Latest news with #foreignpolicy
Reuters
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US lawmakers advance bill that could sanction South Africa over its foreign policy
JOHANNESBURG, July 23 (Reuters) - United States lawmakers have voted to advance a bill that proposes reviewing the U.S. relationship with South Africa due to objections over its foreign policy and potentially imposing sanctions on South African officials. The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 34-16 on Tuesday to send the "U.S.-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act" to the full House of Representatives, where it could be subject to a vote, according to a video of the proceedings. The measure would need to pass both the House and the Senate before it could be signed into law. Many bills at this stage never go to a vote. However, the committee's approval took the bill a step further and underscored tensions between Washington and Pretoria as South Africa seeks to fend off a looming 30% U.S. tariff and counter false claims of white "genocide" made by President Donald Trump. South Africa's foreign ministry and a spokesperson for President Cyril Ramaphosa declined to comment. The bill was introduced in April by Ronny Jackson, a Republican congressman from Texas who cheered the move on X, writing: "South Africa made its choice when they abandoned America and our allies and sided with communists and terrorists". The bill accuses South Africa of undermining U.S. interests by maintaining close relationships with Russia and China, which are among its allies and trading partners. It also accuses South Africa of backing Palestinian militant group Hamas that is at war in Gaza with Israel, which South Africa has denied. South Africa has long been a supporter of the Palestinian cause and filed a case accusing Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice in 2023, which is mentioned in the bill as one of its concerns. The bill proposes "a full review of the bilateral relationship" and to "identify South African government officials and ANC leaders eligible for the imposition of sanctions". It later says that these would be people determined by Trump to have engaged in corruption or human rights abuses. No individuals are named. South Africa's relationship with the United States has sharply deteriorated during Trump's second term, during which he has accused the government of anti-white racism and started a refugee programme for Afrikaners, who are descendants of European settlers.
Washington Post
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
How strategists think about keeping the peace in the Taiwan Strait
ASPEN, Colo. — Catastrophic wars don't really catch us by surprise. We usually see them coming but don't act quickly or decisively enough to avert them. To try to avoid that mistake, several dozen top former defense- and foreign-policy officials gathered here last weekend to discuss the risk of war between the United States and China over Taiwan.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Why this American vassal is suddenly defying its master
The Trump administration has been having a rough few months. Domestic chaos – fuelled by the use of black clad, masked para-military squads to deport illegal immigrants – has fused with the deepening foreign policy crises resulting from Trump's support for the doomed right-wing Zelensky and Netanyahu regimes. And if this were not bad enough, last week Trump escalated his disruption of the global economic order by imposing yet more tariffs on the EU and other countries that are ostensibly American allies. Add to that the establishment of an 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida and Trump's recently revealed threat to 'bomb the sh*t out of Russia and China,' and it's no surprise that even Trump's core MAGA supporters are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with a president who promised them that he would swiftly end the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and restore America's economic prosperity. They are also up in arms at the White House's refusal to release Jeffrey Epstein's client list, suspecting a self-serving cover up. Prominent Trump supporters are now openly critical, and Trump's dissatisfaction with inept cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi is clear for all to see. More ominous, perhaps, is the calculated silence of Vice President J.D. Vance in recent times. Even in Australia there are signs that the American hegemony is beginning to crumble. Last week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took the extraordinary step of refusing to reassure Trump that Australia would assist America militarily if it went to war with China over Taiwan. Albanese's reluctant assertion of foreign policy independence was somewhat surprising given that, until now, he has been a keen supporter of Trump's foreign policy. Albanese remains a committed funder of the Zelensky regime, and Australia has consistently aligned itself with US policy in Gaza. The Australian leader enthusiastically embraced the AUKUS military agreement with America and the UK, when it was entered into by his predecessor, Conservative Prime Minister Morrison, and has echoed – albeit more moderately – the narrative surrounding a perceived China threat. Albanese's previous reluctance to assert its foreign policy independence is a consequence of Australia's longstanding dependence on America – together with Albanese's pragmatic decision to adopt wholesale the Conservative coalition's foreign policy framework so as to neutralise foreign policy as a domestic political issue. This foreign policy capitulation was also designed to mute criticism from the pro-Trump, pro-Israel, anti-China and anti-Russia Murdoch media empire – which incessantly promulgates various rejigged Cold War conspiracy theories demonising China, Russia, and the Palestinian cause. Albanese, of course, has has not succeeded in placating Murdoch – and it is a measure of his abject weakness as a political leader that he refuses to openly attack the owner of Fox News who peddles the same discredited dogmas in Australia that he does in America. It is Albanese's most egregious failure as prime minister to have permitted Murdoch to frame the foreign policy public debate – such as it is – in this country. Why then has Albanese belatedly decided to stand up to Trump? Primarily because the fundamental irrationality at the heart of the Trumpian agenda has now become glaringly obvious – even to political leaders as maladroit and supine as Albanese. Trump's efforts to dismantle the rules-based world order have, paradoxically, only strengthened China, Russia and BRICS. Meanwhile, the American proxy wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue to intensify. Nor has Trump's green lighting of Netanyahu's recent attacks on Iran destroyed that country's nuclear capacity. Trump has shown skepticism about NATO, and his commitment to defending allies like Australia is unclear. The recent inquiry launched by Pete Hegseth into the AUKUS compact may signal intentions to withdraw from the agreement. The AUKUS deal – which obliges Australia is to pay $360 billion for a few submarines that may or may not be delivered years down the road – is not only economically profligate, but it ties Australia to Trump's military agenda. Why would Albanese give a commitment to Trump to provide militarily assistance should America be unwise enough to commence a war with China? Australia has no strategic interest in defending Taiwan, and only the most ideologically deranged of Murdoch journalists could believe that Australia and America could defeat China militarily in a war in Southeast Asia. Despite advocating for a reduced global footprint, Trump continues to promote the concept of American global leadership. He may still pursue conflict with China, possibly to shift attention from persistent domestic and foreign challenges. China is Australia's most important trading partner and Trump sought last week's assurance from Albanese while the prime minister was in China on an important five-day visit. The trip included a meeting with the Chinese president – something, by the way, that Trump has denied Albanese to date. Trump was well aware of this, and he well knew that, if Albanese had given him the assurance he sought, China would have immediately retaliated by imposing trade sanctions on Australia. The contrast between Trump's treatment of Albanese and Xi Jinping's – at their private lunch last week Xi committed China 'unswervingly towards ongoing cooperation and common understanding with Australia' – is stark and telling. Meanwhile, as the US shifts away from traditional diplomacy, China and Russia have deepened their diplomatic engagements. Trump's domestic policy measures also warrant reconsideration by Western political leaders. The scenes of masked ICE officers clashing with protesters in California have drawn comparisons to past episodes of American civil unrest. Many observers were alarmed when Senator Alex Padilla was manhandled by officers for raising questions at a press conference. Additionally, the administration's suppression of dissent – including defunding public broadcasting and pressuring media outlets to silence critical voices – raises concerns about media freedom and civil liberties. The perceived harshness of Trump-era policies contributed to Albanese's election success. Many Western voters reject combative political behaviour, and Australian voters were similarly put off by Peter Dutton's emulation of Trump's combative style. There are two key takeaways for Western leaders from Trump's treatment of Albanese, and Albanese's decision to resist his demands. First, that the Trump administration is facing deep internal and external challenges, and its foreign policy approach may become increasingly erratic and unilateral. Second, that Trump may prioritize his administration's objectives even at the expense of partners. Albanese was placed in an extremely difficult diplomatic position this week. For many mainstream Western leaders, these insights may be more than a little uncomfortable – particularly those who continue to support US foreign policy and seek approval from the administration. There are also domestic pressures, including media outlets aligned with Trump, that make it difficult to oppose his influence. Unsurprisingly, the Murdoch press criticised Albanese for 'neglecting the US alliance' and 'putting the region in danger.' Nevertheless, as the inconsistencies within Trump's foreign policy become more apparent, political leaders in the West who value sovereignty and economic stability may feel compelled – as Albanese did – to redefine their alliances and pursue a more independent path. If they fail to do so, they may face a similar fate to Trump's most obsequious and compliant ally – Vladimir Zelensky.
Forbes
a day ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Here's Why The Trump Administration Withdrew From UNESCO—Again.
Topline The State Department said Tuesday that the U.S. will withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) at the end of next year over its advancement of 'divisive social and cultural causes'—the second time President Donald Trump has pulled out and a decision that reflects the U.S.'s broader turbulence with the U.N. agency. The UNESCO flag flies at its headquarters Tuesday, July 22, 2025 in Paris. (AP Photo/Thomas Padilla) Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Key Facts In a press release, the State Department said the U.S. informed UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay of its decision to withdraw from the agency, which will take effect in December 2026. The department said UNESCO is working 'to advance divisive social and cultural causes' that are at odds with Trump's 'America First foreign policy,' citing the admission of Palestine as a full member in 2011 as 'highly problematic, contrary to U.S. policy' and contributing 'to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric.' Trump pulled out of UNESCO in 2018 for similar reasons after alleging the group had an 'anti-Israel bias'—a decision former President Joe Biden reversed in 2023. Key Background In 2011, the Obama administration cut U.S. funding to UNESCO after it admitted Palestine as a full member in accordance with legislation that bans U.S. contributions to any U.N. agency that grants Palestine membership. At the time, UNESCO relied on the U.S. for what was roughly $70 million per year—22% of the agency's budget. The U.S. lost its voting rights at the organization in 2013 after not funding the agency for two years. Israel announced it would pull out of the organization around the same time as Trump in 2017. At the time of the Trump administration's withdrawal, the U.S. owed UNESCO up to $550 million. The Biden administration rejoined UNESCO in 2023 and requested $150 million of the total budget to go toward UNESCO each year until the debt—then a total of $619 million—was paid off. Biden's decision didn't address Palestine's status as a UNESCO member. What Has Unesco Said About Trump's Withdrawal? In a statement Tuesday, Azoulay said that although she deeply regrets Trump's decision to pull out of UNESCO and that it 'contradicts the fundamental principles of multilateralism,' the agency 'has prepared for it.' Azoulay said UNESCO has undergone structural changes since 2018 and widened its sources of funding—of which she said the U.S. supplies 8% of the agency's total budget. 'The reasons put forward by the United States to withdraw from the Organization are the same as seven years ago even though the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism,' Azoulay said. What About Unesco Does Trump Object? The U.S.'s withdrawal came after Trump issued an executive order in February mandating that Secretary of State Marco Rubio review UNESCO and other international organizations that promote 'radical or anti-American' sentiment. The Trump administration cited Palestine's membership as 'highly problematic,' and White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told Politico that UNESCO 'supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November.' The State Department called the agency's focus on the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals 'a globalist, ideological agenda for international development.' The 17 goals—which include no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education and gender equality among others—were adopted by all U.N. member states, including the U.S., in 2015, with hopes of achieving those goals by 2030. UNESCO itself aims to strengthen 'our shared humanity' and focuses on setting standards for member states on global issues like climate change, artificial intelligence and quality education. What To Watch For Since taking office, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), citing WHO's 'mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic' and the UNHRC's alleged bias against Israel. Trump's February executive order also cut funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides aid to Palestinians. Earlier in July, the Trump administration officially shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) after promising to dismantle the agency when Trump took office.
CNA
a day ago
- Politics
- CNA
Trump pulls US out of UNESCO again, criticises ‘woke' agenda
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump has ordered the United States to withdraw from the United Nations cultural agency UNESCO, repeating a move from his first term that was reversed by his predecessor Joe Biden. The exit from the Paris-based organisation will take effect on Dec 31, 2026, the White House said on Tuesday (Jul 22), citing the agency's support for what it called 'woke, divisive' causes. 'President Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from UNESCO – which supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November,' said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly. The State Department said continued US membership was 'not in the national interest', accusing the agency of promoting a globalist development agenda 'at odds with our America First foreign policy'. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay said the decision was 'regrettable, but expected', adding that the agency had prepared by diversifying its funding. The US currently contributes about 8 per cent of its budget. FRANCE, ISRAEL RESPOND French President Emmanuel Macron voiced support for the agency in a post on X: 'Unwavering support for UNESCO, universal protector of science, the ocean, education, culture, and world heritage. The withdrawal of the United States will not weaken our commitment to those who are fighting this battle.' Israel welcomed the US move. The State Department said Washington's decision was partly due to UNESCO's 2011 admission of Palestine as a member state, calling it contrary to US policy and a driver of 'anti-Israel rhetoric' in the agency. UNESCO officials countered that all agency statements over the past eight years had been coordinated with both Israel and the Palestinians. Azoulay said the rationale for withdrawal was largely unchanged from 2018, even though 'political tensions have receded' and the organisation now offered a 'rare forum for consensus' on action-oriented multilateralism. She also rejected claims of anti-Israel bias, citing UNESCO's work on Holocaust education and combating antisemitism. REPEATED EXIT The move marks the second time Trump has withdrawn the US from UNESCO, having done so in 2017 over similar concerns. That decision was reversed by Biden in 2023, who restored funding and committed to clearing arrears. During his first term, Trump also pulled the US out of the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the Paris climate accord, all of which were rejoined by Biden. Many of those exits have since been reinstated under Trump's second term. Diplomats told Reuters the latest exit was widely expected at UNESCO due to Trump's prior stance and Republican objections to agency policies. UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, was established in 1945 to promote peace and cooperation. It is best known for its designation of World Heritage Sites, such as the Grand Canyon in the US and Syria's ancient city of Palmyra.
