For the past several years, Chinese President Xi Jinping has fundamentally changed the goals and methods of Beijing’s foreign policy, with the Middle East central to its ambitions as a global powerbroker. Given China’s increased relevance in the region, its response to the Israel-Hamas war has been surprisingly underwhelming.
There is growing recognition in the West that multilateral institutions need to change to deal with worsening crises, as well as to respond to the legitimate demands of marginalized countries to be included in international decision-making. But there remains a lack of consensus on what a transformation of the global order entails.
On Oct. 15th, Daniel Noboa, a 35-year-old business executive, won the race to be Ecuador’s next president, although due to the circumstances of the election, he will only get a shortened 18-month term. To subsequently win a full term in office for himself, Noboa needs to learn from outgoing President Guillermo Lasso’s failures.
Lake Titicaca, spanning the border between Peru and Bolivia, is critical to supporting the livelihoods of 3 million people. That makes it all the more alarming that this year it was named the “Threatened Lake of the Year” by the Global Nature Fund and the Living Lakes Network, for the second time in just 11 years.
As with the war in Ukraine, fault lines in the international system have emerged amid the Israel-Hamas war. The variation in reactions is perhaps most evident among the African Union’s 55 member states, whose positions reflect different histories, traditions and interests as well as the preferences of national leaders.
U.S. President Joe Biden is confident that the U.S. can do it all: support both Ukraine and Israel at war, contain China, thwart Iran, regulate and secure the U.S. border, and address a host of other security crises now facing the world. But politics at home may make the current situation too much for Biden to handle.
For the past year, Yemen has been in a state of limbo, its messy, regionalized conflict on hold but unresolved. And that’s unlikely to change—for the better, at least—soon. Even if Saudi Arabia and the Houthis agree to a formal cease-fire, the country will remain stuck in the liminal space of “no war, no peace” for some time to come.
Since Chile’s leftist President Gabriel Boric took office, hopes that he will usher in sweeping change have evaporated rapidly. The latest disappointment came earlier this month, when the committee charged with replacing Chile’s outdated dictatorship-era constitution approved a draft that would make the country more conservative.
As is often the case when faced with an unexpected crisis, infighting hampered the EU’s ability to respond to the Israel-Hamas war. Critics pointed to the disarray as proof that the EU can never become a truly geopolitical actor. But once the EU finds its feet, its long-term responses to new challenges can prove remarkably resilient.
In a lightning strike on Sept. 19, Azerbaijan extinguished more than 30 years of de facto self-governance by ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. For Armenians, its loss is perceived as a catastrophe. For Azerbaijanis, the outcome represents restored sovereignty. But how the conflict ended has key implications for the future.
Israel’s order for civilians to evacuate northern Gaza ahead of an expected ground offensive has generated severe criticism. But an alternative, legal plan at Israel’s disposal for moving civilians out of harm’s way could, if executed, resolve Israel’s humanitarian dilemma and also yield some strategic side-benefits.
In recent years, many countries have become much bolder about kidnapping or simply killing political dissidents inside the borders of other countries. Southeast Asia was actually in many ways ahead of this trend. In fact, the region has become a hotbed of extraterritorial renditions, disappearances and killings.
The Israel-Hamas war has raised serious questions about the political and strategic relevance of the Palestinian Authority. Against the backdrop of recent trends in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the war both reflects and exacerbates the PA’s dwindling authority and the Palestinian national movement’s shifting paradigm.
Last week’s news of a deal between the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the country’s political opposition and—unofficially—the United States guaranteeing a competitive election in 2024 was a temporary win for nearly everyone involved. But we won’t know who the long-term winners are for many months to come.
Debates over the role that shifts in the global order may have played in the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war might seem trivial. But putting discrete events into a global context is valuable, particularly when it comes to conflict, as it can help us anticipate the frequency and kinds of conflicts we are likely to see.
One of the reasons for the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy as House speaker by so-called MAGA Republicans was their opposition to sending more funding and military assistance to Ukraine amid Russia’s war there. The question this raises is: Why? Why is Ukraine aid such a common cudgel for the MAGA wing of the GOP?
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s immediate and forthright solidarity with Israel following Hamas’ attack there stands in stark contrast to his noncommittal response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But India has compelling reasons to side so decisively with Israel in a conflict with Palestinian militants.