by LEE HA-KYUNG

Henry Kissinger, the late U.S. secretary of state, cowrote “The Age of AI and Our Human Future” (2021) with Eric Schmidt and Craig Mundie, and in that work he references the Finnish national epic “Kalevala” (1835). In that story, the immortal blacksmith Ilmarinen, at the demand of an old sorceress, forges the Sampo, a magical mill that produces endless gold and treasure for its owner. The story was used as an allegory to show the promise of artificial intelligence.

To President Donald Trump, Korea is now a kind of Sampo. He has demanded that Seoul invest $350 billion of its foreign exchange reserves — 84 percent of the nation’s $410 billion total — in the United States. Washington would decide when and how the money is used and then take 90 percent of the profits. Even Shakespeare’s Shylock would be shocked by such terms. President Lee Jae Myung refused, warning that accepting would mean both his impeachment and a foreign exchange crisis. But Trump pressed further, describing the demand as an “upfront” payment in exchange for reducing tariffs by 15 percent. Commerce Secretary Rutnick went a step further, asking for even larger sums. To many in Korea, this looks like a relentless pattern of zero-sum pressure.

Japan has already pledged $550 billion to Trump in order to preserve auto exports. Unlike Korea, Japan can absorb such costs. Its reserves exceed $1.3 trillion, more than three times Korea’s, and the yen enjoys reserve currency status. Tokyo also maintains an unlimited currency swap line with Washington. When Seoul asked for such a facility, the U.S. dismissed the request. The message to Korea was blunt: America made you wealthy, so return the profits.

This moment reflects a trajectory long in the making. In 2016, when Trump first campaigned for the White House, former assistant secretary of state Robert Einhorn told the writer that Trump could never be elected, and even if he were, the U.S. system would contain him. That prediction proved wrong. Once in office, the “elected emperor” began reshaping alliances with fiery rhetoric and transactional demands. But Trump had foreshadowed these moves decades earlier. In 1987 he bought newspaper ads accusing allies of free-riding on American security while getting rich at U.S. expense. The tariff bombs and cash demands Korea now faces were already visible 38 years ago.

Trump thrives on Hobbesian realism, zero-sum bargaining and narrow definitions of national interest. With his America First banner, he has undermined the liberal international order the U.S. once defended. In 2016, 50 Republican national security officials issued a joint statement that a president must be restrained, deliberate and emotionally stable, noting that even America’s closest allies felt insecure under Trump’s whims. Stanford University economic historian Niall Ferguson defined “Trumpism” as “taking advantage of the fact that all other countries are weaker than the United States in order to bully them.” (Joseph Nye, “Is the American Century Over?” (2015))

Korea Joong Ang Daily for more

by RENE WILDANGEL

Trump’s plan for peace in Gaza was drafted without key parties, then presented with ultimatums — hardly a foundation for lasting peace

How do wars end? A rather banal but empirically verifiable finding from peace and conflict research is that peace treaties have a better chance of being upheld if they have been negotiated as concretely and carefully as possible. Measured by this standard, the pompously announced ‘Trump plan’ for ‘eternal peace’ is a farce: drawn up largely without the conflicting parties, at the discretion of the President and his confidants. At least one party, Hamas, was not even consulted beforehand, but was asked to agree to it afterwards by means of an ultimatum.

At the very least, the plan includes the possibility of an ‘amnesty’ for those Hamas leaders who lay down their arms. This approach could have been pursued months ago, but instead Netanyahu and his allies consistently spoke of the complete ‘destruction’ of Hamas — an unrealistic and nonsensical goal from the outset, as Hamas is not only a militia but also a broadly based political and social movement. Worse still, Israel has actively thwarted attempts at negotiation in recent months, even bombing a Hamas negotiating delegation in Doha. This may have been the point at which Trump felt compelled to intervene, after tolerating and supporting Israel’s devastating offensive for months.

However, after the publication of the ‘Trump plan,’ Israel’s disastrous military operation in Gaza City continued. Massive attacks, increasingly carried out by automated weapon systems, are destroying the few remaining medical and humanitarian facilities and civilian infrastructure; the catastrophic supply situation makes survival virtually impossible for the remaining civilians — a situation that, according to all major human rights organisations and most recently a UN commission of inquiry, constitutes genocide.

Supreme peacemaker

The dystopian situation in Gaza and the monstrosity of the crimes committed there by the Israeli army are probably the reason why Trump’s somewhat bizarre plan immediately became the last glimmer of hope for finally ending the Gaza war: an immediate ceasefire, full humanitarian aid, and the instant return of all Israeli hostages — these are long-overdue and justified demands in this plan, which must be supported unconditionally.

And yet, the numerous other passages of the ‘20-point plan’ are either extremely vague or contain highly problematic proposals that do not point towards détente or even conflict resolution. The fact that, among others, the German Foreign Minister Wadephul praised the plan as a ‘unique opportunity’ and effusively thanked the US President is therefore not only surprising but also dangerous. The plan has nothing to do with the parameters for conflict resolution advocated by the EU. Wadephul and his EU colleagues would be well advised to make a clear distinction here: support for the initiative for a ceasefire, humanitarian aid and the release of hostages; clear demarcation from the rest of the plan and, instead, clear communication of the parameters for the further political process.

IPS-EU for more

by MARK W. POST

If you have studied almost any European language, you will have noticed words that felt oddly familiar. French mort (dead) recalls English murder. German Hund (dog) is a dead ringer for hound. Czech sestra resembles English sister. No prizes for guessing the meaning of Albanian kau (OK, well – it’s actually ox).

You might have wondered: could these words be in some way related?

Of course, words can look similar for various reasons. Unrelated languages borrow from one another: consider English igloo, from Inuktikut iglu (house), or wok from Cantonese ? wòk (frying pan). And there are plenty of sheer coincidences: Thai ?? fai resembles its English translation fire for no particular reason at all.

But the preceding sets of words actually are related to one another. They are cognate, which means they share a common origin in descent from a single ancestral language.

This now-extinct tongue was probably spoken somewhere in Eurasia as many as 8,000 years ago. Long predating the advent of writing systems, its words – and its name, if it had one – were never written down. Lacking such direct knowledge, linguists have therefore developed methods for reconstructing aspects of its structure, and refer to it using the label Proto-Indo-European – or PIE.

But how do we know Proto-Indo-European must have existed?

Shared ancestry of language

Our modern-day awareness of the shared ancestry of Indo-European languages first took shape in the Renaissance and early colonial periods.

India-based European scholars such as Gaston Coeurdoux and William Jones were already familiar with the ties among European languages.

But they were astonished to find echoes of Latin, Greek and German in Sanskrit words such as m??t? (mother), bhr??t? (brother) and dúhit? (daughter).

Such words could not plausibly be borrowings, given these languages’ lack of historical contact. Sheer coincidence was obviously out of the question.

Even more striking was the systematic nature of the correspondences. Sanskrit bh- matched Germanic b- not only in bhr??t? (brother) but also in bhar (bear). Meanwhile, Sanskrit p- aligned with Latin and Greek p-, but with Germanic f-.

There could be only one explanation for such regular correspondences. The languages must have descended from a single common ancestor, whose ancient breakup led to their distinct evolutionary pathways.

Philologists from the 19th century, such as Rasmus Rask, Franz Bopp and August Schleicher, later systematised these observations. They showed that, by comparing and reverse-engineering the changes each descendant language’s words had undergone, the words of the lost ancestral language could be reconstructed.

These insights not only laid the foundations of modern-day historical linguistics, but also went on to influence Darwin’s conception of biological evolution.

The Conversation for more

by OSCAR RICKETT

Newly built runways and ports offer snapshot of Abu Dhabi’s regional ambitions and deepening strategic ties with Israel

From the islands of Socotra in the Indian Ocean to the coasts of Somalia and Yemen, satellite imagery analysed by Middle East Eye reveals a greatly expanded network of military and intelligence bases built by the United Arab Emirates.  

This ring of control, in and around one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, has escalated rapidly since the 7 October Hamas-led attacks on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.

The UAE’s allies, including Israel and the US, have been party to the creation and expansion of the bases.

Israeli officers have been on the ground in the islands and Israeli radar systems and other military and security apparatus allow the UAE to monitor and thwart attacks launched by the Houthis, the Iran-aligned movement that has fired missiles at Israel in solidarity with the Palestinians and targeted ships going through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

The UAE and Israel have an intelligence-sharing platform known as Crystal Ball, whereby they “design, deploy and enable regional intelligence enhancement” in partnership, according to a slide show designed to promote the pact.

“The relationship between the UAE and Israel was very developed even before formal diplomatic relations were established, but it was kept quiet. Not secret, just quiet,” Alon Pinkas, an Israeli diplomat who served as an adviser to four foreign ministers, told MEE. 

The bases have not been constructed on territory formally held by the UAE.

Instead, they are to be found in areas nominally controlled by its allies, including Yemen’s Southern Transitional Council (STC), the Yemeni military commander Tareq Saleh, and the regional administrations of Somaliland and Puntland, which are both part of Somalia, whose government is at odds with the UAE. 

Military bases, runways and other facilities have been constructed or expanded on Abd al-Kuri and Samhah, two islands that are part of the Socotra archipelago, which is now administered by STC; at the airports of Bosaso and Berbera in Puntland and Somaliland; Mocha in Yemen; and Mayun, a volcanic island in the Bab al-Mandab strait, through which 30 percent of the world’s oil is shipped.

This network of bases facilitates the control of this vital stretch of water by the UAE and its allies, and has been developed in close coordination with Israel, according to Israeli sources.

They facilitate a joined-up network of missile defence and intelligence sharing between Israel, the UAE and other allies.

As the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel US think tank, puts it: “Multilateral air-defence coalitions have become key to the post-October 7 Middle East defence landscape, with countries sharing radar, intelligence and early warning systems.”  

Middle East Eye for more

by AAKAR PATEL

Starting with our neighbourhood, I can report that relations with Pakistan are bad. In fact, we might still be at “war” with them because our wildly successful military operation against them stands suspended, but not yet over

God moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform”, so goes a hymn I read in school. Or perhaps it was a line in P.G. Wodehouse, I forget which. But no matter, the point is that miracles usually happen outside of the knowledge of us mortals. Higher powers are at work.

Something similar is happening in India’s foreign policy. Great things have been achieved in this domain, at least according to the government publicity and the television media (which is admittedly the same thing), but one is unclear about the details.

To understand our triumphs during a week in which the United Nations held its General Assembly, I thought it might be useful to compile a list of our friends. A foreign policy “panchnama”, if you will, so that we can better understand precisely where New India stands in the world.

Starting with our neighbourhood, I can report that relations with Pakistan are bad. In fact, we might still be at “war” with them because our wildly successful military operation against them stands suspended, but not yet over. And “war” sits under quotation marks because we have not actually declared war with them. But this is normal now.

One also has to put Bangladesh on the debit side of the ledger. It is demanding we return their former Prime Minister so that she can be prosecuted, and we have so far refused. Its leader wants Saarc to be revived and has blamed India for making it dormant, if not extinct. The language our government has used against Bangladeshis is in the public domain, and the recent Asia Cup has given us insight into how many Indians view their players. This government ended the participation of Nepalis in the Indian Army in 2022, with the “Agnipath” scheme, severing a link of 200 years. A blockade instigated by India against Nepalis in 2015 still rankles.

Sri Lanka showed more courage than us in demanding an end to the Gaza genocide. The government’s fans had sought a boycott of the Maldives some time ago because we were upset with them (I cannot remember why), and it is unclear whether we are friends with them at the moment. Having destroyed their Chinese televisions on the instructions of our leaders, Indians can be forgiven for not knowing what the current status of our relations with China is. Nobody knows. Afghanistan we have warmed to of late, without explaining why the Taliban we had demonised till yesterday is acceptable today. Iran’s oil we stopped buying some eight years ago on Donald Trump’s orders, but they still accept our pilgrims.

Donald Trump, for whom we hosted two giant rallies, for whom we slashed our corporate tax, for whom we interfered in US elections, has tariffed Pakistan (19%) and Bangladesh (20%), less than us (25%). Then he added another 25% on us. Then he added another $100,000 for H-1B visas. Now he has added another tariff on pharma. It is safe to say America is not our friend. But Israel is. The rest of the world may have walked out of Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocide-justifying speech at the UN, but India applauded.

Turkey and Azerbaijan are enemies, because they are Pakistan’s friends. The entire African continent (53 out of 54 nations, all except the old Swaziland) are part of China’s Belt and Road programme and it is safe to say we no longer have much influence on them and they have little use for us. Ditto for Central Asia, and for Asean nations, and for much the same reasons. India’s trade with Asean is 10% of its trade with China, and with Africa one-fourth.

We have treated Russia as a transactional relationship, using it purely as a source for weaponry and now oil, and they in turn now view us as a client and not a friend, much less an ally. No amount of forced displays of affection, something we are good at, will alter this. With the populations of the Arab states, India has lost ground because of our embrace of Israel. This may not affect relations with the Arab states much, but as an increasingly marginal player in global affairs, prone to being kicked around by America and China, even the Arab dictators may now see us differently.

Europe has shifted on Israel, and in value terms, we have moved away from the secular, liberal order that Europe is being forced to return to because of its youth. Our long-term dependence on Russia for hardware and spares means also that we cannot side with Europe in its deranged conviction that Russia is out to conquer Poland and Germany. Brazil, our Brics associate, has shown backbone in defying American imperialism that we no longer have. We had hugs and words, many words, in our post-2014 period of self-inflation, but do not even have these now, it seems. There has never been a moment in India’s history when it has been so adrift in the world, so confused about what it stands for and against and so humiliated.

This will help readers understand why after years of talking of globalisation and G-20 leadership and “Vishwa Guru” and all the rest of it, we are today being lectured on self-reliance. We can call this state of affairs the “New New India”.

Deccan Chronicle for more

by JONATHAN COOK

Britain’s Keir Starmer is already pulling the rug from under his own grudging declaration. The only hope of change is of the unintended consequences variety

The reluctant recognition of Palestinian statehood by Britain, France, Australia, Canada this week is a con – it is the same switch and bait that has been blocking the creation of a Palestinian state for three decades now.

Imagine that these four leading western countries had recognised Palestine not in late 2025, when Palestine is in the final stages of being eradicated, but in the late 1990s, during a period of supposed Palestinian state-building.

That was when the Oslo accords were signed with western backing. The Palestinian Authority was established under Yasser Arafat with the apparent aim that Israel would gradually withdraw from the territories it still occupies in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and begin ruling an emergent Palestinian state.

At Israel’s insistence, let us note, the Oslo accords carefully avoided any mention of the ultimate destination of this process. Nonetheless, the message from western politicians and media was the same: this was heading towards a Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel.

Looking back, it is evident why that did not happen when it still looked feasible.

The Israeli leader of the time, Yitzhak Rabin, told the Israeli parliament that his vision was not of a state but of “an entity which is less than a state”: a glorified Palestinian local authority utterly dependent on its bigger neighbour, Israel, for its security and economic survival.

After Rabin was assassinated by a far-right Israeli gunman, his successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, was propelled into power by a majority of the Israeli public on a mandate to stop the Oslo process in its tracks.

He repeatedly reneged on commitments to withdraw Israeli soldiers and Jewish settler-militias from the occupied West Bank. In fact, in this period of supposed “peace-making”, Israel colonised Palestinian land at the fastest rate ever.

In 2001, during his time in opposition, Netanyahu was secretly caught on camera, explaining how he achieved this reversal.

shocking: Netanyahu speaks in private to settlers about his agenda and view of Americans.

Here’s the transcript: Bibi: Today everyone understands the slogan “The settlements are here”. It is everywhere. What’s the difference? What do you think Arafat wants? He wants one big settlement that is called Tel Aviv. As far as they are concerned, I think, the territorial waters are also theirs.That they want us to be pushed into the sea, is obvious, but only further away…The main thing is, first of all, to strike them, not once but several times, so painfully that the price they pay will be unbearable. SO far, the price-tag is not unbearable.[I mean] a large-scale attack on the Palestinian Authority, causing them to fear that everything is about to collapse. Fear is what brings them to…

Woman: Hold on, but then again, “the world” will say that we’re aggressors. Bibi:

They can say whatever they want Woman:

Aren’t you afraid of what they’ll say, Bibi?

Bibi: NO. Especially today, with the US. I know how they are. American is something that you can easily maneuver, and move in the right direction.

And even if they say something….So then they say something, so what? 80% of Americans support us! It’s absurd! We have such support there, and here we’re thinking what we should do “if”…

Look I wasn’t afraid to maneuver [the Clinton administration] I wasn’t afraid to confront Clinton. I wasn’t afraid to go against the UN.

What happened with the Oslo Accords?

Bibi: The Accords, which were ratified by Parliament – I was asked before the (1996) elections: “Will you fulfil them?” I said:”Yes, subject to reciprocity, and minimizing pull-outs” But how can one minimize the [obliged] pull-outs? I gave my own interpretation to the agreements, in such a way-that will allow me to stop the race back towards the 1967 borders. How did we manage to do this? Nobody defined what “military facilities” are. So I also defined them as being security zones. The entire Jordan valley, for me, is a “military Facility”. Nobody has…

Woman: Yes. Like the Beit She’an valley

Bibi – You see, go figure. But then there was the question of who will define these “Military Facilities”? I received a letter from (Secretary of State, Warren] Christopher to me and to Arafat at the same time saying that Israel, and Israel alone, will define the “military Facilities”, their locations and size. Now, they didn’t want to give this letter. so I refused to ratify the Hebron Accords (of 1997). I stopped the governmental meeting and I said: “I won’t sign”. And only when the letter has arrived, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, I signed the Hebron Accords. Or ratified it, if to be exact, it was already signed. Why is this important. Because at that very moment, in fact, I halted the fulfilment of the Oslo Agreements. It’s better to give 2% than 100%. And this is the choice we’re facing. You give 2%, but you stopped the withdrawals, rather than 100%. The wisdom is not to be there and break, but rather to be there and pay the minimum.

Settler: Amen, as a Prime Minister

Z Network for more

by B. R. GOWANI

smuggler

there is this clever smuggler

who also has a military

that military has a country

the country has four provinces

one province is mineral-rich

“the chandelier of the forehead”

but people have no say

anyone saying anything disappears

business-being (BB)

then there is a business-being

he’s the most powerful-being

he wants everything he could lay his hands on

for him, everything is fair in business

he writes his own laws

that everyone has to follow

he’s not a lawyer

but he makes laws on the basis of his power

smuggler meets business-being

the smuggler is very powerful

but have a powerful enemy in the vicinity

he thought of bettering relations with the BB

so he delivered a person wanted by BB

then he told BB that he’s a peaceful-being

he also said BB should get a peace prize

he also promised to supply smuggled goods

such as the critical minerals & rare earth elements

for BB, that was the Oreos on top

samples exhibited

in South Asia, very rich people buy differently

they don’t visit shops when buying clothes or jewelry

the owners bring exclusive quality items to their homes

100s of saris, sets of jewelries, shalwar kameez sets, etc.

the BB was provided similar service by the smuggler

he brought samples thousands of miles to BB

BB was impressed

USSM‘s Stacy W. Hastie hastily announced: it’s “a milestone“

B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com

by SUNNY ZIA

Pakistan’s transgender and Khwaja Sira communities are navigating a shifting legal landscape that alternates between recognition and rejection.

The body is a human being’s first home and first identity. Now, imagine being born into a home that does not acknowledge your reality.

That is only a vague reflection of how the life of a transgender person begins. The term “transgender” has received much attention in recent years, yet it remains widely misunderstood.

Many conflicting definitions circulate around it. Some believe that only individuals born with ambiguous genitalia are truly transgender. Others connect the term with the traditional Khwaja Sira culture of the Subcontinent. Some even make harsh and unfounded claims that transgender persons are simply men or women cross-dressing to attract the opposite gender for physical relationships.

What is often overlooked is that behind every transgender person’s life experience lies a medical condition — that of gender dysphoria. It is a deeply misunderstood and rarely discussed condition, even among qualified medical practitioners. To understand it, imagine being forced to wear shoes that are too small for your feet. They hurt with every step, but you are told you must keep wearing them.

Now imagine that the pain is not just physical; you are judged, shamed and even abandoned by your family and friends for wanting to take them off. You are told that this discomfort is your duty, justified by culture, religion or tradition. Now take that feeling and apply it to your own body. Imagine that the thing causing you pain is not just a pair of shoes, but your own body not matching who you truly are. That is what a gender dysphoric person lives with every day.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Pakistan took a significant step by recognising the rights and dignity of gender-diverse communities, offering long overdue visibility to those pushed to the margins. The judgment not only called for an end to invasive gender verification by medical boards, but also urged institutions such as the National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra) to abandon the dehumanising labels once suggested for transgender persons.

Dawn for more

Building hope from the ground up

THE ISMAILI

The seven winning projects of this year’s Aga Khan Award for Architecture help to show that buildings do more than shelter—they can heal, unite, and inspire.

In the face of climate crisis, social fragmentation, and economic inequality, these innovative projects represent a departure from architecture’s sometimes elitist reputation. Instead, they embrace a philosophy of community-driven design that prioritises people over prestige, and thus help fulfil the Award’s objective.

“Inspiring younger generations to build with environmental care, knowledge and empathy is among the greatest aims of this Award,” said Mawlana Hazar Imam, Chair of the Award’s steering committee. “Architecture today must engage with the climate crisis, enhance education and nourish our shared humanity. Through it, we plant seeds of optimism – quiet acts of resilience that grow into spaces of belonging, where the future may thrive in dignity and hope.”

Established in 1977 by Mawlana Shah Karim, the Award celebrates excellent building practices in communities where Muslims have a significant presence. The prize is shared among not only the architects, but the builders, artisans, clients, and municipalities who made these projects possible, in recognition that notable architecture is always collaborative. 

This year’s winning projects have emerged from listening to communities and responding to urgent local needs with creative, often low-cost solutions. Together, they reshape our understanding of what architecture can accomplish in times of uncertainty.

When the waters rise

When Marina Tabassum began working with Bangladesh’s char communities—people who live on temporary river islands that appear and disappear with seasonal flooding—she realised that conventional housing was failing them. Her solution, Khudi Bari (or ‘little house’), is ideal for adaptive living in the climate crisis.

The bamboo structures, elevated on stilts and connected with custom steel joints, can be disassembled in three hours when floodwaters rise and reassembled elsewhere in three days. At roughly $450 per kit, they’ve already sheltered more than 78 families and proved their resilience through multiple flood seasons. The system has been adapted for use in Rohingya refugee camps, where women lead the construction process.

The project embodies a growing movement in architecture that prioritises adaptability over permanence, and community knowledge over expert opinion. It’s a response born from necessity but offers lessons far beyond Bangladesh’s floodplains.

Where community finds voice

The West Wusutu Village Community Centre in China was built on the site of an old Buddhist temple, using salvaged bricks to create a modern courtyard design around a circular plaza. What makes the project special is how flexible it is—the spaces change throughout the day. 

The Ismaili for more

Aga Khan Award for Architecture 2025 Award winners film announcement

Youtube for more