#foreign policy shift

[thehansindiaseo]

Bangladesh Recalls Envoy to India Amid Diplomatic Reshuffle

Bangladesh recalls its envoy to India as part of a diplomatic reshuffle aimed at strengthening foreign relations. Both nations continue working on key regional issues.

[davidaugust]

Thrilled to share that my article has been accepted for publication by The Geopolitical Economist; it's my first piece published by them.

From the article: "How damaging will an unstable and chaotic U.S. be. How globally catastrophic when our worst impulses no longer connect with our ideals."

Miscalculating America: The Brink of Reckoning

[narrative-theory]

Al-Julani's New Identity, the CIA and America – Scott Ritter

[opencommunion]

looking back on how liberal political analysts talked about donald trump during his 2016 campaign, I notice two very important insights that have vanished from the conversation this time around.

1: the dire warnings about the rise of fascism were really centered on trump's followers, not the man himself. what concerned scholars of fascism in particular was that the already well-established neonazi presence in the US was openly rallying around a presidential candidate. trump's campaign emboldened neonazis, but the neonazis were already there — this is why we saw an astronomical rise in hate crimes against many marginalized groups during trump's campaign, before he was elected. trump himself was understood as an opportunist riding the wave of rising fascist sentiment — the wave itself was a bigger concern than the surfer. trump was replaceable. liberals now seem to have forgotten that trump's followers won't disappear if harris wins. the heritage foundation (originators of 'project 2025,' blue maga's favorite boogeyman) won't disappear if harris wins. extreme right politicians — many of whom I would argue are even further right than trump, and more embedded in the establishment — won't disappear. even if you mistakenly see the republican party as the sole provenance of usamerican fascism, republicans won't disappear if harris is elected.

2: the people centered in the crosshairs of trump's agenda were migrants and asylum seekers; chiefly those from south of the US border and from majority muslim countries. the intensified demonization of these groups led analysts to draw parallels with fascist parties that were on the rise in europe. hatred of migrants and muslims is indisputably the primary driver of 21st century fascism, from the UK to India. so tell me why the conversation in the US has shifted to revolve around white trans people? yes, trump supporters are obviously transphobic, but you have to trace this particular manifestation of transphobia to its source, which still comes down to white supremacy and anti-migrant sentiment. when you actually look at the way fascists talk about trans people, it all comes back to the idea that hostile foreign elements invading the country have degraded white christian values. trans people of color have already been targeted for a long time, because we're seen as a sort of vanguard of non-white perversion; this isn't new to us. white trans people are now experiencing increased persecution because transness is seen as infiltrating white families/communities and corrupting their whiteness. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about the rise of transphobic policies; of course we should. what disturbs me is that anti-migrant sentiment has been shunted to the sidelines of discussions of 'trumpism,' when it is still very much the center of his platform. and that's the part of his platform that the harris campaign has adopted to try and pull voters from him! that's the part of the republican platform that the biden administration advanced with the excuse of 'reaching across the aisle.' and what more extreme manifestation of an anti-migrant anti-muslim platform is there than committing genocide in gaza and then refusing to let gazan asylum seekers (or even gazans with US citizenship!) into the US?

the entire US government, red and blue, is unified around the anti-migrant, white supremacist crux of so-called 'trumpism.' large swathes of the american public, whether they vote red or blue, are enthusiastic about genocidal foreign and domestic policies. none of this stops when trump is gone

[psychotrenny]

I think it's very revealing that Apartheid South Africa's great project, their ultimate solution to the problems of Apartheid, was the Bantustan Policy. Because by giving the black population their own "Independent Homelands", the South African settlers were trying to establish the same relationship with Africans that the USA has with Latin America and Western Europe has with North Africa and West Asia. It was a plan to eliminate the problems of second class citizenship by removing their citizenship altogether, turning "black" labour into "migrant" labour.

Like South Africa already used an extensive amount of actual migrant labour from neighbouring colonies and nations, but the bedrock of South Africa's economy was cheap heavily exploited local labour; the maintenance of this relationship was the primary reason Apartheid as a system even emerged in the first place. As Apartheid began to crack apart from both internal and external pressure, attempts were made to change the system while still maintaining the fundamental basis of exploitation. And migrant workers from impoverished colonised nations can be every bit as exploitable, but without all the unpleasant international backlash. So they attempted to shift the policy of separation within a nation to separation between nations. It wasn't enough to save open White supremacy in South Africa, but it's still working very well for the nations who inspired it

Apartheid and Segregation are tremendous evils in the eyes of all but the most reactionary Liberals, but "Border Control" is perfectly acceptable. All the same atrocities could be committed, all the same wealth stolen from exploited lands and exploited peoples, but in a much more internationally "normal" manner. As far as most Liberals are concerned "Citizens" have rights that should never be violated but "Foreigners" are lucky to get privileges, even when the only difference between the two are a few lines they drew onto a map. Oppression is good as long as its sufficiently externalised, happening in the places and to the people that you're not meant to care about. The same systems behind Apartheid are still very much alive all over the world, just under more "acceptable" pretenses. A simple change of aesthetic is all your average liberal needs to be comfortable

[centrally-unplanned]

Guess I should throw out some Gaza Ceasefire Thoughts - from a political history perspective it certainly is interesting:

-- As for the deal itself, it is pretty much "the best one could realistically hope for", though funnily enough the details aren't that surprising. Israel for some time has had very little strategy in Gaza (beyond "release the hostages or we keep blowing up random blocks"), and so them agreeing to these terms is the expected outcome. Hamas also lacked any real strategic options, but in the summer you could at least argue "the status quo of radicalizing the population and shredding Israeli reputation is beneficial", so you can see why both sides really weren't committing to anything before in the summer. Things have changed since then, though.

-- The straight-up-humiliating defeat of Hezbollah in the fall was a complete game-changer for the strategic situation. As much as Hamas had a strategy it was "wait for Hezbollah/Iran to carry the weight of the fight", and that was going not-awfully through the summer. Then Israel absolutely shattered Hezbollah to the point where their ability to control Lebanese politics is up-for-grabs, and any real threat to Israel is temporarily gone. Meanwhile Iran stacked that defeat with the revolution in Syria and their own military capacity losses, and while there is real tension in Iran between realist & radicalist factions, the current winds are blowing towards retreat. Combine that with the death of Sinwar, and the new Hamas leadership had no cards left to play. By the same token, Israel has few fights left to win.

-- This is why negotiations resumed in earnest in October/November, and right now you are seeing some pretty heavy exaggeration of the role of the Trump administration in this deal. It has been being hashed out for months, you can easily point to articles about progress throughout both of those months (example) and the Biden administration was heavily involved in the Doha talks. These things just take time, and both sides had a dramatic incentive shift recently. That is carrying the most weight here - talks were "90% complete" before any Trump reps arrived on the scene.

-- But the election certainly did play a role here, primarily because it was inducing uncertainty and changing incentives in the US. While it was going on you can see how both sides could "hope" that new administrations might let them gain an advantage, and understood that commitments from the Biden administration in August just weren't very meaningful. Additionally, while not very important the war was "an issue" in the election, and so the "action space" of politicians was shaped by that. Why not just...wait, and see how things go, right? Now there is no more reason to wait, you know what you got.

--I don't want to take all credit away from Trump on this, though. A theme I will continue to harp on, the "Imperial Presidency" has advantages. Biden was a perpetual faction appeaser, and you could credibly call his bluff on any decision around the war by going "you won't take the heat from your own party on this" from the left or the right. Trump can much more credibly claim "I don't give a fuck what I 'said on the campaign trail', I say what goes, make a deal or I will absolutely spite you". This is not a great strategy in a lot of contexts, but in foreign policy you need this sometimes. Dems really do need to take notes here, more unity in either direction and more strong brinksmanship from Biden would have been better.

--Now let's walk that back a bit - it is way easier for the Trump administration to play hardball. Elections make hard decisions much more difficult to pull off, as political factions can punish you more easily. The Dems have an asymmetric disadvantage here - they are inherently the "dove" party facing a topic where the median American voter is generally hawkish, and they are the party that contains a notable split within itself on the issue. Meanwhile Republicans all agree. No longer facing electoral pressure, it is much easier for Republicans to play a "Nixon goes to China" card and credibly browbeat Israel. No one will really think the Republicans are anti-Israel even if they do that, and Dems can't accuse them effectively of foul play because the party itself is split on the topic. This is "unfair" in a certain sense, for sure, but such is politics.

--I would be assigning way less credulity to the complaints amoung the Israeli far-right about Trump or Netanyahu "betraying" them. The far-right in Israeli is a powerful force, for sure, but by no means do they command the majority. They want to annex the West Bank and all that, but most Israelis disagree, the military isn't on board, it would jeopardize US/Arab ties, etc. Never say never but that was not really in the cards - if it was they would have done it already. Slow-roll settlement expansion is the plan, that will continue, but meanwhile there is nothing left to do in Gaza. Netanyahu is of course going to say publicly "oh boo hoo my hands were tied by the Americans I'm so sorry" while he gets almost all of his realistic goals. This is politics 101 stuff - though if the approval vote on Thursday goes sour then I am wrong on this, part of why I am posting it today. (Also another reason to not assign too much credit to the Trump admin - easy to "bully" someone who wants to be bullied)

Okay done - hopefully the ceasefire sticks, obviously this has been a disastrous war for almost all involved, never look the imperfect status quo horse in the mouth. It isn't the world one would want but it is better than the one we have right now.

[tanadrin]

I feel compelled to send this to you rather than just posting it into the void, but! I don't think tariffs really make sense in a globalized world. I think tariffs worked in a world where countries were largely self sufficient, so imports were directly competing with local industry. But, when I look at the world we live in, everything feels so niche and specialized, it feels like tariffs just make things more expensive and/or harder to get, rather than more competitive. Like, if you put a tariff on imports on Mexico, it's not like US banana farmers are suddenly going to get more business, it just means that people in the US are suddenly not going to be able to afford bananas. Same thing with China. So much of US agriculture and industry uniquely comes from foreign imports, without any real analogue or local equivalent. It feels equivalent to cutting down on migrant workers in construction. If you get rid of all the undocumented laborers, you aren't suddenly going to have a bunch of homes built by white people, you're just going to have less homes.

you are correct. the only way to permanently shift many of the industries that have left the US back to the US is to maintain tarriffs so long and at such high rates you make the US poor enough that it is worth manufacturing screwdrivers there again. global trade has fundamentally changed since the early 20th century. broad-based protectionism is now not only counterproductive for a country like the united states but actively harmful.

as a matter of policy, the economic consensus is with you. the leaders of most developed countries are with you. the business elite of the united states is wirth you. the president of the united states, and it seems his party as well, is not. and therein lies the rub.

[thereallovebug]

It makes me sad that it’s been a month since Michael Sheen has interacted with fans on Twitter (I don’t count the tweets for causes or charities). Except for the time some ten years ago when he got off twitter all together, I think this is the longest “hiatus” he’s taken. I’ve heard, “maybe he’s just too busy” and I’m sure that’s partly true but he’s been busy before and generally doesn’t stay away more than a few days at a time.

I think we all know the real reason he’s currently gone is because he was dogpiled over his statements not being pure enough about the current situation in Palestine according to the Twitter Foreign Policy Experts who thought they’d take it upon themselves to school a 54-year-old activist who’s been watching the shifting struggles of the world for decades. Anyone who’s been following him for the past few years should have noticed by now that he doesn’t take kindly to condescention or insults and he’ll readily block those who try. In their parasocial fantasies they forget that friendliness ≠ friendship and shit you can get away with saying to RL friends may not go down well with someone they don’t really know outside of their public persona.

I hope if he finally decides to start interacting with fans again they remember to show some goddam respect. He’s NOT your buddy. He’s a friendly stranger on the internet.

Addendum: if anyone tries to make this political I will block you, no exceptions. I don’t take kindly to condescension or insults, either.

[mariacallous]

The spectacularly rapid fall of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and his regime is the Middle East’s 1989. Like the fall of the Berlin Wall, this weekend’s end of 54 years of Assad family rule signals an earthquake in the regional order—with tremors that will be felt for decades to come. Just as 1989 was marked by a series of falling dominoes in Poland, Hungary, East Germany, and elsewhere, the collapse of the Syrian regime is part of a chain of events, including Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah, Iran’s loss of its most potent proxy forces, and the weakening of Russia due to the war it started in Ukraine.

And just as 1989 marked the end of communism in Europe, Assad’s flight to Moscow signals the demise of the ideology of anti-Western, anti-Israel resistance in the Middle East. For more than half a century, the Assad family was the backbone for a political order in the Middle East in which a bloc of states styled themselves as the resistance to what they labeled Western imperialism and Zionism. The appropriation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proved to be a powerful tool to mobilize the masses across the region who wanted justice for Palestinians—sentiments that the Syrian regime and its allies instrumentalized to distract from their domestic failures, oppress their own people, and extend their regimes’ regional influence. In reality, these regimes cared little about the Palestinians.

Within this bloc, Syria and Iran believed they had entered a mutually beneficial and durable alliance—and each thought it had the upper hand. Syria was crucial for Iran because it was the heart of the land bridge between Iran and its most valuable proxy, Hezbollah in Lebanon, while Syria saw alignment with Iran as increasing its own stature against Israel and bolstering its influence over Lebanon.

For Iran, the ideology of resistance was an indispensable tool to rally support from Arabs and Sunnis as Tehran vied for dominance in the Middle East. As the leaders of a self-styled Axis of Resistance, the clerics in Tehran were able to supplant the old ideology of pan-Arab nationalism, as espoused by the Syrian Baath Party and others, and ultimately dominate several Arab countries through well-armed proxies. The Assad regime ignored this challenge even as Iran manipulated the Baath Party to serve Tehran’s own objective of achieving regional dominance. For example, Iran presented Hezbollah to Syria as an ally when Hezbollah’s primary purpose was to support exporting the Islamic revolution.

The Syrian uprising of 2011 and the war that followed shifted the balance of power toward Iran, which intervened to prop up the Assad regime. Most consequentially, Tehran summoned Hezbollah to support the Assad regime against the Syrian rebels.

In the course of the Syrian war, the country moved from being a partner to a client of Iran. A much-diminished Assad regime was now dependent for its survival on Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah and Tehran-controlled militias from various countries. In other Middle Eastern states, including Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, Iran’s proxies consolidated their status as dominant political and military actors. Iran increased its investment in them as its outer lines of defense and tools of geopolitical influence.

Iran’s rise and dominance as a regional power came to define an entire era of Middle Eastern politics. Across the region, most countries either were under direct Iranian influence via the country’s proxies or were forced to configure their foreign policies around the threats posed by Iran. The Gulf Arab states, for example, ended up pursuing de-escalation with Iran to stave off the instability caused by its activities.

The United States, other Western countries, and Israel did not like this Iran-dominated order, but they tolerated it. They saw it as lower risk compared with the unknown forces that sudden political change in Iran or Syria could unleash. This Cold War-like arrangement with a confrontational status quo made Damascus and Tehran feel confident in their power vis-à-vis the West and its allies.

U.S. disengagement from the Middle East under the Obama administration paved the way for Russia to insert itself into the regional order. When Iran and its proxies showed themselves unable to prop up the Assad regime on their own, Moscow saw the Syrian war as a low-cost opportunity to reclaim its status as a global power and arbiter of the region. Russia’s substantial naval and air bases in Syria also served as critical logistical centers for Moscow’s expanding military operations in Africa.

For almost a decade, Russia thus became a major actor in the Middle Eastern cold war. Russia, Iran, and the rest of the Axis of Resistance appeared to form one bloc, while Western allies such as Israel and the Gulf Arab countries formed another. But Russian support for Assad was little more than a transactional partnership, and Russian-Iranian relations were never frictionless. From the beginning of Russia’s military intervention in Syria, it sought to undermine Iran’s influence in the country so that Russia remained the dominant actor.

The Iranian regime, in turn, was concerned about the challenge that Russia presented to its influence in Syria. Yet Tehran had no choice but to remain in Moscow’s orbit, regarding its influence over Syria as a small price to pay in return for gaining a powerful backer for its Axis of Resistance.

Tehran presented Hezbollah and the Assad regime to the Iranian people as a worthy investment: the front line of resistance to Israel and the crown jewels of Iran’s regional clout. Tehran needed to reassure Iranians that the economic sacrifices and political isolation that its support for Hezbollah and Assad generated were not in vain. Otherwise, Tehran argued, Iran would be under threat of erasure by Israel and the United States.

The collapse of the Assad regime has jolted this dynamic to an abrupt stop. Russia’s abandonment of Assad—and by extension, Iran’s project in Syria—creates additional rifts in Iran’s already shrinking network of proxies. The Iranian leadership will struggle to justify to its people decades of investment in Syria that have gone down the drain in a matter of days.

Standing alone without Syria and Russia in the face of a still-strong Western-backed bloc, the regime in Tehran will be revealed to its people as having imposed a futile sacrifice that not even its nuclear program can redeem. This poses a serious risk to the survival of the Islamic Republic—potentially the biggest fallout of last week’s events.

The repercussions of Assad’s collapse will also ripple across Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen as Iran’s proxies find themselves without an important lifeline. In Lebanon, in particular, the political dynamics set off by Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah are likely to accelerate with the loss of the all-important land bridge for weapons supplies from Iran. The sudden vulnerability of an already weakened Iran also means that Tehran’s remaining proxies may doubt the reliability of their patron.

The domino effect of the collapse of the Assad regime will inevitably mean the end of the Iran-dominated regional order. Replacing it will be a regional order dominated by Israel and its partners. Israel has shifted its perspective from an uneasy tolerance of Iran’s influence in the Middle East to actively seeking an end to this status quo and has succeeded in practically neutralizing the biggest threat to its security, Iran. Israel will move from being a state surrounded by adversaries and clawing at regional legitimacy to becoming the Middle East’s agenda-setter. Enjoying good relations with both the United States and Russia also makes Israel a key player in ending the cold war in the Middle East.

For the Gulf Arab countries, Iran’s degradation as a destabilizing actor also bolsters the implementation of their economic visions. The defeat of Iran’s revolutionary project will pave the way for widening the scope of normalization between Arab countries and Israel on the basis of shared business, political, and security interests. This recalibration will likely push Turkey to act more pragmatically in the way it engages with the region.

The anti-Western ideology nurtured by the Syrian Baath Party for 54 years and successfully appropriated by Iran blossomed for decades but is rapidly withering. Just as the Cold War ended with the defeat of communism, decades of confrontation in the Middle East will end with the defeat of the resistance ideology.

[milf--adjacent]

serious voting question: I'm an ml and generally I don't vote. can I ask what your reasoning is for voting third party? I'm curious to round out my opinion a little better

Seeing just how many people voted socialist back in the 19-teens was an inspiration to me as a baby leftist growing up in a deep red state. Even if they didn't win, I saw that I wasn't alone like I felt I was, that even the 'stupid' people of the past had some sense in their heads and supported policy and politics we still need even today. So no. 1 it's for the baby leftists to come who will feel trapped and alone and need a tangible connection to their beliefs: The number of people who simply didn't vote doesn't show up in textbooks, but minor party votes do.

Second: the democratic campaigning apparatus only serves to seperate those willing to organize from meaningful organization. By convincing people to put that same energy into the third party of their choice, we have countered at least a little of the Democrat's anti-revolutionary strategy. If you can convince a progressive to actually act and vote like a progressive, that's someone who might actually help when you need to set up a soup kitchen or protest in the future.

Thirdly: Many of these "I'm gonna vote anyway so I might as well vote blue" folks have never engaged in organizing. Getting involved with 3rd parties puts them in touch with others who are of a similar political slant, the first (and often most difficult) step in organizing. At least with the Greens in most places, they actively ask for help of all sorts, giving people experience in organizing they can build on as they become more politically involved. More people who know how to organize is never a bad thing.

Fourthly: If a third party can get just 5% of the national vote in an election, they are entitled to national campaign funding and a space in the official debates in the coming election. This would be a much needed shift in American politics. Democrats sound much more like republicans than leftists, and that's part of why they never get involved in the free and equal debates: the democrats are to the right of the fucking libertarians on a number of policies.

Finally: if a 3rd party candidate did win the presidency, a lot of the good things the democrats have held over our heads like bait for decades would get done, and people would have more time and energy to commit to political actions. I support 3rd party politics because at the very least it shakes things up a little. The status quo is what's killing us and any effort to change that disorganizes and spreads our true enemies thinner. Center-left socialism will not save us, but it will at least address the social ills of our society in a helpful way and attempt to tackle crisies like climate change, policing, and ending foreign policy fiascos via slashing the bloated military budget (even the fucking libertarians are running on that).

The general population of the US will refuse to even consider actual leftist politics without some sort of shift in our electoral politics. Instead of apathy and middle-finger-hoisting inaction, I chose an action with lasting strategic value. If we want a real "the revolution will not be televised" moment, we have to slap the soma of blue-tie lies out of enough hands to get people to pay attention. 3rd party electoralism is a step in the correct direction for them and a path I have started many people down already. I plan to continue until there is no need for it.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jennifer Scholtes at Politico:

One week in, the Trump administration is broadening its assault on the functions of government and shifting control of the federal purse strings further away from members of Congress. President Donald Trump’s budget office on Monday ordered a total freeze on “all federal financial assistance” that could be targeted under his previous executive orders that pausing funding for a wide range of priorities – from domestic infrastructure and energy projects to diversity-related programs and foreign aid. In a two-page memo obtained by POLITICO, the Office of Management and Budget announced all federal agencies would be forced to temporarily suspend payments, while making clear that Social Security and Medicare would not be affected. “The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve,” according to the memo, which three people authenticated.

The new order could affect billions of dollars in grants to state and local governments, while also creating disruptions to programs that benefit U.S. households. But in the immediate aftermath there was also widespread confusion over how the memo would be implemented and whether it may face legal challenges. While the memo says the funding pause does not include assistance “provided directly to individuals,” for instance, it does not clarify whether that includes money sent first to states or organizations and then provided to households. The brief memo also does not detail all payments that will be halted. However, it broadly orders federal agencies to “temporarily” stop sending all federal financial assistance that could be affected by Trump’s executive actions.

That includes the president’s orders to freeze all funding from Democrats’ signature climate and spending law called the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure package enacted in 2021, along with a 90-day freeze of all foreign aid. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in a statement decried the announcement as an example of “more lawlessness and chaos in America as Donald Trump’s Administration blatantly disobeys the law by holding up virtually all vital funds that support programs in every community across the country.”

The OMB under Tyrant 47’s misadministration puts out a “temporary” freeze to most federal aid and grants, including food assistance, Medicaid, farm aid, Head Start, and rent assistance. Social Security and Medicare are exempted.

This is dangerous and dictatorial, and must be resisted.

See Also:

HuffPost: Donald Trump Orders Freeze On All Federal Grants And Loans In Huge Power Grab

The Hill: Trump administration directs widespread pause of federal loans and grants

Reuters: White House pauses federal grant, loan, and other assistance programs

NOTUS: Trump Administration Orders Sudden Freeze on Federal Aid

[embershroud108]

Ok I’ve figured out how a Timebomb spinoff could work.

Jinx goes to Ionia to psychologically heal, which she does until everything changes when Noxus attacks. She tries to hide from and avoid the war as much as possible at first but ends up being drawn into it.

Meanwhile in Piltover, Ambessa’s near coup and her experience with Maddie leads Caitlyn to uncover that Piltover is actually full of long term Noxian spies and agents, like Amara. This revelation leads the reformed council to adopt a much more antagonistic diplomatic stance toward Noxus, which includes a bunch of policy shifts including funding and equipping resistance movements against the empire. Including, and probably especially, in Ionia.

Ekko gets recruited by Sevika to lead a group of Zaunites using Bilgewater as a staging ground to run weapons and other supplies to the Ionian resistance.

Cue set up for an angsty Timebomb reunion on a foreign battlefield.

[deadpresidents]

Formal Presidential Proclamation Announcing the Death of President Carter

December 29, 2024

By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation

To the People of the United States:

It is my solemn duty to announce officially the death of James Earl Carter, Jr., the thirty-ninth President of the United States, on December 29, 2024.

President Carter was a man of character, courage, and compassion, whose lifetime of service defined him as one of the most influential statesmen in our history. He embodied the very best of America: A humble servant of God and the people. A heroic champion of global peace and human rights, and an honorable leader whose moral clarity and hopeful vision lifted our Nation and changed our world.

The son of a farmer and a nurse, President Carter's remarkable career in public service began in 1943 as a cadet at the United States Naval Academy. He later served in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets before becoming a decorated lieutenant and being selected to join the elite nuclear submarine program.

After his father died, he shifted from active duty to the Navy Reserve and returned home to Plains, Georgia, to help manage his family's peanut farm. He worked hard stewarding the land while leading his community as a church deacon, Sunday school teacher, and board member of a hospital and library. His deep faith inspired a passion for public service that led him to be elected State Senator, Georgia's 76th Governor, and ultimately President of the United States.

As President, he understood that Government must be as good as its people -- and his faith in the people was boundless just as his belief in America was limitless and his hope for our common future was perennial.

With President Carter's leadership, the modern Department of Education and the Department of Energy were created. He championed conservation, and his commitment to a more just world was at the heart of his foreign policy, leading on nuclear nonproliferation, signing the Panama Canal treaties, and mediating the historic 1978 Camp David Accords. His partnership with Vice President Walter Mondale is one that future administrations strived to achieve.

Following his Presidency, President Carter advanced an agenda that elevated the least among us. Guided by an unwavering belief in the power of human goodness and the God given dignity of every human being, he worked tirelessly around the globe to broker peace; eradicate disease; house the homeless; and protect human rights, freedom, and democracy.

Through his extraordinary moral leadership, President Carter lived a noble life full of meaning and purpose. And as a trusted spiritual leader, he shepherded people through seasons of pain and joy, inspiring them through the power of his example and healing them through the power of his guidance.

As we mourn the loss of President Carter, we hold the memory of his beloved Rosalynn, his wife of over 77 years, close in our hearts. Exemplifying hope, warmth, and service, she and her husband inspired the Nation. The love Rosalynn and President Carter shared is the definition of partnership, and their devotion to public service is the definition of patriotism.

May President Carter's memory continue to be a light pointing us forward. May we continue to be guided by his spirit in our Nation and in our world.

Now, Therefore, I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, in honor and tribute to the memory of President James Earl Carter, Jr., and as an expression of public sorrow, do hereby direct that the flag of the United States be displayed at half-staff at the White House and on all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions for a period of 30 days from the day of his death. I also direct that, for the same length of time, the representatives of the United States in foreign countries shall make similar arrangements for the display of the flag at half staff over their embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

I hereby order that suitable honors be rendered by units of the Armed Forces under orders of the Secretary of Defense.

I do further appoint January 9, 2025, as a National Day of Mourning throughout the United States. I call on the American people to assemble on that day in their respective places of worship, there to pay homage to the memory of President James Earl Carter, Jr. I invite the people of the world who share our grief to join us in this solemn observance.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

[handweavers]

Cab you elaborate a little on that post about artists of color not having a good understanding of materialism? Like, do you mean that they are unknowingly perpetuating capitalism by being materialistic or something else?????

( This is a genuine question because I misunderstand long posts easily, sorry if it sounds rude ).

when i say 'materialism' i'm referring to dialectical materialism, the marxist theory that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces - people's access to material needs like shelter, food, healthcare, etc. and their relationship to the means of production. these events can be interpreted as a series of contradictions and their solutions. it is the scientific method for understanding politics/economics and history, and the basis of marxist analysis and of marxism leninism as a framework.

i'm saying that many artists of colour in the west speak a lot about capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, war, etc. from a vaguely 'leftist' but ultimately still liberal perspective, and thus they are not actually challenging anything with their work. they will talk about anything But class, and fall easily for bourgeois politics as long as it's concealed in social justice or "leftist" or antiracist sounding language

and it's because they won't engage directly with marxism leninism, they won't engage with learning materialist analysis, and having this understanding would prevent them from falling for these attempts and allow them to do work that actually has some kind of meaningful impact on these systems they claim to be against. so they are trying to talk and write and make art and organize about capitalism and colonialism without understanding how these things actually function in a literal, material sense...

simply existing as nonwhite people in the west doesn't inherently teach us these things, otherwise all people of colour in the west would be communists. we have to actually do the reading and be open to another framework of understanding the world, to having our worldviews shifted. but i think some people don't want to do that because of their relative class position. it makes them uncomfortable, or they don't want to admit that they benefit from imperialism in some ways. they can't - or won't - decouple an awareness of their class position from morality or their personal feelings.

without a marxist framework for understanding what capitalism is and how it functions, whatever work they claim to be trying to do to challenge capitalism or colonialism or whatever At Best doesn't do anything, and At Worst continues to serve bourgeois interests. the confusion between colonialism and imperialism in particular is easily exploited, so that with the language of anti racism and decolonization people end up agreeing with and promoting US/NATO foreign policy on imperialized nations - these buzzwords can sound pretty good if you don't know better. all this talk about decolonizing our minds and art practices and being anti capitalists but no one can actually explain what capitalism is or how colonialism works or the material role of racism under capitalism, nor do they want to talk about their own relationship to capital, so the talk is just empty lol. all these artists trying to figure out "alternative, embodied ways of thinking and being" and it's all just more liberalism

[sayruq]

Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs The ministry said that adopting the resolution is a step in the right direction to end the five-month war, to allow the entry of aid, and to begin the return of those displaced.

Hamas official Basem Naim The Palestinian group Hamas said it was committed to the conditions of the resolution and said Israel must be held accountable in adhering to it. “It is the role of the international community to oblige Israel and to end this double standard,” Basem Naim, a senior official in Hamas’s political bureau, told Al Jazeera. “The question is ‘How strong is the international community to oblige Israel to implement this resolution?'” he said. The group also stressed the necessity of reaching a permanent ceasefire that leads to the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, and affirmed its readiness to engage in an immediate exchange process that leads to the release of prisoners on both sides.

Israeli ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan Erdan said the resolution failed to demand a ceasefire without “conditioning” it on the release of captives in Gaza, saying it “undermines the efforts to secure their release”. “It is harmful to these efforts because it gives Hamas terrorists hope to get a ceasefire without releasing the hostages. All members of the council … should have voted against this shameless resolution,” he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Shortly after the resolution passed, Netanyahu cancelled the visit of an Israeli delegation to Washington, DC, which the US had requested to discuss concerns over a proposed Israeli invasion of Rafah, a city in crowded southern Gaza. The US abstention was “a clear retreat from the consistent position of the US”, and would hurt Israel’s war efforts and bid to release the hostages still held by Hamas, the prime minister’s office said.

US White House The White House said in a statement that Washington’s abstention from the vote “does not represent a shift in our policy … but because the final text does not have the language that we think is essential, like a condemnation of Hamas, we could not support it”. White House spokesperson John Kirby said that US officials were “very disappointed about Netanyahu’s decision not to send his advisers for talks at the White House about the Rafah operation”.

[nobbin0]

In the 1990s, John Williamson, a British economist and senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, coined the term Washington Consensus to describe the neoliberal agenda to privatise state-owned enterprises (SOEs), commodify public goods, and liberalise capital accounts and trade. These policy choices, driven by the IMF and World Bank in alignment with the US Treasury, find much of their theoretical justification in neoclassical economics and the works of thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and those associated with the neoliberal Mont Pelerin Society. The Washington Consensus paradigm is perhaps most famous for its role in the so-called structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), which led to a lost decade on the African continent.

For the past several decades, the IMF has enforced a combination of austerity (what they call a ‘balanced budget’ agenda), privatisation, and trade liberalisation on decolonising nations. This has stripped states in the Global South of the capacity to drive their development processes and protect their infant industries. In order to deal with the resulting imbalances, the IMF has frequently encouraged underdeveloped countries to borrow from private capital markets, leading to more debt traps. Meanwhile, the World Bank has historically followed an agenda of recommending anything but large-scale industrialisation for the Global South. In the early post-World War II era, this manifested in its recommendations for countries to stick to their ‘comparative advantage’ in exporting raw materials. By the 1990s, the World Bank was promoting ‘financial deepening’, code for encouraging financial deregulation as a panacea for mobilising resources for development. More recently, the World Bank has shifted its focus to promote development in the service sector and investment in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), both recipes for continued debt bondage on the national and household level. The service sector is often dominated by multinational corporations (MNCs) with monopolistic structures, making states that focus their development on this sector susceptible to the whims of MNCs in the Global North. SMEs, which typically lack the resources (including government subsidies) to compete with MNCs and do not have the advantages of scale of MNCs, end up absorbed into these larger monopoly-dominated networks. Indeed, the combination of financial liberalisation and the promotion of SMEs locks countries into what Samir Amin called generalised monopoly capital, with both upstream (raw materials, technology, and capital) and downstream (distribution, marketing, and consumer access) networks of control.

One of the main outcomes of the Washington Consensus has been an almost religious belief in the power of foreign direct investment (FDI) to drive economic growth and structural transformation. The FDI mindset drives Global South states towards a narrow focus on opening up their labour and natural resource markets to Western monopolies, thereby linking their agendas to the rent-seeking needs of financiers rather than the developmental aspirations of their populations. Empirical evidence of FDI’s transformative capacity, however, is limited at best: this form of investment fails to promote integrative growth that could pave a pathway out of indebtedness and towards national sovereignty, instead promoting unproductive sectors of the economy. Three characteristics of FDI are important to note:

FDI flows are declining. FDI peaked in 2007, the year that the Third Great Depression took hold in the major capitalist countries, and has decreased in the years since. Indeed, according to the United Nations’ Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), both FDI and project finance (long-term infrastructure or industrial funding) have experienced a gradual decline. From 2022 to 2023, for instance, developing countries saw a 7% decrease in FDI flows to developing countries.

FDI flows are non-productive. Over the past few years, UNCTAD’s annual investment reports have shown the changing character of FDI. While in the past it was concentrated in the manufacturing and industrial sectors as well as natural resource extraction, FDI has increasingly been channelled into the financial and service sectors, where it does not generate integrated or transformative development that could help transcend colonial underdevelopment.

FDI flows do not drive growth or investment. According to a 1999 UNCTAD report, large FDI inflows to developing countries in the 1990s had little impact on increasing investment patterns. More recent studies by UNCTAD have shown a clear divergence between FDI flows and GDP growth since the Third Great Depression. This means that economic growth is increasingly independent of FDI flows.

The Washington Consensus has only reinforced the colonial pattern of underdevelopment, producing debt burdens that cannot be easily serviced. With bondholders mercilessly seeking repayment and interest regardless of a country’s economic situation, the debt spiral eats into precious revenues that could otherwise be spent on health care, education, and productive industry and infrastructure. Countries borrow and go into debt. When they cannot repay their debt, they borrow more to pay off their existing debt, and the spiral continues. As Raghuram Rajan, the IMF’s chief economist from 2003 to 2007, wrote in his book Fault Lines (2010), the IMF’s policies are a ‘new form of financial colonialism’.