Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s recent visit to China signaled the diplomatic revival he has long hoped for. But Assad walked away from the trip empty-handed when it comes to financial commitments toward reconstruction of Syria’s still-devastated infrastructure. Worse still for Assad, China isn’t alone in its reticence toward Syria.
Under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, China has begun to challenge America’s role as the key economic and political actor in Asia. Increasingly repressive at home, Xi has not shied away from asserting China’s regional authority. But while China’s rise often makes headlines, it is not the only trend shaping events in Asia.
Israelis and Palestinians are again at war, with potential consequences—including the risk of wider conflict—for the entire region. Of course, wars are the product of local, proximate factors. But at a time when the global security order is fraying due to the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war also fits a broader pattern.
For leftist governments in South America, the unfolding confrontation between the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which some of them view as a liberation movement, and Israel, a country many of them view as damnably oppressive, became the source of domestic tensions, with some leaders struggling to modulate their responses.
The Israel-Hamas war has the potential to fuel further conflict across the Middle East, with a high risk in particular of the fighting spreading to include Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. By contrast, there is a worrying lack of attention in European and U.S. political and media discussions to the impact of the war in Gaza on Egypt.
As Ukraine fast approaches its third year of all-out war, flickers of domestic politics have begun to reappear. That has created a new challenge for Ukrainian members of parliament who want to ensure accountability without undermining the war effort, at a time when support from Western allies is being thrown into question.
Last week, the U.N. Security Council established a multinational armed mission to Haiti that many fear will end up being yet another botched intervention there. In fact, the mission has several features that ought to reassure skeptics. Whether it can live up to its full potential will depend on a number of factors yet to be determined.
Year after year, observers have been warning that the status quo in Gaza could not last, and yet year after year it stubbornly did. It was a testament to how sustainable an unsustainable situation can be—until the moment when it no longer is. The unprecedented attack this weekend marked that moment in Israel’s standoff with Hamas.
Last week, after months of requests from Haiti for international assistance, the U.N. Security Council authorized a peacekeeping mission to fight gangs that have taken over the country’s capital. The question now is whether the force will be enough to make a difference. There’s no shortage of reasons to believe it won’t.
Six months in, Sudan’s internal conflict has become a devastating humanitarian crisis, with tens of millions of people needing assistance. Worse still, neither side in the war is anywhere near ending the fighting. If concerted action is not taken soon to end the conflict, it could result in the collapse of Sudan.
In the same week, Azerbaijan seized control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region in a lightning military advance and Serbia amassed troops on its border with Kosovo. The dual military crises, while concerning in and of themselves, also point to how the war in Ukraine is breaking down the international security order.
The threat of a U.S. government shutdown because of legislative gridlock in Washington no longer has the power to shock U.S. allies and adversaries. But the likelihood of further political paralysis in Washington has forced many governments to ponder what a potential future without the U.S. as a coherent global actor might look like.
The effusive rhetoric on display in recent high-level meetings between Russian and Chinese officials masks a significant vulnerability in their strategic partnership: Although both sides champion the creation of a multipolar world order, their actual cooperation on the ground lags far behind, particularly in the Middle East and Africa.
Critics of the proposed U.S. role in a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal have focused on Riyadh’s human rights record. But the real problem with the deal is that it would do little to advance U.S. interests. The stated goal of normalization is admirable. But it’s simply not worth the price the U.S. appears willing to pay.