Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Monday, July 28, 2025

Kishore Mahbubani SLAMS Western Leaders on China

This Is How BRICS Outplayed the Entire Western World | Jack Ma Tells the...

The West’s Biggest Weakness! — And How China Exploits It | Jack Ma’s Unf...

Here is why the #USA is so afraid of #China...

Thursday, July 24, 2025

china also faces sanctions without mandate or legitimacy crom the outlawed West

Economy

China also faces sanctions without mandate or legitimacy from the outlawed West

Mohamed Lamine KABA, July 24, 2025

Far from any multilateral framework, Western sanctions against China embody a normative shift where power supplants law—without ever concerning, constraining, or intimidating Beijing.

china response to the sanctions

Since 2022, the escalation of Sino-Western tensions has crystallized by the proxy conflict in Ukraine and the rise of a multipolar world. The United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom have imposed unilateral sanctions on Chinese entities suspected of supporting Russia in this NATO-orchestrated hybrid war, with the aim of weakening Moscow before turning to China. Beijing has vehemently rejected these measures as illegal and unfounded, lacking UN approval. In 2025, this conflict dynamic has intensified, revealing a deep fracture between the West and the RIC (Russia-India-China) triptych Alliance, as well as with the Global South, from Africa to Latin America, including Asia and the Caribbean. This tense geopolitical context raises questions about the legitimacy of sanctions, national sovereignty, and the future of an international system previously dominated by Western powers, now imprisoned by the multipolarism embodied by the BRICS Alliance.

Beijing has vehemently rejected these measures as illegal and unfounded, lacking UN approval

Extraterritorial sanctions as illegitimate instruments of Western geostrategic interference

Illegitimate tools of intimidation and geostrategic interference specific to the West, the sanctions (which bear all the attributes of extraterritoriality) were reinforced with the adoption on July 18 of the 18th package by the EU of Von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, tied to NATO’s belligerent stance. The “triangle of evil”—composed of the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom—has increased pressure on Chinese companies accused of bolstering Russia’s war effort without the approval of the UN Security Council. Beijing condemns punitive diplomacy driven by Western geopolitical designs rather than international law. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has emphasized the lack of a multilateral basis for these sanctions. With this 18th package of sanctions, the EU has not only targeted Russia but also Chinese banks and technology companies, including DeepSeek—which disrupted and unscrewed American giants in the sector on January 27—prompting an immediate response from Beijing. These sanctions, decided outside the UN framework, embody an imperialist drift where the West arrogates to itself the right to judge and punish according to its own interests, ignoring the principles of sovereignty and non-interference established by the UN.

China, the other architect of a post-Western order based on multipolar sovereignty

Alongside Russia, China, for its part, is asserting itself as the architect of a new post-Western order based on multipolar sovereignty. In response to the economic offensive, it is consolidating its strategic alliances with Russia and India, notably through the trilateral RIC format, as well as with other nations in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The meeting between Wang Yi and Lavrov in Beijing provided an opportunity to describe their partnership as “the most stable and mature strategic relationship between major powers.” Beijing refuses to bow to Western pressure and maintains that its relations with Moscow are of no concern to Washington, Brussels, or London. At the same time, China denounces Western sanctions—not only against it but also against other non-Western countries—as a malign attempt by the Atlantic Alliance to perpetuate the conflict in Ukraine, precisely to give its own survival a chance, which ultimately results in the activation of its instruments of terror around the world. This Chinese positioning is part of a multipolar vision of the world, where rules are no longer imposed by the West—which has lost its strategic monopoly—but are negotiated between sovereign powers. By denouncing the illegitimacy of these sanctions, it defends a vision where the international order is based on consensus rather than coercion.

So, from the collapse of Western influence in Africa to Cuba’s geoeconomic rise within the BRICS, to the flashpoints in the Middle East and the turbulence in the South and East China Seas, all of these dynamics make Donald Trump a symptom of a Western rhetoric incapable of tolerating any narrative involving Putin, Xi, Khomeini—or the powers that be Russia, China, and Iran.

It is therefore clear that by arrogating to itself the right to sanction without a UN mandate, the West is not so much punishing China as excluding itself from the international legal framework.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in Geopolitics of Governance and Regional Integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

The Next Ukraine? Taiwan as Wahshington's Bewachhead and the Limits of Sovereignty in Asia.

Politics

The Next Ukraine? Taiwan as Washington’s Beachhead and the Limits of Sovereignty in Asia

Rebecca Chan, July 24, 2025

Taiwan is being intensively drawn into the zone of direct control by the United States. Behind the rhetoric of partnership lies a cold calculation, the smell of military logistics. America writes its scripts in the same way: first words, then bases, then blood.

Taiwan is for peace

Loud Promises and Hidden Mechanisms

Taiwan is back in play. Amid global fires—from the bleeding edge of Eastern Europe to the anxious Mediterranean—Washington casts its gaze across the Pacific, as if searching for the next powder keg to ignite. The same old soundtrack plays: “democracy,” “values,” “freedom”—the familiar chorus that has accompanied every previous disaster.

The sequence is well-practiced. First comes the language of “shared values” and “defense of freedom.” Then—deployments, advisers, budgets, and finally—ruins. Ukraine was not an exception. A sovereign space reduced to a proving ground. Taiwan is being fed the same script: praised, armed, isolated, and quietly designated as expendable. The vocabulary changes, but the logic remains imperial.

In Pentagon strategic papers, Taiwan is not a subject. It is “critically important,” “reliable,” a “bastion.” Like a safety deposit box. Like a forward outpost. But no bastion is built without a garrison. And no “support” ever comes free. The checks are signed, but it’s never the benefactor who pays.

Sovereignty doesn’t die when foreign tanks arrive. It dies when national institutions stop serving their own society.

The wording is politely exalted, but the facts are grim. Taipei is being drawn into a zone of direct control. Behind the rhetoric of partnership lies a cold calculus, the scent of war logistics. America writes its scripts the same way: first the words, then the bases, then the blood.

From Partnership to Penetration

Since 1979, Washington has played the part of the well-mannered guest—keeping its distance, maintaining the formal compromise. That performance is over. The door is open—American advisors are now embedded in Taiwan’s government, and the military has returned as if stepping into familiar quarters. Half a century of silence ends with the echo of boots.

This isn’t a cultural exchange. It’s a system override. When a foreign officer sits in the chair of a national official, it’s not “support.” It’s an implant. And with every new office handed over to an overseas handler, one more square is erased from the map of sovereignty.

Taiwan is no longer a prop in a geopolitical drama. It is a line item in the U.S. defense budget. PDI lays out the numbers: $9.9 billion—not for development, not for healthcare, not for culture. For bases. For missile defense. For “training.” That’s the price of being slotted into someone else’s war plan.

Civil Sovereignty Under Pressure

On the surface—“stable democracy.” In the basement—purges. Under the banner of a “general recall,” the ruling party sweeps opposition lawmakers out of parliament like trash from a stairwell. Legality serves as a decorative cover. The substance is elimination of dissent. Arrests, intimidation, media fragmentation—it’s all by the book.

This is no longer internal politics. It is the anatomy of externally guided transformation. One by one, lawmakers disappear, voices are blocked, alternatives neutralized. Sovereignty doesn’t fall with the sound of tanks. It dissolves—in courtrooms, on muted screens, in what is left unsaid.

Taiwan as a Strategic Blockade Element Against China

The island is circled on the map as a tension point. It has become a screw in the architecture of the U.S. strategy to contain China—First Island Chain doctrine. There’s no need for people here, no concern for culture. What matters is a coordinate point. Everything else is background noise.

Talk of “defending Taiwan” is not about values. It rests on maps, routes, supply lines. This is not defense—it is the construction of a new fortress. A strike node, outfitted to Pentagon specs. And the tighter this structure binds the island, the clearer the truth becomes: the closer Taiwan is to the U.S., the closer it is to the blast radius.

Military Coercion as a Form of Dependency

Distributed lethality—the euphemism of the age. Behind this flashy phrase lies an old practice: using foreign land as foreign flesh. Taiwan is being turned into a firepower node in advance—without consent, without explanation, without regard. It’s simply a predetermined target in someone else’s strike matrix.

The draft has been extended. Military service now lasts a full year. Young people resist. Families ask questions. The response—predictably—is accusation: of disloyalty, cowardice, lack of patriotism. This was no internal decision. The speed of change and the tone of its delivery bear the signature of an outside hand.

This “reform” is scripted elsewhere. Washington draws the schemes, Taipei mobilizes the bodies. Taiwan’s army is not being shaped to defend its people, but to serve the momentum of a foreign empire. This is not an alliance. It’s a requisition.

Ideological Reconstruction of Identity

Military reconstruction walks hand in hand with cultural amnesia. The official line: Taiwan must forget where it came from. Schoolbooks no longer mention China, but the Dutch. Not culture, but “internationalism.” Not kinship, but manufactured isolation. President Lai is rewriting the nation—as if history answers to executive order.

This isn’t policy—it’s an operation to sever Taiwan from its civilizational roots. The goal is to make it more compatible with a foreign implant. Sovereignty is not just about borders. It’s about a shared sense of self. This is being dismantled not by rockets, but by curriculum editors and speechwriters.

The new narrative creates no strength. It breeds confusion. A nation forced to forget becomes vulnerable. The assault on identity is a prelude to every other kind of assault. When you no longer know who you are, it’s easy to obey the voice that shouts the loudest.

The Illusion of Integration into the Global North

President Lai is selling a dream: Taiwan as part of the Global North. A tender self-deception. A fantasy of inclusion, of special status, of an old trading post rebranded as a four-century global success story. But history is not a brochure. And reality doesn’t answer to PR.

More than 95% of Taiwan’s population descends from the mainland. The economy is deeply tied to China. Geography does not budge. This kind of performative detachment from reality has become a trademark of Washington’s Indo-Pacific policy—an incoherent mix of corporate theatre and military rehearsals, where losing ground is spun as strategic foresight. Taiwan’s “internationalism” exists mostly in memos and in the minds of those paid to uphold the illusion of membership among the chosen.

Japan already walked this path in the 20th century. The West accepts submission—but never equality. Becoming a showcase is not the same as becoming a member. Taiwan is not getting closer to the North. It is losing its South. And in the end, it may be left with nothing.

Taiwan at a Crossroads

The island is being crushed between two pressure plates. From outside—“support” that looks more like a hostile takeover. From within—“reforms” that replace politics with compliance. Sovereignty doesn’t die when foreign tanks arrive. It dies when national institutions stop serving their own society.

Taiwan is already almost written into the new frontlines. U.S. defense budgets, figures and logistics, personnel rotations, military nodes—it’s all on the table. All that’s missing is a signature.

But this ending is not yet sealed. Asian sovereignty does not demand a fight with the West. It demands silence from it. The space to think and act without outside editing. Taiwan may seek support, but it cannot afford to lose its voice. In an era where islands become targets, silence is more dangerous than any alliance. And silence, in the end, is surrender. Ukraine became a frontline before it understood it had already been chosen. Taiwan is being chosen now. The maps are drawn. The slogans printed. Only silence remains. And in politics, silence rarely means neutrality. More often — it means surrender.

Rebecca Chan, Independent political analyst focusing on the intersection of Western foreign policy and Asian sovereignty