Opinion

When Japan’s outgoing Prime Minister Fumio Kishida holds a final summit this week with South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, he will be sending a signal of support not only to the neighbouring nation, but his would-be successors as well.Prodded by US President Joe Biden, the two leaders orchestrated an about-face in ties that had sunk to their lowest level in decades amid acrimonious diplomatic and trade disputes over Japan’s occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945.But the strength of their new partnership is set to be tested by Kishida’s imminent departure and the prospect of a shake-up in the White House with November’s presidential election.“Prime Minister Kishida may have to show that what he did with President Yoon is the right direction and he expects whoever succeeds him to follow the current direction of the Japan-Korea relationship,” said Tetsuo Kotani, a senior fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs.As Kishida’s response to Yoon’s overtures had spurred pushback from Japan’s political right, his successor could face pressure from conservatives to take a harder line, Kotani added.“We know that in the past, that when Japan and Korea have found their way to rapprochement, political change has sometimes contributed to setback, or set the conditions for setback,” a senior US administration official said.“So while... our confidence is high in the future of our relationship with Japan and all of our multilateral engagements, Kishida’s step here is really important,” added the official, who sought anonymity in discussing diplomatic matters.While few major announcements are expected from the summit, officials said they saw Kishida’s final visit to Seoul as crucial to US efforts to present a unified front against challenges from neighbouring North Korea and China.Kishida’s visit is not just a signal of support and thanks to Yoon, but also a message to the Japanese government and prime ministerial candidates that the partnership has to be a lasting part of Tokyo’s foreign policy, the US official added.Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party will hold elections on Sept 27 to choose Kishida’s successor.Last year US President Joe Biden invited Yoon and Kishida to Camp David where the three leaders committed to deepen military and economic co-operation.They also delivered their strongest joint condemnation yet of “dangerous and aggressive behaviour” by China in the disputed busy waterway of the South China Sea.The Camp David initiatives were explicitly designed to prompt long-term partnership so that “no one of us would have an incentive to pull away from that deeper co-operation if political change did happen,” the US official said.Yoon has said the partnership will remain effective in part because of the diplomatic pacts both sides had adopted.“There could always be some anxiety about the new prime minister, especially given the personal synergy between the two leaders,” said a senior South Korean government official who sought anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters.“But the fundamentals of relations won’t change, and Kishida’s visit will reaffirm the significance of having good relations with Korea and could send a message to the incoming leader, whoever that might be.”Kishida made a “strong request” to see Yoon a final time before he leaves office, the South Korean official said.The summit is expected to yield a memorandum of understanding on evacuating civilians from each other’s countries during emergencies in third countries, he added.The South Koreans hope for conciliatory comments from Kishida about Koreans forced to work for Japan during its occupation, but even without these the visit could help to keep “shuttle diplomacy” on track, he said.Tokyo wants to broaden ties to reach a “more dynamic phase”, a Japanese foreign ministry official told a briefing, without elaborating. — Reuters

The US presidential election in November is critical for many reasons. At stake is not just the survival of American democracy, but also sound stewardship of the economy, with far-reaching implications for the rest of the world.American voters face a choice not only between different policies, but between different policy objectives. While Vice-President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has yet to detail her economic agenda fully, she likely would preserve the central tenets of President Joe Biden’s programme, which include strong policies to maintain competition, preserve the environment (including reducing greenhouse-gas emissions), reduce the cost of living, maintain growth, enhance national economic sovereignty and resilience, and mitigate inequality.By contrast, her opponent, former president Donald Trump, has no interest in creating a more just, robust, and sustainable economy. Instead, the Republican ticket is offering a blank check to coal and oil companies and cozying up to billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. It is a recipe for making the US economy weaker, less competitive, and less equal.Moreover, while sound economic stewardship requires setting goals and designing policies to achieve them, the ability to respond to shocks and seize new opportunities is no less important. We already have a sense of how each candidate would perform in this regard. Trump failed miserably in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic during his previous administration, resulting in more than a million deaths. At a time when the United States was desperately in need of leadership, he suggested that people should inject bleach.Responding to unprecedented events requires difficult judgment calls based on the best science. In Harris, the US has someone who would be thoughtful and pragmatic in weighing the trade-offs and devising balanced solutions. In Trump, we have an impulsive narcissist who thrives on chaos and rejects scientific expertise.Consider his response to the challenge posed by China: a proposal to introduce blanket tariffs of 60% or more. As any serious economist could have told him, this would increase prices – not just for the goods imported directly from China, but also for the innumerable other goods containing Chinese inputs. Thus, lower- and middle-income Americans would bear the brunt of the cost. As inflation rises and the US Federal Reserve is forced to raise interest rates, the economy would be hit by the triple whammy of slowing growth, rising inflation, and higher unemployment.Making matters worse, Trump has adopted the extreme position of threatening the Fed’s independence (which is not surprising, considering his committed efforts to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the civil service). Another Trump presidency thus would introduce a persistent source of economic uncertainty, depressing investment and growth, and almost certainly increasing inflation expectations.Trump’s proposed tax policies are equally fraught. Recall the 2017 tax cut for corporations and billionaires, which failed to stimulate additional investment and merely encouraged share buybacks. Although Republicans have never seen a tax cut for the rich that they didn’t love, a few at least recognized that the policy would increase budget deficits, and therefore added a sunset clause, which begins to take effect in 2025. But Trump, ignoring the evidence that “trickle-down” tax cuts don’t work and don’t pay for themselves, wants to renew and then deepen the 2017 cut in ways that would add trillions of dollars to the national debt.While populist demagogues like Trump do not care about deficits, investors in the US and abroad should be worried. Ballooning deficits from non-productivity-enhancing spending would further add to inflation expectations, undercut economic performance, and exacerbate inequality.Equally, repealing the Biden administration’s signature Inflation Reduction Act would not only be bad for the environment and US competitiveness in critical sectors vital for the country’s future; it also would eliminate provisions that have lowered the cost of pharmaceuticals, thus increasing the cost of living.Trump (and the business-oriented judges he appointed) also wants to roll back the Biden-Harris administration’s strong competition policies, which – again – would increase inequality and weaken economic performance by enshrining market power and stifling innovation. And he would scrap initiatives to increase access to higher education through better designed income-contingent student loans, ultimately diminishing investment in the sector that the US most needs to meet the challenges of a twenty-first-century innovative economy.This brings us to the features of Trump’s agenda that are most troubling for America’s long-term economic success. First, another Trump administration would slash funding for basic science and technology, the source of America’s competitive advantage and rising living standards over the past 200 years. (It should go without saying that the country’s economic strength does not lie in casinos, golf courses, or gaudy hotels.)During his previous term, Trump proposed major cuts to science and technology almost every year, but non-extremist congressional Republicans blocked these budget reductions. This time, however, would be different, because the Republican Party has become Trump’s personal cult. Worse, the party has declared a jihad against US universities, including leading institutions that advance the frontiers of knowledge, attract the best talent from around the world, and sustain the country’s competitive advantage.Even worse, Trump is committed to undermining the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. Trump’s long track record of refusing to pay vendors and contractors speaks to his character: he is a bully who will use whatever power he has to rob whoever he can. But it becomes an even bigger problem when he openly supports violent insurrectionists. The rule of law is not just something which we should treasure for itself: it is critical for a well-functioning economy and democracy.Heading into the fall of 2024, it is impossible to know what shocks the economy will face in the next four years. But this much is clear: the economy of 2028 will be much stronger, more equal, and more resilient if Harris gets elected. — Project SyndicateJoseph E Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank and former chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, is University Professor at Columbia University, a Nobel laureate in economics, and the author, most recently, of The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.

While efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change will remain a top international priority for decades to come, the most urgent risks from global warming require immediate action and new ideas. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said at the Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga last month, “If we save the Pacific, we save the world.”Since the Paris climate agreement was signed eight years ago, much progress has been made to create a more sustainable economy, with new technological solutions allowing countries to maintain strong growth while also reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. Governments, businesses, and households are increasingly determined to support climate investments. Renewable energy is becoming businesses’ first choice for electricity generation. Innovation is boosting the competitiveness of green alternatives. And financial institutions are allocating more than $1tn each year to green projects.In this context, sustained and concerted action at a global level will be the key to success. Yet the progress has been too slow for the world’s most vulnerable regions. For people living on small islands and grappling with rising sea levels, extreme weather, and ocean warming, climate change is already an existential threat. Despite their minimal carbon footprints, these regions are at the forefront of the problem. Their challenges today will become the global crises of tomorrow.For small islands, adaptation is critical. Caribbean and Pacific Island states, along with parts of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, face many more severe climate-related problems than other parts of the world. They also are more vulnerable financially. Whether borrowing money to recover from natural disasters or investing to strengthen their resilience to climate change, they face higher interest rates, and these additional costs come at the expense of investments in health and education.As the world leader in humanitarian and development aid, the European Union is one of the closest partners that small island states and other vulnerable regions have in combating climate change. Under the EU’s Global Gateway investment strategy, we have put our money where our mouth is, because our commitment reflects both genuine solidarity and common sense.We know that the costs of a disorderly green transition would far exceed the costs of investing in climate adaptation and mitigation right now. The gradual, credible changes that we make today are what will spare us the massive economic, social, and environmental damage caused by unchecked climate change. A few recent examples illustrate our commitment. In Kiribati, a small island state in the central Pacific, rising sea levels may render many islands uninhabitable within a few decades. So, the EU and its financial arm, the European Investment Bank, are working with the World Bank and other international financial institutions to study the possibility of building a new seaport, which will help relocate people from smaller islands to safer ground. Such projects can be a beacon of hope for vulnerable populations everywhere.In the Caribbean, where violent storms and rising temperatures are straining water infrastructure and the surrounding seas and marine ecosystems, an EU-backed water management and clean oceans programme will provide expert support to launch water projects in 15 Caribbean countries. This work will improve water security, sanitation, solid-waste management, and flood protection, as well as helping to preserve our oceans. The EU and EIB are also pooling resources to transform the way Cabo Verde (an island country off the coast of West Africa) uses and produces energy. This ambitious project will assist the government’s plan to phase out fossil fuels by 2040. By focusing on renewable energy and storage, it will cut pollution and significantly benefit Cabo Verde’s water sector, which relies heavily on desalination – a highly energy-intensive process. With far-reaching environmental and economic benefits, such investments will make Cabo Verde a model for sustainable development across the region.Finally, in Barbados, we are supporting investments to help deal with floods and hurricanes. One project, in partnership with the Inter-American Development Bank, will improve sewage treatment and groundwater management, and we are also supporting a system to recycle wastewater for agricultural use. To enable these investments, we are funding a “debt for climate conversion” programme that responds to Barbados’s particular financial needs in the bond market.These projects demonstrate what meaningful support for small island states looks like. The Global Gateway programme is helping not only with adaptation and water security, but also with renewable energy, digital innovation, education, health care, and green transportation.

Cartoon

The US presidential election in November is critical for many reasons. At stake is not just the survival of American democracy, but also sound stewardship of the economy, with far-reaching implications for the rest of the world.American voters face a choice not only between different policies, but between different policy objectives. While Vice-President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has yet to detail her economic agenda fully, she likely would preserve the central tenets of President Joe Biden’s programme, which include strong policies to maintain competition, preserve the environment (including reducing greenhouse-gas emissions), reduce the cost of living, maintain growth, enhance national economic sovereignty and resilience, and mitigate inequality.By contrast, her opponent, former president Donald Trump, has no interest in creating a more just, robust, and sustainable economy. Instead, the Republican ticket is offering a blank check to coal and oil companies and cozying up to billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. It is a recipe for making the US economy weaker, less competitive, and less equal.Moreover, while sound economic stewardship requires setting goals and designing policies to achieve them, the ability to respond to shocks and seize new opportunities is no less important. We already have a sense of how each candidate would perform in this regard. Trump failed miserably in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic during his previous administration, resulting in more than a million deaths. At a time when the United States was desperately in need of leadership, he suggested that people should inject bleach.Responding to unprecedented events requires difficult judgment calls based on the best science. In Harris, the US has someone who would be thoughtful and pragmatic in weighing the trade-offs and devising balanced solutions. In Trump, we have an impulsive narcissist who thrives on chaos and rejects scientific expertise.Consider his response to the challenge posed by China: a proposal to introduce blanket tariffs of 60% or more. As any serious economist could have told him, this would increase prices – not just for the goods imported directly from China, but also for the innumerable other goods containing Chinese inputs. Thus, lower- and middle-income Americans would bear the brunt of the cost. As inflation rises and the US Federal Reserve is forced to raise interest rates, the economy would be hit by the triple whammy of slowing growth, rising inflation, and higher unemployment.Making matters worse, Trump has adopted the extreme position of threatening the Fed’s independence (which is not surprising, considering his committed efforts to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the civil service). Another Trump presidency thus would introduce a persistent source of economic uncertainty, depressing investment and growth, and almost certainly increasing inflation expectations.Trump’s proposed tax policies are equally fraught. Recall the 2017 tax cut for corporations and billionaires, which failed to stimulate additional investment and merely encouraged share buybacks. Although Republicans have never seen a tax cut for the rich that they didn’t love, a few at least recognized that the policy would increase budget deficits, and therefore added a sunset clause, which begins to take effect in 2025. But Trump, ignoring the evidence that “trickle-down” tax cuts don’t work and don’t pay for themselves, wants to renew and then deepen the 2017 cut in ways that would add trillions of dollars to the national debt.While populist demagogues like Trump do not care about deficits, investors in the US and abroad should be worried. Ballooning deficits from non-productivity-enhancing spending would further add to inflation expectations, undercut economic performance, and exacerbate inequality.Equally, repealing the Biden administration’s signature Inflation Reduction Act would not only be bad for the environment and US competitiveness in critical sectors vital for the country’s future; it also would eliminate provisions that have lowered the cost of pharmaceuticals, thus increasing the cost of living.Trump (and the business-oriented judges he appointed) also wants to roll back the Biden-Harris administration’s strong competition policies, which – again – would increase inequality and weaken economic performance by enshrining market power and stifling innovation. And he would scrap initiatives to increase access to higher education through better designed income-contingent student loans, ultimately diminishing investment in the sector that the US most needs to meet the challenges of a twenty-first-century innovative economy.This brings us to the features of Trump’s agenda that are most troubling for America’s long-term economic success. First, another Trump administration would slash funding for basic science and technology, the source of America’s competitive advantage and rising living standards over the past 200 years. (It should go without saying that the country’s economic strength does not lie in casinos, golf courses, or gaudy hotels.)During his previous term, Trump proposed major cuts to science and technology almost every year, but non-extremist congressional Republicans blocked these budget reductions. This time, however, would be different, because the Republican Party has become Trump’s personal cult. Worse, the party has declared a jihad against US universities, including leading institutions that advance the frontiers of knowledge, attract the best talent from around the world, and sustain the country’s competitive advantage.Even worse, Trump is committed to undermining the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. Trump’s long track record of refusing to pay vendors and contractors speaks to his character: he is a bully who will use whatever power he has to rob whoever he can. But it becomes an even bigger problem when he openly supports violent insurrectionists. The rule of law is not just something which we should treasure for itself: it is critical for a well-functioning economy and democracy.Heading into the fall of 2024, it is impossible to know what shocks the economy will face in the next four years. But this much is clear: the economy of 2028 will be much stronger, more equal, and more resilient if Harris gets elected. — Project Syndicate• Joseph E Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank and former chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, is University Professor at Columbia University, a Nobel laureate in economics, and the author, most recently, of The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.

While efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change will remain a top international priority for decades to come, the most urgent risks from global warming require immediate action and new ideas. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said at the Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga last month, “If we save the Pacific, we save the world.”Since the Paris climate agreement was signed eight years ago, much progress has been made to create a more sustainable economy, with new technological solutions allowing countries to maintain strong growth while also reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. Governments, businesses, and households are increasingly determined to support climate investments. Renewable energy is becoming businesses’ first choice for electricity generation. Innovation is boosting the competitiveness of green alternatives. And financial institutions are allocating more than $1tn each year to green projects.In this context, sustained and concerted action at a global level will be the key to success. Yet the progress has been too slow for the world’s most vulnerable regions. For people living on small islands and grappling with rising sea levels, extreme weather, and ocean warming, climate change is already an existential threat. Despite their minimal carbon footprints, these regions are at the forefront of the problem. Their challenges today will become the global crises of tomorrow.For small islands, adaptation is critical. Caribbean and Pacific Island states, along with parts of Latin America, Africa, and Asia, face many more severe climate-related problems than other parts of the world. They also are more vulnerable financially. Whether borrowing money to recover from natural disasters or investing to strengthen their resilience to climate change, they face higher interest rates, and these additional costs come at the expense of investments in health and education.As the world leader in humanitarian and development aid, the European Union is one of the closest partners that small island states and other vulnerable regions have in combating climate change. Under the EU’s Global Gateway investment strategy, we have put our money where our mouth is, because our commitment reflects both genuine solidarity and common sense.We know that the costs of a disorderly green transition would far exceed the costs of investing in climate adaptation and mitigation right now. The gradual, credible changes that we make today are what will spare us the massive economic, social, and environmental damage caused by unchecked climate change. A few recent examples illustrate our commitment. In Kiribati, a small island state in the central Pacific, rising sea levels may render many islands uninhabitable within a few decades. So, the EU and its financial arm, the European Investment Bank, are working with the World Bank and other international financial institutions to study the possibility of building a new seaport, which will help relocate people from smaller islands to safer ground. Such projects can be a beacon of hope for vulnerable populations everywhere.In the Caribbean, where violent storms and rising temperatures are straining water infrastructure and the surrounding seas and marine ecosystems, an EU-backed water management and clean oceans programme will provide expert support to launch water projects in 15 Caribbean countries. This work will improve water security, sanitation, solid-waste management, and flood protection, as well as helping to preserve our oceans. The EU and EIB are also pooling resources to transform the way Cabo Verde (an island country off the coast of West Africa) uses and produces energy. This ambitious project will assist the government’s plan to phase out fossil fuels by 2040. By focusing on renewable energy and storage, it will cut pollution and significantly benefit Cabo Verde’s water sector, which relies heavily on desalination – a highly energy-intensive process. With far-reaching environmental and economic benefits, such investments will make Cabo Verde a model for sustainable development across the region.Finally, in Barbados, we are supporting investments to help deal with floods and hurricanes. One project, in partnership with the Inter-American Development Bank, will improve sewage treatment and groundwater management, and we are also supporting a system to recycle wastewater for agricultural use. To enable these investments, we are funding a “debt for climate conversion” programme that responds to Barbados’s particular financial needs in the bond market.These projects demonstrate what meaningful support for small island states looks like. The Global Gateway programme is helping not only with adaptation and water security, but also with renewable energy, digital innovation, education, health care, and green transportation. — Project Syndicate

Two US researchers say they have identified the probable deployment site in Russia of the 9M370 Burevestnik, a new nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile touted by President Vladimir Putin as “invincible”.Putin has said the weapon - dubbed the SSC-X-9 Skyfall by Nato - has an almost unlimited range and can evade US missile defences. But some Western experts dispute his claims and the Burevestnik’s strategic value, saying it will not add capabilities that Moscow does not already have and risks a radiation-spewing mishap.Using images taken on July 26 by Planet Labs, a commercial satellite firm, the two researchers identified a construction project abutting a nuclear warhead storage facility known by two names By Jonathan LandayWashington Vologda-20 and Chebsara - as the new missile’s potential deployment site. The facility is 295 miles north of Moscow.Reuters is the first to report this development.Decker Eveleth, an analyst with the CNA research and analysis organisation, found the satellite imagery and identified what he assessed are nine horizontal launch pads under construction. They are located in three groups inside high berms to shield them from attack or to prevent an accidental blast in one from detonating missiles in the others, he said.The berms are linked by roads to what Eveleth concluded are likely buildings where the missiles and their components would be serviced, and to the existing complex of five nuclear warhead storage bunkers.The site is “for a large, fixed missile system and the only large, fixed missile system that they’re (Russia) currently developing is the Skyfall,” said Eveleth.Russia’s defence ministry and Washington embassy did not respond to a request to comment on his assessment, Burevestnik’s strategic value, its test record and the risks it poses.A Kremlin spokesman said these were questions for the defence ministry and declined further comment.The US State Department, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the US Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center declined to comment.The identification of the missile’s probable launch site suggests that Russia is proceeding with its deployment after a series of tests in recent years marred by problems, said Eveleth and the second researcher, Jeffery Lewis, of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.Lewis agreed with Eveleth’s assessment after reviewing the imagery at his request. The imagery “suggests something very unique, very different. And obviously, we know that Russia is developing this nuclear-powered missile,” he said.Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, who also studied the Vologda imagery at Eveleth’s request, said that it appears to show launch pads and other features “possibly” related to Burevestnik. But he said he could not make a definitive assessment because Moscow does not typically place missile launchers next to nuclear warhead storage.Eveleth, Lewis, Kristensen and three other experts said Moscow’s normal practice has been stockpiling nuclear payloads for land-based missiles far from launch sites - except for those on its deployed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force.But deploying the Burevestnik at Vologda would allow the Russian military to stockpile the nuclear-armed missiles in its bunkers, making them available to launch quickly, said Lewis and Eveleth.Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Russia will make changes to its guidelines on the use of nuclear weapons in response to what it regards as Western escalation in the war in Ukraine, state news agency TASS reported on Sunday.A 2020 report by the United States Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center said that if Russia successfully brought the Burevestnik into service, it would give Moscow a “unique weapon with intercontinental-range capability”.But the weapon’s chequered past and design limitations raised doubts among eight experts interviewed by Reuters about whether its deployment would change the nuclear stakes for the West and other Russian foes.The Burevestnik has a poor test record of at least 13 known tests, with only two partial successes, since 2016, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), an advocacy group focused on reducing nuclear, biological and emergent technology risks.The setbacks include a 2019 blast during the botched recovery of an unshielded nuclear reactor allowed to “smolder” on the White Sea floor for a year following a prototype crash, according to State Department reports.Russia’s state nuclear agency Rosatom said five staff members died during the testing of a rocket on August 8. Putin presented their widows with top state awards, saying the weapon they were developing was without equal in the world, without naming the Burevestnik.Pavel Podvig, a Geneva-based expert on Russia’s nuclear forces, Lewis, Eveleth, and other experts said it will not add capabilities that Moscow’s nuclear forces already do not have, including the ability to overwhelm US missile defences.Moreover, its nuclear-powered engine threatens to disgorge radiation along its flight path and its deployment risks an accident that could contaminate the surrounding region, said Cheryl Rofer, a former US nuclear weapons scientist and other experts.“The Skyfall is a uniquely stupid weapon system, a flying Chernobyl that poses more threat to Russia than it does to other countries,” agreed Thomas Countryman, a former top State Department official with the Arms Control Association, referring to the 1986 nuclear plant disaster.NATO did not respond to questions about how the alliance would respond to the weapon’s deployment.Little publicly is known about the Burevestnik’s technical details.Experts assess that it would be sent aloft by a small solid-fuel rocket to drive air into an engine containing a miniature nuclear reactor. Superheated and possibly radioactive air would be blasted out, providing forward thrust.Putin unveiled it in March 2018, saying the missile would be “low flying,” with nearly unlimited range, an unpredictable flight path and “invincible” to current and future defences.Many experts are sceptical of Putin’s claims.The Burevestnik, they say, could have a range of some 15,000 miles - compared to more than 11,000 miles for the Sarmat, Russia’s newest ICBM - while its subsonic speed would make it detectable.“It’s going to be as vulnerable as any cruise missile,” said Kristensen. “The longer it flies, the more vulnerable it becomes because there is more time to track it. I don’t understand Putin’s motive here.”The Burevestnik’s deployment is not banned by New START, the last US-Russian accord limiting strategic nuclear weapon deployments, which expires in February 2026.A provision allows Washington to request negotiations with Moscow on bringing the Burevestnik under the caps but a State Department spokesperson said no such talks had been sought.Citing the war in Ukraine, Russia has spurned US calls for unconditional talks on replacing New START, stoking fears of an all-out nuclear arms race when it expires.Podvig said Moscow might use the missile as a bargaining chip if talks ever resume.He called the Burevestnik a “political weapon” that Putin used to bolster his strongman image before his 2018 re-election and to telegraph to Washington that it cannot dismiss his concerns over US missile defences and other issues.

Cartoon

Nestled between mountains in a secluded corner of West Virginia, a giant awakens: the Green Bank Telescope begins its nightly vigil, scanning the cosmos for secrets. If intelligent life exists beyond Earth, there’s a good chance the teams analysing the data from the world’s largest, fully steerable radio astronomy facility will be the first to know.“People have been asking themselves the question, ‘Are we alone in the universe?’ ever since they first gazed up at the night sky and wondered if there were other worlds out there,” says Steve Croft, project scientist for the Breakthrough Listen initiative.For the past decade, this groundbreaking scientific endeavour has partnered with a pioneering, US government-funded site built in the 1950s to search for “technosignatures” — traces of technology that originate far beyond our own solar system.The search for extraterrestrial intelligence, or “SETI,” was long dismissed as the realm of eccentrics and was even cut off from federal funding by Congress thirty years ago. But today, the field is experiencing a renaissance and seeing an influx of graduates, bolstered by advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning, as well as recent discoveries showing that nearly every star in the night sky hosts planets, many of which are Earth-like.“It feels to me like this is something of a golden age,” says Croft, an Oxford-trained radio astronomer who began his career studying astrophysical phenomena, from supermassive black holes to the emissions of exploding stars. The story of the “National Radio Quiet Zone” dates back to 1958, when the US federal government designated a region in West Virginia to help astronomers shield their sensitive equipment from interference. This means no radio signals, no cellphone coverage, and limited Wi-Fi for the surrounding community. Even the vehicles transporting staff to and from the telescope must run on diesel, as gas cars’ spark plugs generate electrical interference.“I think the community takes a certain pride in having a premier scientific facility right here,” says Paul Vosteen, who has worked at the observatory for the past eight years.Standing on the highest platform of the 100m giant dish, Vosteen gestures toward the Allegheny Mountains, which act as a natural barrier for radio signals in this bowl-shaped valley. Radio astronomy began by happy accident when American physicist Karl Jansky discovered radio waves coming from the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way, in 1933. Since then, it has allowed astronomers to peer beyond the planets, stars, and dust visible through optical telescopes.From discovering pulsars to conducting sensitive observations of atomic hydrogen that shed new light on galaxy formation — and more recently, detecting fast radio bursts — radio astronomy has been key to numerous advances. There’s also a long-standing theory that if other civilisations exist, they might emit radio waves, just as ours has since the dawn of radio communication in the 19th century.In Carl Sagan’s novel Contact, humanity is first alerted to extraterrestrial presence by a retransmission of Adolf Hitler’s opening speech at the 1936 Summer Olympics — the first TV signal strong enough to escape Earth’s ionosphere.A framework for estimating the number of detectable civilisations scattered across the galaxy is found in the Drake Equation, devised by the legendary astronomer Frank Drake. Now one of the most recognised formulas in science, it’s even a popular tattoo and T-shirt choice among alien enthusiasts. Each year, for a week in late spring, Breakthrough Listen’s team from the University of California, Berkeley, makes a pilgrimage to the telescope during a period of track maintenance for the 17-million-pound structure.“It’s a relaxing time; every time I’m here, it’s nice being in the National Radio Quiet Zone because there’s no cellphone, no television — it’s a kind of focused environment,” says Matt Lebofsky, lead system administrator.“Sometimes we need to metaphorically kick the tires, do things ourselves to get a ground truth about how our servers are behaving.”Inside the server room, the sound of 6,000 whirring hard drives holding 40 petabytes of data-equivalent to 40,000 laptops-makes it impossible to speak without shouting.“We’re essentially looking for ‘weird things’ in the data,” Croft explains, something that suggests life forms might be trying to reach out, or that scientists are picking up their accidental transmissions.There have been a few moments of heightened excitement in the SETI community, including the 1977 detection of the so-called “Wow!” signal from the constellation Sagittarius, which remains unexplained.More recently, in 2020, the team identified Breakthrough Listen Candidate 1 from the nearest star system, Proxima Centauri, but after extensive analysis, it was concluded to be human radio interference.“It’s not deflating at all,” insists Lebofsky. On the contrary, he feels more optimistic than ever, given the vast amounts of data now being collected and processed compared to the early days. “I feel like the chances are improving exponentially every year.”

Qatar and Norway share a long history of a solid relationship that reflects remarkable progress in bilateral co-operation. This includesmulti-faceted aspects of political, economic, and trade co-operation, in addition to sharing knowledge and expertise in a multitude of fields.The visit of His Highness the Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani to Norway is the first of its kind and underscores Qatar’s commitment to reinforcing its global partnerships and expanding the scope of co-operation with friendly nations. The visit is also a crucial step towards broadening Qatar’s political and economic relationships.Norway is undoubtedly an attractive model whose economy relies on oil and gas and has evolved over the years into an economy with diverse incomes and robust investments in the industrial and tourism sectors. This evolution is underpinned by Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), the first global fund established in 1990, with financial assets worth about $1.6tn, as per World Bank global classifications.Norway is renowned for its international role in sponsoring mediations, resolving a variety of international crises, and hosting political consultations; in fact, it is the same role played by Qatar. Additionally, the capital, Oslo, frequently forges agreements among countries that have territorial disputes or conflicts and does not hesitate to advocate for humanitarian issues and stand with nations and their just causes. The latest stance was Norway’s official recognition of the State of Palestine, alongside Ireland and Spain, on 28 May 2024, a decision welcomed by Qatar as a critical step forward to support the two-state solution and achieve peace and stability in the region.Qatar shares a growing relationship with Norway, as demonstrated on January 17, 2024, when King Harald V of Norway received the credentials of Nadia bint Ahmad al-Sheebi as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Qatar (non-resident) to Norway. The ambassador conveyed His Highness the Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani’s greetings to the Norwegian monarch.In August 2024, HE Chief of Staff of the Qatar Armed Forces, Staff Lieutenant-General (Pilot) Salem bin Hamad bin Aqeel al-Nabit, visited Norway and held separate meetings in Oslo with State Secretary of Defence of Norway Anne Marie Aanerud and Norway’s Chief of Defence General Eirik Kristoffersen to discuss military co-operation between the two sides.In addition, HE the Chief of Staff of the Qatar Armed Forces visited the Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace facility and met with the CEO of the facility Geir Haoy.Regarding the economic aspect, Qatar Chamber (QC) hosted the Qatar-Norway Business Meeting on June 12, 2022. The meeting was co-chaired by QC’s First Vice-Chairman Mohamed bin Twar al-Kuwari and Manager of Innovation Norway in the Middle East and Head of the Norwegian delegation Epsen Teksum.Al-Kuwari underlined that Qatar and Norway share rock-solid co-operation ties and investments in the two countries, which reached approximately QR195mn during 2021, emphasising the importance of collaborative work of private sectors in both countries to stimulate trade exchanges.For his part, Epsen Teksum called on Qatari businessmen to explore investment opportunities available in Norway and invest in multiple sectors, such as energy, maritime industries, food security, and others. He highlighted that the Qatari-Norwegian trade ties have been ongoing for more than 60 years and that there are shared investments between the two countries in gas, oil, and defence sectors, as well as other fields.The first round of political consultations between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the two countries was held in November 2019, with the two nations signing a memorandum of understanding to establish political consultations between the two foreign ministries. The consultations were co-chaired by HE the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dr Ahmed bin Hassan al-Hammadi and Norway’s State Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Audun Halvorsen.Minister of Trade and Industry of Norway Torbjorn Roe Isaksen visited Doha on November 13, 2019, with accompanying delegates from professional Norwegian energy firms to attend the golden jubilee celebration of Qatar Fertiliser Company (Qafco) and the 50th anniversary of its co-operation with the Norwegian Yara International company.Torbjorn Roe Isaksen said the investments of the Norwegian firms in Qatar reached up to $10bn, hoping that trade ties between the two sides would significantly evolve to elevate these investments. He noted the co-operation prospects between the two sides in an array of sectors, such as maritime technology and defence industries, especially since the Norwegian firms were as successful as Qafco and Qatar Aluminium Manufacturing Company, predicting a meteoric rise in the Qatari-Norwegian partnerships in the future, particularly in maritime industries and energy sectors.The visit featured the celebration of four major Norwegian companies, alongside Qafco, on the 50th anniversary of the burgeoning industrial relationship among them and Qatar. Approximately, 250 Qatari and international dignitaries attended the event, particularly Crown Prince of Norway Haakon Magnus; HE the Minister of State for Energy Affairs, and President and CEO of QatarEnergy Saad bin Sherida al-Kaabi; Norwegian Minister of Trade and Industry Torbjorn Roe Isaksen; and Qafco Chief Executive Officer Abdulrahman M al-Suwaidi. Qafco represents the most important investment between the two countries, with 25% from the Norwegian Yara International and 75% from Industries Qatar, with Qafco running six integrated factories that produce Ammonia and Urea.Additionally, it plays a pivotal role in the global fertiliser market and is one of the largest exporters of Urea, with an annual production capacity of 3.8mn metric tonnes of Ammonia and 5.6mn metric tonnes of Urea.President and Chief Executive Officer of Yara International Svein Tore Holsether affirmed that half of the world’s population depends on food production fertilisers, with Qafco significantly contributing to enhancing global food security and exporting its products to all parts of the world.He underscored the company’s commitment to working with Qafco to ensure the sustainable production of mineral fertilisers, highlighting that his company works to develop digital agriculture tools for precision agriculture, thus lending impetus to food production by Qatar.For her part, CEO of Hydro Hilde Merete Aasheim said in the past 50 years Hydro had succeeded in engaging in the activities of numerous world-class industrial projects in Qatar and is the first industrial partner for Qatar. She added that Hydro primarily focuses on making aluminium as part of the solution for the most overwhelming challenge in this age, chiefly reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions when used in vehicles, transport, construction, packaging, and other applications, since aluminium can be repurposed without being recycled.Within the framework of the same visit, then Minister of Commerce and Industry HE Ali bin Ahmed al-Kuwari held separate meetings in Doha with Crown Prince Haakon Magnus, and Norway’s Minister of Trade and Industry Torbjorn Roe Isaksen.On the sidelines of the visit, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoCI) pointed out that the size of trade exchange between Qatar and Norway reached roughly QR160.1mn during 2018, equivalent to $43.86mn.The two countries have so far signed an agreement on avoiding double taxation and preventing fiscal evasion with respect to income taxes. Qatar ratified this agreement with the Norwegian government in Oslo on January 10,2010.

Regional elections in Germany have laid bare a swell of opposition to the government’s stance on the conflict in Ukraine at a time when Berlin is already under pressure over its aid for Kyiv.Sunday’s elections in the former East German states of Saxony and Thuringia saw big gains for the far-right AfD, which has long been accused of links with Russia and is a vocal critic of Germany’s support for Ukraine.A new far-left party, BSW, also made a big impact in the polls, having run on a ticket of peace negotiations with Russia and opposition to the planned stationing of US missiles in Germany.Although the elections were regional, they have been widely interpreted as a backlash against Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s fractious coalition government in Berlin.That includes the government’s support for Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion, already under scrutiny as it has been at the centre of a protracted row over the 2025 budget.The signal from German voters also comes with Kyiv facing worrying signs from several other allies, including the United States and France.Germany has been the second largest contributor of aid to Ukraine after the US, with Scholz repeatedly pledging to keep up the support for “as long as it takes”.But a growing sense of discontent has emerged over Berlin’s support for Kyiv, with many Germans fearing that the war could spill over and affect them directly.In a survey by the Insa pollster in late August, 45% of respondents said they were said they were either “very” or “quite” afraid of such an escalation.The proportion was higher at 55* in eastern Germany, where memories of the Cold war still loom large.In June, when Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Berlin to give a speech to the German parliament, the AfD and BSW both boycotted the event.Sahra Wagenknecht on Monday said her BSW party’s success in the regional elections was down to the fact that “a big issue in the election campaign was, of course, the question of war and peace”.“Half of the people in Germany are afraid of being dragged into a major war,” she said.The AfD had also made the conflict in Ukraine a big part of its election campaign, calling for peace negotiations and an end to weapons deliveries.“The weapons we are supplying there are not a solution,” said Joerg Urban, the AfD’s leader in Saxony, ahead of the vote, accusing Berlin of “fuelling” the conflict.Since Germany’s regional parliaments have no say in foreign policy, the election result “will not have an immediate impact” on Ukraine, Hans Vorlaender, a political scientist at the Dresden University of Technology (TU Dresden), told AFP.“Ukraine policy is a matter for the federal government...so in my opinion the result of the elections will have no direct effect in the first instance,” he said.But the results were already causing a ripple effect beyond Germany on Monday.Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper warned that “the seeds of Putinism are growing even in structured countries”, while the US Wall Street Journal said “anti-establishment populism is on the rise in Europe”.Hungarian far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s political director said Thuringia and Saxony had “sent a message to Brussels and Berlin: no migration, no gender (politics), no war”.“Today’s German state elections have triggered a political earthquake. The forces governing Germany in a pro-war, pro-migration and pro-gender (politics) coalition received a combined 15% of the vote,” Balazs Orban wrote in a Facebook post.Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany, Oleksii Makeiev, also responded to the election result in a post on social media platform X.“The BSW and AfD’s promises of peace are hot air... A just peace requires support for Ukraine to fight for it,” he said.

An overhauled Democratic ticket has re-energised the party and eliminated the widening polling lead that former US president Donald Trump had over his successor, Joe Biden. There is much to admire in Kamala Harris and Tim Walz’s backgrounds, careers, and recent campaign speeches, which have focused on fighting poverty, improving the lot of working people, reclaiming patriotism from Republicans, and strengthening democracy. But even setting aside these virtues, there are good reasons to support the Democratic ticket. After all, the alternative is Trump, who poses such a serious threat to US institutions that any halfway decent candidate running against him would deserve strong support.Trump threatens American democracy in part because US institutions were not designed to deal with an autocratic populist who is willing to break norms and even laws. As I pointed out in 2017, American voters and civil society are ultimately the only forces that can stop such a figure. Although American democracy withstood Trump’s presidency in 2017-21, he exploited every institutional weakness he could find, deepened the divisions of an already polarised society, and tried to overturn the result of a free and fair election that he lost.The Democrats successfully reclaimed the White House in the 2020 election, despite Trump’s coup attempt on January 6, 2021, because they had a major advantage: his own incompetence. Although long-standing political norms had been severely damaged, democracy survived.Trump’s incompetence as president had two dimensions. First, he was incapable of demonstrating any consistency. His only real agenda was to concentrate power in his own hands and elevate and enrich his family and cronies, but he lacked the discipline and focus to see it through. The terrifying implication, of course, is that somebody more disciplined could have done far more damage. Second, Trump failed to win the unconditional personal loyalty of many of his underlings, and that ultimately meant that most of his wildest schemes and decisions were exposed or blocked from within.Unfortunately, Trump poses a far greater threat to American democracy today for five key reasons. First, he has grown only angrier, which means he will be more determined to concentrate power in his own hands and deploy it against his enemies (real and perceived). If he returns to the White House, he will be not only more vicious but also potentially more consistent in pursuing his personal agenda.Second, Trump and his ideological fellow travellers will have put much more thought and vetting into high- and mid-level appointees, as they have already done for his implicit governing agenda: the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Although Trump claims to renounce this comprehensive policy blueprint, it has already become a valuable tool for identifying potential administration personnel. Supporting the Heritage Foundation’s dark vision is a litmus test, ensuring that no whistleblowers or defenders of democracy can serve as the “adults in the room” this time around.Third, the GOP is now Trump’s personal cult, which means that local Republican officials across the country will be willing to do whatever he commands. Some may go so far as attempting to rig elections and seize control of local law enforcement and public services. If Trump once again demands that local election officials “find” more votes in his favour, he might just get what he wants.Fourth, owing to a variety of mistakes by intellectual elites and Democratic Party leaders – such as advocating extreme “woke” positions like open borders, defunding the police, and so forth – many right-leaning, moderate, and non-college voters have concluded that Democrats are left-wing extremists. Those who see the Democrats as lacking patriotism will be much less likely to break with Trump, even though Harris and Walz are taking steps to appeal to them.Fifth, for all these same reasons, effective civil-society action against Trump has become more difficult. After years in which the left has applied its own ideological purity tests and shamed anyone who falls short, fewer independent voters and moderate Republicans will be willing to join a big-tent anti-Trump coalition. Progressive Democrats could end up standing alone against his unconstitutional or anti-democratic behaviour, and that would not be enough.For all these reasons, Trump’s threat to US institutions must be taken seriously. Once again, the only way to defend American democracy is to use democratic means to defeat him. Democracy thrives when it delivers real-world results and helps people fulfil their aspirations. In practice, that means promoting economic prosperity, security, fairness, competent governance, and stability. The latter is especially important for withstanding periodic shocks and challenges, including threats to democracy itself.Trump is not the first anti-democratic demagogue to attract a strong following, and he will not be the last. US institutions became stronger after withstanding a proto-fascist challenge from Father Charles Coughlin in the late 1930s; resistance to Black civil rights in the Jim Crow South of the 1950s and 1960s; the segregationist George Wallace’s 1968 presidential run; and Watergate. If Trump is defeated this November, US institutions will emerge stronger once again.But for democracy to withstand such challenges, there must be good alternatives on the ballot. People must be able to cast a vote for politicians with good track records of solving problems, inspiring people, and defending free institutions. The Harris-Walz ticket looks like it fits the bill. Now begins the hard work of mobilising people and restoring support for democracy. But the even harder work will be to deliver on the promises of democracy, by combating poverty and inequality, reducing polarisation and extremism from both sides, and demonstrating that government does work for the common people. — Project SyndicateDaron Acemoglu, Institute Professor of Economics at MIT, is co-author (with Simon Johnson) of Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity.

At a time of growing doubts about China’s economic prospects, India’s rise has been attracting increasing attention, with some predicting that the country will become the developing world’s next economic superstar. Whether you believe India can be the “next China”, however, may depend on whether you subscribe more to “young” or “old” Schumpeterian logic.The twentieth-century economist Joseph Schumpeter is best known for the concept of “creative destruction”, which describes how new innovations transform the economy partly by making older technologies obsolete. But Schumpeter’s ideas about economic dynamism and development were not static: whereas he initially emphasised the role of entrepreneurship above all, he later recognised the importance of big businesses.So, in assessing India’s prospects, the “old” Schumpeter might look at the number of big businesses the country has produced. India lags well behind China on this front, with just eight Fortune Global 500 companies, compared to its neighbour’s 135. (To put this in perspective, the United States has 136 Fortune Global 500 companies, and South Korea has 18, despite having a much smaller population.) China has achieved this lead over India in just a few decades: in the early 1990s, China had three Fortune Global 500 companies, and India had one.China has also pulled well ahead of India in terms of per capita income. In 1978 – just before China initiated the “reform and opening up” that enabled its “economic miracle”– both countries’ per capita income amounted to about 5% of the US level. By the early 2010s, Chinese incomes had reached about 20% of the US level, compared to just 10% for India. Today, Chinese and Indian per capita income relative to the US stands at 33% and 13%, respectively.The fact that China has been far more successful than India in generating world-class big businesses might help to explain this divergence. Big businesses contribute significantly to economic growth. By contrast, a larger number of small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) is only correlated with faster growth, indicating that it may be growth that fuels the proliferation of SMEs, not the other way around.One reason for this – as “old” Schumpeter might note – is that big businesses tend to execute high-end and high-value-added activities, such as research and development and marketing, at home, while carrying out low-value-added activities abroad. Though the latter can boost growth and facilitate knowledge transfer, latecomer countries must translate this into locally owned, innovative big businesses if they are to break into high-end segments of the global economy.The “young” Schumpeter might be more impressed by India. That is because India has proved more than capable of generating “unicorns” – private companies with a valuation above $1bn – boasting 91 such companies, as of last year. To be sure, China far outstrips India here, too, with 368 unicorns. But India remains in the top four globally, behind the US (1,524) and the United Kingdom (153), but ahead of countries like Germany (64), Brazil (30), and South Korea (29).Yet the discrepancy between Fortune Global 500 businesses and unicorns in India is notable. In 2020-23, that ratio amounted to just 0.1 in India, compared to 0.4 in China, 0.5 in Germany, and 0.25 in Brazil. The ratio in South Korea – whose economy is notoriously dominated by big businesses – is particularly high, at 0.6, implying that big businesses actually facilitate the rise of unicorns.This likely happens through a few channels. One is the transmission of relevant skills and know-how through employment. To cite one example, the founders of Naver – essentially the “Korean Google” – used to work for Samsung. Another is direct investment: the Chinese tech giant Tencent supports hundreds of startups as an equity investor.The older Schumpeter would probably argue that, if India wants to become an economic superpower on par with China, it should devote more attention to generating big businesses. In fact, without homegrown big businesses to drive growth and investment, India is likely to lose its innovative startups to acquisitions by foreign giants.To avoid this kind of “brain drain,” efforts must be made to help startups grow quickly within India, so that they can become the flagship companies of tomorrow. South Korea and Taiwan became high-income economies by growing a few large firms, such as Samsung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), not by having thousands of SMEs. Creating a sound institutional or investment climate to nurture startups can take decades. It takes less time to concentrate resources and competencies among a few firms so that they may grow into leading flagship companies.

South Africa’s foreign policy trajectory can be viewed in the context of historical global political cultures. As a nation we have navigated a complex global environment, having emerged from being a global pariah to one of the more prominent actors on the global stage.Recently, the icon of “realism”, Henry Kissinger, passed away. He had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the 1970s for helping to negotiate a ceasefire in Vietnam — a war he both helped to escalate and then bring to a messy end. Kissinger’s approach was in keeping with the dominant global political culture which still prevails. The “realism” which Kissinger championed is a fancy diplomatic word for explaining why we need to accept war and injustice as part of the management of relations between countries.Kissinger, and those who thought like him, supported the idea that the powerful in the world had to use force to shape the world according to their interests. He supported wars, irrespective of whether they were lawful, as long as they achieved some political objective.Kissinger was a leading advocate for the US not to be a party to the Rome Statute — which established the International Criminal Court (ICC) — on the grounds that the US did not need to be accountable for its actions in the international arena. Kissinger was an eloquent proponent of a centuries-old culture that celebrates violence and warfare.Sadly, as we are witnessing in Palestine, the tradition that sanctions and glorifies violence, plunder and exploitation is dominant and has subdued the tradition discouraging violence. We need to refocus the locus of international relations on values that prioritise the dignity and equality of people.Jonathan Schell, in his seminal book The Unconquerable World, writes about two competing impulses in humanity. The impulse for war and plunder, and the opposing impulse for peace and serenity. He cites the poetry of Virgil, who glorified the wars of the Roman Empire through his words “Arms and the man I sing”. This edified a martial tradition and indeed a martial system where, at best, people and societies stood up for principles using force, but where generally it exemplified plunders, exploitation and massacres.Humanity has not learnt lessons from the past. By now we should have learnt over the centuries that the use of force lays the basis for hatred that will only ensure “forever wars”. It is indeed an indictment of humanity that the last three decades have been described as the most peaceful in human history.Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was warmly welcomed on Capitol Hill in the US. This is despite a request by the chief prosecutor of the ICC for arrest warrants for him and his minister of defence for crimes against humanity. Netanyahu’s welcome by American public representatives and other so-called responsible states that profess to respect international law and human rights law has created a significant crisis in international governance. Is this disregard of norms and laws because Palestinians are the victims and Israel the perpetrator? These are the same norms and laws that were supposed to frame the discussions at the recent Summit on Peace in Ukraine.South Africa helped shape those agreements since the so-called Ukraine Peace Formula talks began in Copenhagen. These values that are centred on human rights and international legal norms were negotiated and agreed to at the G20 in New Delhi, India, in September 2023. They included explicit prohibitions on the annexation and acquisition of land through the use of force. Western countries supported this at the time as they largely negotiated in the context of the Russia/Ukraine war.Not surprisingly, after the events in Palestine following October 7, the default Western diplomatic position was restored. That is, that these laws and norms do not apply to Israel or any actors that are deemed to be part of the West’s sphere of influence. Diplomats from countries of the South have long pushed back against the double standards in the implementation of international norms and laws. The most recent differential approach taken by the West, in which they have been outraged by the military onslaught on Ukraine but far less so about the genocide in Palestine, has been so crude that it has the potential to dismantle international legal order.At the root of this differential approach to international legal norms is the global martial culture that is in lockstep with the political traditions of former colonial powers. This was discussed by the South African legal team at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearings in The Hague.In May, Vaughan Lowe KC, acting on behalf of the South African government at the ICJ, said: “We have heard expressions of outrage that anyone could accuse Israel of acting in this way. We have heard sober assurances that Israel was doing and would do everything in its power to avoid civilian deaths as it exercised its claimed right of self-defence. We have heard boasts that Israel’s army is the most moral army in history. We have heard flat denials that there is famine in Gaza. For months people, particularly in the West, have appeared unwilling to accept that the accusations are true. How could people who look like us and sound like us possibly engage in anything like genocide?” This institutionalised impunity for the powerful is steeped in the history of colonialism and indicates that the martial culture referred to by Schell is not only persistent, but also is condoned when the victims are “non-Western” people and countries.This martial culture poses a danger to all of humanity. Contestation for power, influence, resources and territory through the use of force has the potential to destroy all of humankind and the planet that sustains us. The potential use of nuclear weapons in the current wars in Europe and the Middle East cannot be ignored. There is also an increase in localised violence fuelled by the growth of narrow nationalism and ultranationalist politics. This, together with the resurgence of the global war system, heightens the risk of regional war and even a type of world war which will be existential in nature.We need a reset towards a global political culture that is based on co-operation, peace and justice, wherein diplomatic actions seek to build global wellbeing. That is, a world where the use of force is replaced by dialogue and negotiation, and where force is prohibited. This will require changes to the UN Charter. The same UN and its related institutions must be reconfigured so that it is transformed from protecting previous empires to a system that regards all people and countries equally — and is geared towards being the engine for inclusive development. This will assist in dealing with the root causes of conflicts.This vision is not new. It formed part of the foreign policy vision of the very first post-apartheid administration in South Africa. In 1994, our international relations strategic stance was centred on “progressive internationalism”. This was underpinned by a commitment to South-South co-operation and approaches to peace, security and disarmament that were guided by a commitment to human rights.We sought to be a country that would act in solidarity with all peoples who face oppression and discrimination. At some point, this idealism in our foreign policy stance was supplanted by an unstated “constructivist” approach — which was code for “realism” — that weakened our normative human rights framework and led to inconsistent actions in the international arena.Over the last five years we have recalibrated and have reset the normative stance. This has led to some referring to South Africa as the moral superpower. Whether this label is accurate or not, the expectation to fulfil this vision is one that we need to aspire to over the next five years. Perhaps with other middle-power countries we can work to transform the global political landscape to be peace-centred and rights-driven. For South Africa, this will require us to increase our consistency in diplomatic practice to reflect this normative stance.The values embedded in the South African constitution place a duty on us to aspire to become moral global citizens. The value-based foreign policy stance that we are mandated to execute, given our history, can help us move away from simplistic definitions of being constructivist, realist or idealist.A diplomatic stance centred on moral global citizenship should also create some momentum towards realising initiatives to create a more inclusive global economic system. This requires that those working in multinational corporations and private businesses become active moral global citizens. This should ideally lead to the development of national and global investment norms that would reward countries that adhere to international legal norms and promote a culture of human rights and peace.Zane Dangor is Director-General of the Department of International Relations & Co-operation (DIRCO) of the Republic of South Africa.

While it is estimated that worldwide about one in 100 children has autism, a new system that detects genetic markers in brain images with 89-95% accuracy, potentially enabling earlier diagnosis and treatment, will be welcomed widely as it could spare families years of uncertainty. The system, which identifies brain structure patterns linked to autism-related genetic variations, offers a personalised approach to autism care. The technique, called transport-based morphometry, or TBM, could transform the understanding and treatment of autism by focusing on genetic markers rather than behavioural cues.The findings of a multi-university research team, co-led by University of Virginia engineering professor Gustavo K Rohde, suggest doctors may one day see, classify and treat autism and related neurological conditions with this method and result in earlier interventions.“Autism is traditionally diagnosed behaviourally but has a strong genetic basis. A genetics-first approach could transform understanding and treatment of autism,” the researchers wrote in a paper published June 12 in the journal Science Advances.Rohde, a professor of biomedical and electrical and computer engineering, collaborated with researchers from the University of California San Franscisco and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, including Shinjini Kundu, Rohde’s former PhD student and first author of the paper. It was while working in Rohde’s lab that Kundu — now a physician at the Johns Hopkins Hospital — helped develop a generative computer modelling technique, TBM, which is at the heart of the team’s approach.The new method starts out with standard brain-mapping via magnetic resonance imaging before re-analysing those scans via AI to detect the movements of proteins, nutrients and other processes within the brain that may indicate autism. TBM reveals brain structure patterns that predict variations in certain regions of the individual’s genetic code — a phenomenon called “copy number variations (CNV),” in which segments of the code are deleted or duplicated. These variations are linked to autism. “Some CNV are known to be associated with autism, but their link to brain morphology — in other words, how different types of brain tissues such as gray or white matter, are arranged in our brain — is not well known,” Rohde said. Finding out how CNV relates to brain tissue morphology is an important first step in understanding autism’s biological basis.TBM is different from other machine learning image analysis models because the mathematical models are based on mass transport — the movement of molecules such as proteins, nutrients and gases in and out of cells and tissues. ‘Morphometry’ refers to measuring and quantifying the biological forms created by these processes. Most machine learning methods, Rohde said, have little or no relation to the biophysical processes that generated the data. They rely instead on recognising patterns to identify anomalies. But Rohde’s approach uses mathematical equations to extract the mass transport information from medical images, creating new images for visualisation and further analysis.The researchers used data from participants in the Simons Variation in Individuals Project, a group of subjects with the autism-linked genetic variation. Control-set subjects were recruited from other clinical settings and matched for age, sex, handedness and non-verbal IQ while excluding those with related neurological disorders or family histories.“We hope that the findings, the ability to identify localised changes in brain morphology linked to CNV, could point to brain regions and eventually mechanisms that can be leveraged for therapies,” Rohde said.Additional co-authors are Haris Sair of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Elliott H Sherr and Pratik Mukherjee of the University of California San Francisco’s Department of Radiology. The research received funding from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Radiological Society of North America and the Simons Variation in Individuals Foundation.

Cartoon