-European security for decades. Moscow advocated but never implemented ot. French President Macron at various times before, and even after the Russian invasion he was favorable to a solution based on this principle, but to no effect. 

The issues with Russia have always been present, and this is because the mentality of the Cold War never disappeared. The West perceived the Soviets as a threat to the West because they came with a totally different model of society. After the Cold War, the US and the Soviets needed to reach some kind of mutual understanding, if only to prevent a nuclear holocaust, which the world came close to experiencing during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The most important of these agreements was the ABM Treaty of 1972. George W. Bush scrapped this treaty in the early 2000s at the same time he was launching new wars in the Middle East.

Since those events, mistrust has become a dominant factor in the relationship between Washington and Moscow.[Jean-Daniel Ruch’s latest book, Crimes, Hate, Tremors: From One Cold War to the Other, in Pursuit of Peace and Justice, is now available on Amazon.]

[Liam Roman wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
In this edition of FO° Talks, Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson speaks with Jean-Daniel Ruch, who served as Switzerland’s ambassador to Serbia, Turkey and Israel. Ruch was also a political advisor to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former…”
post_summery=”In the latest FO° Talks, Peter Isackson interviews Jean-Daniel Ruch, a seasoned diplomat and political advisor, discussing the evolving role of diplomacy in the 21st century. Diplomats face new challenges in promoting peace amid modern warfare, with intelligence services influencing policy decisions. Ruch emphasizes the critical perspective diplomats bring, particularly in addressing political, historical, and religious aspects in shaping policy options.”
post-date=”Jun 26, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: The Evolving Role of Diplomats in a New World Order” slug-data=”fo-talks-the-evolving-role-of-diplomats-in-a-new-world-order”>

Tripurdaman Singh”
post_date=”June 23, 2024 05:41″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-make-sense-of-indias-big-young-democracy/” pid=”150734″
post-content=”
Indians believe strongly in the robustness of their democracy, but the recent political climate has been tense and volatile. Both India’s political system and its constitution make it somewhat unique among democracies. Amidst accusations of authoritarian tendencies and democratic backsliding, Prime Minister Narendra Modi attempts to carry out his policy agendas to improve India’s place in the global order.

Crash course: India’s Parliamentary Democracy

India’s democratic system mimics that of Westminster, with a bicameral parliament. The upper house is known as the Rajya Sabha, the house of the states. It consists of members of parliament elected by state legislatures, with each member serving six years. The lower house, known as the Lok Sabha, the house of the people, is formed via general election. This is where most of the legislative action takes place.

While many consider India’s democratic system to be remarkably stable, there are a few unique elements within the system that pose challenges of their own. Two of these differences are worth noting. The first is the anti-defection law, passed in 1985, which prohibits members of parliament from defecting to another party. While originally created as a stabilization mechanism, the anti-defection law has in actuality led to greater dysfunction and power imbalances. 

The second significant element is the immense power that the executive branch holds. The executive decides when to summon and prorogue parliament, and acts in place of the legislature when parliament is not in session. Generally, parliament convenes three times a year, with longer prorogation periods. These two functions in particular allow the executive to dominate India’s parliamentary democracy. 

However, the parliamentary system is not the only unique aspect of India’s government. India’s constitution is extraordinarily long, having been amended over 100 times and consisting of 448 articles. The American constitution has only seven. India’s constitution is by far the longest constitution of any independent state, and it is the second-longest constitution in use anywhere, after Alabama’s. As democracy was a new experiment for India, the length of the constitution was an attempt at providing more structure and stability to ensure the system survived.

The first amendment to India’s constitution allowed the government to restrict freedom of speech and expression, which had been granted in the original constitution. This amendment was introduced by India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who was unable to handle the backlash he received during his time in office. The inclusion of this amendment in the constitution allowed Nehru’s government to crack down on sedition in the media and public sphere, a tactic which many accuse India’s current prime minister of leveraging. 

Democratic backsliding and authoritarianism

Although India is the world’s largest democracy, and a remarkably reliable one at that, contentious themes from Modi’s time in office have brought up concerns of democratic backsliding in India. Some claim Modi has authoritarian tendencies and is actively leading India down an anti-democratic path, especially in light of his government’s sometimes violent harassment of journalists and activists. 

While Modi’s government has indeed levied legislation to clamp down on critics, tame media, and influence discourse, he is certainly not unique in this aspect. These political tactics have been in use long before his time. However, Modi tends to be more autocratic in his demeanor and approach to politics, which is where much of the criticism stems from. 

That being said, Modi has been widely successful thus far within the bounds of the current constitution. Thus, it seems unlikely he will propose any constitutional changes in the near future. The system has worked for him in the past and will likely continue to do so.

Additionally, the democratic system in India is not necessarily weaker or more unstable than it has been historically. For example, multiparty coalitions were a significant challenge in the early 1990s, as excessive diversity limited the effectiveness and power of the parties. In India, the current political landscape is much more a result of power politics and how they shape governments than it is representative of democratic backsliding. Even given incidents where Modi has suppressed of free speech, concerns regarding true democratic backsliding are largely unfounded.

Modi’s failures and triumphs

While Modi’s image has been tarnished by many, the prime minister has done a significant amount to promote domestic development and improve India’s standing in the world. There has been tremendous investment in infrastructure, vast subsidies to boost development in certain sectors, a dedication to improving public facilities and providing access to energy resources in rural communities, and positive economic growth. 

The job market, which has remained largely stagnant, is one area which Modi seems to overlook. However, there are significant obstacles standing in the way that cannot necessarily be attributed to him. While these challenges should certainly be addressed in the coming years, it does not seem to be a significant platform issue for Modi at this point in time. 

Modi’s recent reelection secures his spot in the pantheon of greats as he enters his third consecutive term. While this development certainly cements his power in some aspects, political landscapes change quickly and longevity is not guaranteed. Despite these shifting and at times contentious climates, India’s democracy is alive and well and the future remains bright.

[Emma Johnson wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
Indians believe strongly in the robustness of their democracy, but the recent political climate has been tense and volatile. Both India’s political system and its constitution make it somewhat unique among democracies. Amidst accusations of authoritarian tendencies and democratic backsliding,…”
post_summery=”From April to June 2024, India held its latest round of general elections for the lower house of parliament. Known as the world’s largest democracy, India has distinctive characteristics in both its parliamentary system and constitution, setting it apart from the Westminster system after which it is modeled. Amidst the implications of these structural differences and the current prime minister’s approach to governance, there are fears of democratic backsliding and the rise of authoritarianism in India.”
post-date=”Jun 23, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Make Sense of India’s Big, Young Democracy” slug-data=”fo-talks-make-sense-of-indias-big-young-democracy”>

Dirk Lueth”
post_date=”June 21, 2024 05:06″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-make-sense-of-the-metaverse-its-promise-and-peril/” pid=”150708″
post-content=”
Webster’s dictionary defines “metaverse” as “a persistent virtual environment that allows access to … multiple individual virtual realities.” In truth, though, there is no static definition. Much like the internet, the metaverse is constantly evolving.

In just a decade, the internet morphed from an army research project into the birthplace of emails; soon afterward, a whole ecosystem of online services flourished, crashed in the year 2000, and reproliferated afterward into everything from social media like Twitter and Facebook to shopping services like Amazon. Following that trajectory, the metaverse takes current advancements one step further: breaking the fourth wall and translating the real world into a virtual simulation. Enabling virtual concerts, 3D video games, personalized avatars and even virtual economies.

Dirk Lueth is the co-founder and CEO of Upland, a virtual property trading game structured around Monopoly, using real-life buildings. In creating Upland, Lueth pursues “The Magic Triangle”, an ecosystem of the metaverse, blockchain and AI. The metaverse enables virtual interactions, while blockchain validates real assets for digital commerce, and AI generates a virtual setting. 

In addition to property trading, over 2,000 entrepreneurs, or “metaventures”, run their virtual shops in Upland. Players can purchase virtual goods for their avatars, generating a digital economy. In the future, Upland plans to incorporate physical items into these shops.

Where are we going with this new technology?

Naturally, questions and anxiety arise whenever technology opens up new possibilities. Many worry that the metaverse may distract from the real world. But the metaverse doesn’t just have to be an enclosed space; it can integrate with the real world, allowing people to interact with their physical surroundings in an enhanced — or augmented — way. In other words, the metaverse is portable. Users don’t have to sit in front of a computer.

In 2016, the mobile game Pokémon GO was a viral hit that sent users outside. That summer, parks filled with kids walking and enjoying fresh air with their friends while they collected and battled virtual creatures. Rather than passive media consumption, the metaverse can enable mutual interactions where users engage socially and can exercise critical thinking. As Lueth puts succinctly, “You go from scrolling to strolling.”

Still, even with the benefit of exercise, prolonged screen time will cause strain. Scientist and technologist Bill Softky warned about screen addiction, damage to the eyes and brain, and social media fixation.

Related Reading

10 Physics Reasons Why Screens Are Bad for Humans

Nausea can be another side effect of virtual reality. Your senses of sight and hearing tell you that you are moving while your senses of balance and touch tell you that you are still. The disconnect does not sit well physiologically. However, while we suffer, younger generations who grew up with virtual reality headsets have already adapted. They’re immune to the nausea because they don’t find the sensory experience unusual. 

The Metaverse in the Next Ten Years

In a virtual environment, education can become a more interactive process. You can visit the Taj Mahal, a much more authentic experience in 3D, than reading about it or looking at a photograph. This new form of learning can extend socially as well: Users across the world can meet over similar interests, exchanging cultural and creative expressions.

We have yet to scratch the surface of the possibilities. Many new spaces will open up. Plausibly, the new technology will render many jobs obsolete, but at the same time the Magic Triangle will create new roles. The opportunities might not be familiar now, but they will reveal themselves with timely demand. Thirty years ago, few people knew what coders were. Now, the trade employs millions. 

Lueth predicts that, in ten years, the metaverse will be fully integrated into society, the way that video conferencing is now. The metaverse will likely be considered a convenience, rather than an abstract “technology.”

Another factor is greater personalization. Currently, every platform — Facebook, Google, Microsoft — determines how the user experience will unfold. The metaverse can enable a more user-centric rather than platform-centric approach. “You own your data,” Lueth describes. “You own your identity, and your digital asset. You can take those assets from one world to another.”

[Jamie Leung wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
Webster’s dictionary defines “metaverse” as “a persistent virtual environment that allows access to … multiple individual virtual realities.” In truth, though, there is no static definition. Much like the internet, the metaverse is constantly evolving.

In just a decade, the internet…”
post_summery=”Virtual reality is now here. Far from an escape from physical reality, the metaverse can integrate with and enhance the real world. In ten years, the metaverse will create new jobs, new experiences and new kinds of interaction that we are only now beginning to imagine.”
post-date=”Jun 21, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Make Sense of the Metaverse, Its Promise and Peril” slug-data=”fo-talks-make-sense-of-the-metaverse-its-promise-and-peril”>

Josef Olmert”
post_date=”June 15, 2024 06:16″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-benny-gantz-goes-make-sense-of-israels-new-crisis/” pid=”150624″
post-content=”
On June 9, Benny Gantz resigned from the three-man Israeli war cabinet. A centrist, he was a moderating force on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet Gantz has thrown in the towel, decrying Netanyahu’s handling of the ongoing Israeli military operation against Hamas in Gaza.

Who is Benny Gantz?

Gantz is a career military officer and served as commander-in-chief of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) until 2015. In 2018, he entered politics, forming the new Israel Resilience party. The new party did relatively well, establishing Gantz as an important figure in the center-left. Over time, Gantz shifted closer to the center or even slightly toward the center-right.

In 2023, after the Israel–Hamas war broke out, Gantz joined the new war cabinet alongside Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party. Gantz’s fellow party member Gadi Eisenkot, who had also served as commander-in-chief of the IDF, and Likud member Ron Dermer served as observers.

Gantz joined the war cabinet for a mixture of patriotic and political reasons. He told his supporters that he would serve as the sane man in the room, ensuring that Israel’s war effort be conducted competently and acting as a counterbalance to the extreme right-wing parties that Netanyahu relies on for political support. He also hoped to gain political prominence by placing himself firmly in the center of Israeli political life. For a while, the gamble paid off for him — Gantz’s approval ratings shot up in the first months after the war. However, as the war dragged on and Israeli citizens realized that Gantz didn’t have as much influence over Netanyahu as he had promised, his ratings slumped.

Netanyahu’s hawkish approach to the war proved to be too much for Gantz to bear. He tendered his resignation, citing Netanyahu’s unwillingness to listen to his fellow ministers. A critic could observe that Gantz was wrong to think Netanyahu would listen from the start.

Gantz leaves Gallant behind in the war cabinet. The defense minister had served as a balancing person in the three-member war cabinet. Although a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, he often joined Gantz in attempting to reign Netanyahu in. Gantz even called on Gallant to realize the untenability of his position and resign along with him. Yet Gallant has stayed on. However, he seems to be resisting Netanyahu at every turn.

Aside from Gallant, the vast majority of the Likud members of parliament support their leader Netanyahu. The prime minister’s personal brand now overshadows Israel’s national conservative party. Netanyahu’s other supporters in parliament are religious Haredi Jewish parties and radical right-wing Zionists like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. Ben-Gvir is a West Bank settler and has called for Jewish settlement in Gaza. Whenever the war effort faces a setback and Netanyahu loses face, it is Ben-Gvir who picks up disaffected right-wing votes. Yet Netanyahu is a shrewd political player and, so far, remains the key man. Neither the Haredis nor the extreme Zionists can govern without the Likud leader.

Why did Gantz resign?

For the time being, Netanyahu remains firmly in power. He does not need the support of his centrist fellow minister Gantz. Yet in his departure, Gantz voiced concerns that resonate in many parts of Israel.

Above all, Gantz complained that the war has been going on too long. It is not clear that there is any military necessity for Israel to continue its invasion of Gaza. The IDF are unlikely to subdue Hamas to any greater extent than they already have. Netanyahu is dragging the war on for his own personal selfish reasons. In 2019, Netanyahu was indicted on corruption charges. As long as the war continues, there will not be elections and he will remain prime minister. Until then, he will very conveniently not face prosecution. So, it is in Netanyahu’s interest to delay as long as possible.

Gantz’s second chief criticism is that Netanyahu brooks no compromise regarding the postwar governance of Gaza. All agree that Hamas will have no role, but many moderates and the US want the Palestinian Authority (PA), which currently administers the West Bank, to govern after the IDF withdraws. Openness towards this option would secure the support of many Arab states and make a peace settlement far more feasible. Yet Netanyahu will not budge. The right wing of his coalition sees any step towards PA sovereignty in Gaza as a step towards PA sovereignty in the West Bank — and Ben-Gvir will not be turning in the keys to his residence in Hebron any time soon.

So, Gantz has given up on talking to a wall. Indeed, Netanyahu no longer seems to have any plan except to wait and see.

What is he waiting for? A more favorable administration in Washington following the US presidential election this November? A sudden change of heart in Riyadh, with the Saudi monarchy offering normalization without the promise of Arab governance in Gaza? A collapse of Hamas? None of these things are likely to help him even if they did happen. Yet, he has no better options than to wait.

Netanyahu is not a fool. He is a competent political player. But he is better at playing political games and staying in power than he is at grand strategy and achieving Israel’s long term goals. For now, the ship of the State of Israel seems more or less rudderless.

Will US–Israel relations now sour?

Without the moderating presence of Gantz, one may ask whether Jerusalem will now have even more trouble talking to Washington.

US President Joe Biden is an ardent supporter of Israel. He has even described himself as a Zionist. Yet this Democrat does not get along well with the Likud leader. In the past, Netanyahu has made no secret of his preference for Republicans, either.

In recent months, tensions between Biden and Netanyahu have skyrocketed. Biden is growing impatient with Netanyahu’s refusal of to accept ceasefire. Netanyahu is growing impatient with the White House telling him what to do.

Yet, despite Netanyahu’s seemingly impossible situation, it is Biden who has more to lose. The US president is playing a dangerous game. While Arab Americans and other Democratic constituents have voiced their displeasure with US support for Israel, polling reveals that an even greater number of Democrats blame Biden for not supporting Israel enough. They are disgruntled that the White House appears to have taken a turn against the Jewish State.

The US is home to the second-largest population of Jews in the world. Jewish Americans traditionally vote Democrat and are a well-organized interest group. Large Jewish populations in Phoenix, Las Vegas, Atlanta and Philadelphia might express their displeasure by staying home in November. This could tip the crucial swing states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and Pennsylvania in Republican candidate Donald Trump’s favor and possibly lose Biden the election. Already, moderate Democrats like Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman and West Virginia senator Joe Manchin are beginning to break ranks with the president. Biden may no longer have the political freedom to put pressure on Israel.

The war serves none of America’s interests. It will not subdue Hamas, nor will it lead to a rapprochement between Israel and Iraq. Rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, will likely occur de facto with or without the war. Meanwhile, the war is destabilizing the Middle East and enflaming Islamist and anti-Western sentiment around the world. So, America’s interest is to end the war as quickly as possible. As things stand in Jerusalem, however, it is not clear that Washington will have any success.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
On June 9, Benny Gantz resigned from the three-man Israeli war cabinet. A centrist, he was a moderating force on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet Gantz has thrown in the towel, decrying Netanyahu’s handling of the ongoing Israeli military operation against Hamas in Gaza.

Who is Benny…”
post_summery=”On June 9, centrist politician Benny Gantz resigned from the three-man Israeli war cabinet. He complained that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not listen to him, dragging the Israel–Hamas war on unnecessarily and refusing to contemplate a plausible peace settlement. Yet Netanyahu will stay in office thanks to his far-right coalition allies and impeccably pursue his flawed policy. Neither Gantz nor the White House can stop or sway him.”
post-date=”Jun 15, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Benny Gantz Goes: Make Sense of Israel’s New Crisis” slug-data=”fo-talks-benny-gantz-goes-make-sense-of-israels-new-crisis”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”June 11, 2024 06:07″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-exclusive-rishi-sunak-takes-post-brexit-uk-to-the-polls/” pid=”150560″
post-content=”
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced that the UK’s next general election will take place on July 4, 2024. This election is likely to spell the end for the ruling Conservative Party (commonly known as the Tories), which has governed Britain since 2010 under five prime ministers.

The UK’s political playing field has been in a state of increasing disarray since the Brexit referendum in 2016. Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron called this referendum, expecting the Remain campaign to lose. He resigned after voters returned the opposite result. The Conservatives subsequently saw first Theresa May take up the banner, then Boris Johnson, then Liz Truss (who lasted just seven weeks!) and finally Sunak.

From these Tories to Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, the UK has seen quite an assortment of different flavors of spin politicians. The UK has traditionally produced politicians of high caliber from the legendary Winston Churchill to more recent greats like Margaret Thatcher. The latter-day talent pool seems much shallower. So, where is the UK headed this July?

Close up of the candidates: All around depressing

Keeping with trends of the last century, the upcoming election will be a face-off between the Labour Party and the Conservatives. Voters will have two wildly uninspiring candidates to choose between.

While Starmer may indeed appeal to a wider audience through his careful, measured approach to politics, his lack of conviction points to an altogether noncommittal, wishy-washy attitude. Standing in the shadow of Tony Blair, the Labour leader seems content leaving his party and the general public in varying states of confusion and uncertainty as to what he actually hopes to achieve in office and how he plans to go about it. While ambiguity is damaging enough, Starmer makes his own case worse by being, to put it plainly, dull. 

Sunak has a similar Achilles heel. His lack of conviction has lost him favor both within his own party and with the general public in recent months. While Sunak may be an overachiever historically, serving as head boy at Winchester College and quickly climbing the political ladder to the position of prime minister, it seems he had what it took to get into office — but not much more. Sunak’s performance hasn’t been an unmitigated disaster: He has met his inflation target, kept the economy (relatively) stable and made small steps toward reducing illegal immigration. However, he has failed to meet the majority of the promises he made to voters and unfortunately lacks the personality to carry him through the headwinds. 

“King of Brexit” Boris Johnson, on the other hand, excelled in the personality department — ​​if only due to the fact that he at least had one. While Johnson may not have been the most principled or pragmatic prime minister behind the scenes, he certainly knew how to make a statement, galvanize the troops and throw a good party. In politics, that counts for something. 

Shortages in the charisma department could be damaging for both Sunak and Starmer when the votes come in this July, and unfortunately for the both of them, reputation isn’t the only thing these candidates should be worried about as they race toward the finish line.

The shifting status quo

Sunak and Starmer are weak characters who will rely on policy agendas, not personality, to carry their campaigns. The public, though, seems to have grown tired of listening.

Social cohesion in the UK is at a low ebb. The fabric of British society is fraying at the seams as the nation experiences economic difficulties, polarizing social classes and the immigrant/native divide.

A strong leader with clear principles could perhaps rise above this division and draw Brits together. But now is a time of stagnation and uncertainty, not strong leaders. Without a passionate candidate to rally behind, the UK will continue down the slippery slope of dysfunction. Transactional, coalition-type politics may be down the road for Westminster.

Once the ruler of a good portion of the world, this island nation now seems dead in the water. If the UK hopes to regain a position of importance in the global order, it must find a way to overcome its political malaise. Only then will Britain finally make it off the bench and back into the game.

[Emma Johnson wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
”
post-content-short=”
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced that the UK’s next general election will take place on July 4, 2024. This election is likely to spell the end for the ruling Conservative Party (commonly known as the Tories), which has governed Britain since 2010 under five prime…”
post_summery=”British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has set the UK’s next parliamentary elections for July 4, 2024. Since Brexit’s implementation in 2020, this nation has turned increasingly inward, struggling to cope with vapid politicians and the deterioration of social cohesion. This election may determine if the UK is truly losing its relevance on the world stage.”
post-date=”Jun 11, 2024″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Rishi Sunak Takes Post-Brexit UK to the Polls” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-rishi-sunak-takes-post-brexit-uk-to-the-polls”>