by B. R. GOWANI

Tariffs

Tariffs are a tax imposed on imported goods to protect local industries in order to be self-sufficient and thus avoid being taken advantage of. For a very long time, Britain charged tariffs on many items, only in 1860 were they totally removed. But were reintroduced in late 1920s during the depression years.

Likewise, the US did the same. In 1789, just 13 years after independence from Britain, it imposed 5% tariff that was raised to 25% during war with Britain in 1812. By 1820, the tariffs were 40%. In 1844, Abraham Lincoln, not yet a president, boasted:

“Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.”

By 1860, the tariffs were 60%. Till then, more than 90% of the federal government revenue came from tariffs. Lincoln was the President from 1861 to 1865, also the years during which the US fought Civil War. Lincoln enacted an emergency income tax but it was abolished once the war ended.

President William McKinley in 1897, raised the rate to 50%. In 1929, the rate shot up to 59.1%. From 1798 to 1913, the federal government revenue from tariffs made up 50% to 90% of total revenue. (The attempt in 1894 to tax peoples’ incomes failed. However, this succeeded in 1913, thus reducing the government’s need for relying on tariffs for income.) Since the early 1950s, tariff income has seldom risen by more than 2%.

Reuters headline “The global economy is on a Trump roller-coaster ride” sums up the adverse effects of Trump’s tariff levies on so many countries.

A few examples:

• Italian pasta-makers, already tariffed 15%, were threatened with an extra 92% tariffs (totaling 107%).
• 25% tariffs on India were increased to 50% that was a penalty for buying Russian oil.
• 100% tariffs on pharmaceutical products.

Till July 14, 2025, due to Trump tantrums, there have been 28 tariff flip-flops. The number now, must be much higher, of course.

Trade deficit

One of President Donald Trump’s characteristics is to portray himself as a victim of his opponents, courts, establishment, etc.

The other victim, in Trump’s eyes, is the United States which has been taken advantage of by the rest of the world. Even though the facts show the US as having unfair practices with the rest of the world. But ultimately, all have to accept the Dear Leader’s whims.

Trump threatened several countries with high tariffs and then imposed them since he thinks the US is not getting a fair deal. (See Trump 2.0 tariff tracker.) Why? Because, many countries sell more goods and/or services to the US but buy less goods and/or services back from the US, resulting in a trade deficit for the US. But then there are countries that buy more goods/services from the US but sell less goods/services which results in a trade surplus for the US. (See the full list for the year 2024 here.)

The tragedy is that it is people in the US who are going to pay for the extra expense tariffs cause, in the form of raised prices not the countries sending goods to the US.

Overall, US has been buying more than it sells for a very long time. As can be noted:

• For the year 2024, the US goods and services deficit was $918.4 billion — which was $133.5 billion more than 2023.
• The total US exports for 2024 were $3,191.6 billion, up $119.8 billion from 2023.
• The total US imports were $4,110.0 billion, up $253.3 billion from 2023.

One other grievance Trump has against many countries is that they impose tariffs on goods they import from the US, but the US doesn’t impose tariffs on goods it imports from many of those countries.

There are reasons for that: one is that the developing countries want to protect their own industries to create some sort of self sufficiency. Another reason being that those countries need US dollars to import goods from the US and that takes funds away from other pressing needs of the country.

Also we have to remember the fact that both Democratic and Republican administrations have allowed those countries to export more than they imported from the US, knowing that these countries impose tariffs on US goods. The US has ignored this to keep those countries within the US orbit for geopolitical purpose.

Also, many of the countries have US as their largest trading partner and so the US can dictate the terms beneficial to it.

Why the trade deficit?

It is not as if China, India, and other countries with whom the US has trade deficits forced the US to open its market, like the US Colonel Perry did to Japan in the late 1850s.

It behooves us to remember that US industries moved to other countries, especially China, for greater profit and cheap labor, and that move greatly diminished the manufacturing sector in the US. These same US companies send those goods back to the US to be sold at exorbitant prices, thereby realizing hefty profits for their companies (on which they rarely pay any taxes).

Trump’s tariffs have had the effect of lowering the trade deficit in June 2025 to a two-year low. Many countries are looking elsewhere to sell their products, bypassing the US.

In 1791, the US Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, had warned countries to take care of certain industries so as to maintain independence:

“Not only wealth, but the independence and security of a Country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of Subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defense.”

The US was less than a couple of decades old then. But today, the US is a superpower, with all sorts of weapons and forces to defend itself and is also the biggest sellers of arms with 43% of the world’s weapons.

Trump wants to get manufacturing back to the US and there is nothing wrong with it. But he’ll have to force companies to lower their profit margins, and pay decent wages to the US workers.

These companies should not complain that they have high labor costs, as they compare the costs to other countries where these US companies currently produce goods in a very cheap labor market.

Manufacturing goods here (at a substantially greater cost) should be weighed against investing workforce in AI and other advanced technologies to be competitive in future markets, and be more forward planning and gain a greater foothold in future markets.

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

Just days after the U.S.-backed ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas went into effect, President Trump has issued new threats against Hamas, saying Thursday the United States would back a military intervention against the group if it fails to uphold the ceasefire agreement.

“There is the fear all the time that the war will be renewed,” says Amira Hass, Haaretz correspondent for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who joins us from Ramallah. Hass is the daughter of Holocaust survivors and is the only Israeli Jewish journalist to have spent 30 years living in and reporting from Gaza and the West Bank.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show looking at Gaza. President Trump has issued new threats against Hamas, saying Thursday the United States would back a military intervention against the group if it fails to uphold the ceasefire deal. Trump spoke from the Oval Office.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have a commitment from them, and I assume they’re going to honor that commitment. I hope they do. … We’re going to find out if they behave, if they behave good. If they don’t behave, we’ll take care of it. … I didn’t say who would go in, but somebody will go in. It’s not going to be us. We won’t have to. There are people very close, very nearby, that will go in. They’ll do the trick very easily, but under our auspices.”

AMY GOODMAN: Earlier Thursday, Trump wrote on Truth Social, quote, “If Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza, which was not the Deal, we will have no choice but to go in and kill them. Thank you for your attention to this matter.” Trump’s tone shifted from earlier this week, when he said Hamas had taken out, quote, “a couple of gangs that were very bad. That didn’t bother me much,” Trump said.

Trump’s comments came amidst reports of recent clashes between Hamas and armed gangs accused of looting humanitarian aid and working for Israel. Al Jazeera reported Israeli officials in June admitted to arming gangs in Gaza, some with ties to the Islamic State, in an effort to destabilize Hamas. Some of these groups were linked to the killing of the Palestinian journalist Saleh Aljafarawi on Sunday, after the U.S.-backed Gaza deal went into effect. Trump has made no mention of repeated Israeli attacks this week that killed several Palestinians, including in Gaza City.

On Thursday, Hamas returned the remains of two more Israeli hostages, but the group said it needs specialized equipment, presently banned from entry into Gaza by Israel, that would help retrieve the remaining deceased captives trapped beneath the rubble. The U.N. estimates some 55 million tons of debris must be cleared before reconstruction efforts in Gaza can begin.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Meanwhile, families in Gaza are still facing hunger and severe shortages of water, medicines and other vital necessities. As Israel continues to delay the reopening of the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, many Palestinians in need of urgent medical care also remain in limbo.

For more, we’re joined by longtime Israeli journalist Amira Hass, the Haaretz correspondent for the Occupied Palestinian Territories based in Ramallah. She was born in Jerusalem and is the daughter of Holocaust survivors. She’s the only Israeli Jewish journalist to have spent 30 years living in and reporting from Gaza and the West Bank. Her books include Drinking the Sea at Gaza: Days and Nights in a Land Under Siege. Her latest piece for Haaretz is headlined “Will Israelis One Day Say of Their Country’s Atrocities in Gaza, ‘I Was Always Against It’?”

Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Amira. If you could just begin by, first of all, responding to the ceasefire, that is, at least in part, holding, and what you think the prospects are of its success?

AMIRA HASS: Hello.

The ceasefire is — at least relieves people of this fear, permanent fear, of bombings and bombardments and shellings. At least they can go out and look for food and look for water. At least some of the prices of the food is lowered. Yeah, all these little things, that are very big for Palestinians, are there. But there is the fear all the time that the war will be renewed and for different — for different pretexts.

But it’s important to say, when Trump says that he will fight against Hamas, he will not fight against Hamas. If a new war — if the war is restarting, it’s against the people. It’s not against Hamas, because Hamas is an organization, and Hamas aren’t people. We see they remain. They are there. But the people are being attacked. The children and the women and the young men and old men are and women are being attacked.

Democracy Now for more

by SOPHIE HIRSH

Greta’s parents are famous in their own right.

Ever since Greta Thunberg became the world’s most famous climate activist several years ago, many people — both her skeptics and her fans — have had questions about her and her family’s finances. For example, how does Greta make money? What are her parents’ jobs? And what is Greta Thunberg’s net worth?

Even though Greta has made it clear over her short career as a climate advocate that she is not in this field for the money (if she were simply chasing money, she would certainly be in the wrong line of work!), she has been awarded quite a lot of prize money, leading to curiosity about her financial worth.

What is Greta Thunberg’s net worth?

Reports on Greta Thunberg’s net worth vary greatly, and none seem all that reliable. Womp.

A large selection of websites assert that Greta Thunberg’s net worth is about $1 million, including Briefly, Wealth Magnet, and The Sun.

Interestingly, none of these articles cite a source for this figure, with Wealth Magnet admitting that the activist’s accurate net worth is not publicly known.

Conversely, the website Celebrity Net Worth estimates Thunberg’s net worth to be about $100,000 — that’s 10 times less than the $1 million that most other websites have reported.

There do not seem to be any reports on her net worth by Forbes or any other legitimate financial source.

Greta Thunberg

Climate Activist

Net worth: $1 million (according to unreliable estimates)

Greta Thunberg is a Swedish climate activist known for launching the Fridays for Future movement. She’s also been credited with sparking the “Greta effect” and was Time Magazine‘s Person of the Year in 2019.

Full name: Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg

Birthplace: Stockholm, Sweden

Birthdate: January 3, 2023

Parents: Svante Thunberg and Malena Ernman

Education: Stockholm Franska Skolen

So, unfortunately for curious parties, Greta’s net worth is not public knowledge. That said, she has stated that she rarely shops or buys anything she does not need for environmental reasons (what she calls a “shop stop”), and she donates pretty much all of the money she earns to charity — so it’s apparent that neither living a luxurious lifestyle nor attaining a high net worth are important to her.

How does Greta Thunberg make money? She donates most of her income to charities.

In a 2019 Facebook post, Greta explained that her parents pay for her travel tickets and accommodations, and that she does all of her environmental work for free.

“I am absolutely independent and I only represent myself,” she wrote at the time. “And I do what I do completely for free, I have not received any money or any promise of future payments in any form at all.”

“And of course it will stay this way,” she continued. “I have not met one single climate activist who is fighting for the climate for money. That idea is completely absurd.”

Furthermore, Greta has stated that she donates all profits from her books to charity, as well as all of the prize money that accompanies awards she wins.

For example, in April 2020, Danish organization Human Act gave Thunberg its very first Human Act award, accompanied by a $100,000 prize. Thunberg promptly announced plans to donate her prize money to UNICEF, with Human Act matching her donation to the international charity.

And in July 2020, she donated the 1 million euro award that came with the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity to organizations including Fridays For Future Brazil’s SOS Amazonia Campaign and the Stop Ecocide Foundation. When she won that award, she told The Guardian that the prize money “is more money than what I can even begin to imagine.”

Green Matters for more

Jane Goodall, the gentle disrupter whose research on chimpanzees redefined what it meant to be human

by MIREYA MAYOR

Anyone proposing to offer a master class on changing the world for the better, without becoming negative, cynical, angry or narrow-minded in the process, could model their advice on the life and work of pioneering animal behavior scholar Jane Goodall.

Goodall’s life journey stretches from marveling at the somewhat unremarkable creatures – though she would never call them that – in her English backyard as a wide-eyed little girl in the 1930s to challenging the very definition of what it means to be human through her research on chimpanzees in Tanzania. From there, she went on to become a global icon and a United Nations Messenger of Peace.

Until her death on Oct. 1, 2025 at age 91, Goodall retained a charm, open-mindedness, optimism and wide-eyed wonder that are more typical of children. I know this because I have been fortunate to spend time with her and to share insights from my own scientific career. To the public, she was a world-renowned scientist and icon. To me, she was Jane – my inspiring mentor and friend.

Despite the massive changes Goodall wrought in the world of science, upending the study of animal behavior, she was always cheerful, encouraging and inspiring. I think of her as a gentle disrupter. One of her greatest gifts was her ability to make everyone, at any age, feel that they have the power to change the world. Jane Goodall documented that chimpanzees not only used tools but make them – an insight that altered thinking about animals and humans

Discovering tool use in animals

In her pioneering studies in the lush rainforest of Tanzania’s Gombe Stream Game Reserve, now a national park, Goodall noted that the most successful chimp leaders were gentle, caring and familial. Males that tried to rule by asserting their dominance through violence, tyranny and threat did not last.

The Conversation for more

Remembering the Marshall Islands

by JANE GOODALL & RICK ASSELTA

As a result of nuclear testing on the Marshall Islands 60 years ago, many of the Marshallese Islanders still suffer today. Yet, few Americans know about this shameful chapter of history. Today, June 30, which marks a painful anniversary for many in the South Pacific, is just another day for those unaware of the atrocities that took place there. This year, I hope the anniversary might open the eyes of people in America and around the world: We must acknowledge the damage done in the past and rise up out of our apathy to ensure such horrors are not perpetrated again.

I became aware of the nuclear testing program initiated after World War II from a friend who witnessed the aftermath of the devastation first hand. Rick Asselta was sent to the Marshall Islands as a Peace Corps volunteer to help comfort islanders whose homes and lives were destroyed by the testing. Between 1946 and 1958, the American military tested 67 nuclear weapons at Bikini and Enewetak. Prior to the first of these tests, the islanders were evacuated to other atolls, more than 100 miles away, and, as a precaution, the inhabitants of three other atolls were moved temporarily.

In 1952, the first hydrogen bomb was tested — at 10.4 megatons, it was some 750 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb. In 1954, an even larger hydrogen bomb was detonated. On the eve of this test, code-named Bravo, weather reports indicated that atmospheric conditions were deteriorating, and on the morning of the test, the winds were blowing strongly toward a number of U.S. ships as well as several inhabited islands, including Rongelap and Utrik. Nevertheless, despite the clear danger to the people on these islands, the bomb, 1,000 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb, was detonated. Great clouds of gritty, white ash rained down on several atolls, affecting many people, including some American weathermen.

It would be two days before people were moved from Rongelap, the worst affected island, and another day passed before Utrik was evacuated. The islanders suffered skin burns, and their hair fell out. Yet, in a statement to the press, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission stated that some Americans and Marshallese were “unexpectedly exposed to some radioactivity. There were no burns. All were reported well.” Subsequently, the commission drafted a report, not publicly released, in which it concluded that the Bravo fallout may have contaminated as many as 18 atolls and islands. Some years after that, an additional survey by the U.S. Department of Energy revealed that yet other atolls and islands had been affected by one or more of the tests, including five that were inhabited.

Counterpunch for more

Remembering Jane

JANE GOODALL INSTITUTE

1934-2025

Remembering Dr. Jane

Scientist. Conservationist. Humanitarian.

Dr. Jane Goodall, founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and UN Messenger of Peace, was a remarkable example of courage and conviction, working tirelessly throughout her life to raise awareness about threats to wildlife, promote conservation, and inspire a more harmonious, sustainable relationship between people, animals and the natural world. She passed away in her sleep.

Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE, Founder of the Jane Goodall Institute, UN Messenger of Peace and world-renowned ethologist, conservationist, and humanitarian, has died at the age of 91 of natural causes.

Dr. Jane was known around the world for her 65-year study of wild chimpanzees in Gombe, Tanzania. However, in the latter part of her life she expanded her focus and became a global advocate for human rights, animal welfare, species and environmental protection, and many other crucial issues.

Jane was passionate about empowering young people to become involved in conservation and humanitarian projects and she led many educational initiatives focused on both wild and captive chimpanzees. She was always guided by her fascination with the mysteries of evolution, and her staunch belief in the fundamental need to respect all forms of life on Earth.

Born Valerie Jane Morris-Goodall, Jane was the eldest daughter of businessman and racing car driver Mortimer Herbert Morris-Goodall and writer Margaret Myfanwe Joseph.

Jane was passionate about wildlife from early childhood, and she read avidly about the natural world. Her dream was to travel to Africa, learn more about animals, and write books about them. Having worked as a waitress to save enough money for a sea passage to Kenya, Jane was advised to try to meet respected paleontologist Dr. Louis Leakey. Louis employed her as a secretary at the National Museum in Nairobi, and this led to her being offered the opportunity to spend time with Louis and Mary Leakey in at the Olduvai Gorge in search of fossils.

Having witnessed Jane’s patience and determination there, Louis asked her to travel to Tanzania, to study families of wild chimpanzees in the forest of Gombe. Looking back, Jane always said she’d have “studied any animal” but felt extremely lucky to have been given the chance to study man’s closest living relative in the wild.

On 14th July 1960, Jane arrived in Gombe for the first time. It was here that she developed her unique understanding of chimpanzee behaviour and made the ground-breaking discovery that chimpanzees use tools. An observation that has been credited with “redefining what it means to be human.”

Knowing Jane’s work would only be taken seriously if she was academically qualified, and despite her having no degree, Louis arranged for Jane to study for a PhD in Ethology at Newnham College, Cambridge. Jane’s doctoral thesis, The Behaviour of Free-living Chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream Reserve, was completed in 1965. Her three-month study evolved into an extraordinary research program lasting decades and it is still ongoing today.

Jane was married twice. Her first husband, Hugo van Lawick, was a Dutch baron and wildlife photographer working for National Geographic when they met. Jane and Hugo divorced in 1974, and Jane later married Derek Bryceson, a member of Tanzania’s parliament and a former director of Tanzania’s National Parks. Derek died in 1980.

During her life Jane authored more than 27 books for adults and children, and featured in numerous documentaries and films, as well as two major IMAX productions. In 2019, National Geographic opened Becoming Jane, a travelling exhibit focused on her life’s work, which is still touring across the United States. Her latest publication, The Book of Hope: A Survival Guide for Trying Times, has been translated into more than 20 languages.

Jane Goodall for more

by VIOLETA RUIZ

The convergence of singular talent and profound disability confounded scientists eager to place humans into neat categories

On 25 November 1915, the American newspaper The Review published the extraordinary case of an 11-year-old boy with prodigious mathematical abilities. Perched on a hill close to a set of railroad tracks, he could memorise all the numbers of the train carriages that sped by at 30 mph, add them up, and provide the correct total sum. What was remarkable about the case was not just his ability to calculate large numbers (and read them on a moving vehicle), but the fact that he could barely eat unassisted or recognise the faces of people he met. The juxtaposition between his supposed arrested development and his numerical facility made his mathematical feats even more impressive. ‘How can you account for it?’ asked the article’s author. The answer took the form of a medical label: the boy was what 19th-century medicine termed an ‘idiot savant’. He possessed an exceptional talent, despite a profound impairment of the mental faculties that affected both his motor and social skills.

A century after The Review relayed the prodigious child’s mathematical abilities, trying to understand ‘how they do it’ still drives psychological research into savantism or ‘savant syndrome’ to this day. The SSM Health Treffert Centre in Wisconsin – named after Darold Treffert (1933-2020), one of the leading experts in the field – defines the savant phenomenon as ‘a rare condition in which persons with various developmental disorders, including autistic disorder, have an amazing ability and talent’. Today, savantism is largely comprehended through the lens of neurodivergence, since the association between savantism and autism is strong: roughly one in 10 people with autism exhibit some savant skills, while savantism in the absence of autism is much rarer.

Psychological studies by Simon Baron-Cohen and Michael Lombardo, for example, have focused on the neurological basis of ‘systemising’, where exceptional mathematical or musical skills exist among people diagnosed with autism: such people are ‘hypersystemisers’, that is, they are especially good at identifying ‘laws, rules, and/or regularities’. It is believed that their brain’s systemising mechanisms are ‘tuned to very high levels’, making them acutely sensitive to sensory input and also capable of intense attentional focus and rule-learning.

But in the past (autism became a diagnostic category only in 1943), the ‘idiot savant’ was a paradox, who confounded categorisation because there was no unified way of comprehending how such exceptional musical and numerical skills might co-exist alongside their polar opposite: profound disability. To use the language of the 19th century, how could a person be at once both a ‘genius’ and an ‘idiot’? The savant challenged conventional understandings of how talent was manifested, and who could manifest it, and at the same time upset notions of who might be classed as an ‘idiot’. In the scheme of how intelligence was understood then, the savant was at best otherworldly and at worst a monstrosity.

The historian Patrick McDonagh points out that ‘idiocy’ was a highly ambiguous medical term that was nonetheless widely accepted. Perhaps, in part, because it was a boundaried category that fulfilled an important social-symbolic function: namely, it offered a contrast against which modern individuals could define themselves as rational and intelligent, reinforcing their claims to respect and social authority. It also meant that people like that 11-year-old boy who was fascinated with numbers but was nonetheless considered an ‘idiot’ – in the medical parlance of the day – created a contradiction that continues to have implications today.

Aeon for more

CIVICUS

Oct 24 2025 (IPS) – CIVICUS speaks about the disappearance of Turkmen activists Abdulla Orusov and Alisher Sahatov with human rights defender Diana Dadasheva from the civil movement DAYANÇ/Turkmenistan and with Gülala Hasanova, wife of Alisher Sahatov.

On 24 July, Turkmen activists Abdulla Orusov and Alisher Sahatov were abducted in Edirne, Turkey, after being labelled a ‘threat to public order.’ Despite applying for international protection, they were unlawfully deported to Turkmenistan. Orusov and Sahatov, prominent voices in the diaspora through their YouTube channel Erkin Garaýy?, are now being detained, starved and denied a fair trial, while authorities are deliberately delaying proceedings to exclude them from an upcoming amnesty. Their cases highlight the growing risks faced abroad by Turkmen activists, who are being targeted beyond their country’s borders. The international community must push to secure their immediate release and end such abuses.

What happened to Abdulla Orusov and Alisher Sahatov?

Abdulla Orusov and Alisher Sahatov are Turkmen civil activists and bloggers who reported on human rights violations, corruption, migrant issues and social hardships faced by people in Turkmenistan. They were among the few who dared to speak when most were forced into silence.

Last April, Turkish police came to their home under the pretext of checking their documents. Acting on Turkmenistan’s request, they detained both men on false terrorism charges, claiming they posed a threat to Turkey’s national security. They were taken to a deportation centre in Sinop and later transferred to Edirne.

The Turkish Supreme Court ruled that returning them to Turkmenistan would put their lives in danger and ordered an end to the deportation process. But on 24 July, immediately after their release, they disappeared. Reliable sources told us they had been secretly flown to Turkmenistan on a cargo plane, under the supervision of Officer Amangeldiyev Amangeldy, who was later awarded a medal for the operation.

To this day, we don’t know where they are or in what condition. Their abduction is a serious crime and a blatant violation of international law.

Are there other examples of such human rights violations?

Over recent years, many Turkmen activists who were brave enough to speak up have disappeared in Turkey and Russia, including Malikberdy Allamyradov, Azat Isakov, Rovshen Klychev, Farhad Meymankuliev and Merdan Mukhammedov. Activist Umida Bekjanova is currently detained in a Turkish deportation centre and we fear she may face the same fate.

Turkmen authorities are carrying out a systematic campaign to eliminate independent civic voices. In today’s Turkmenistan, anyone who refuses to stay silent risks being branded a terrorist or enemy of the state. These labels have become tools of repression, used to justify abductions, fabricate criminal charges and force people to return to Turkmenistan.

What risks do Abdulla, Alisher and other activists face after being forcibly returned?

Their lives are in danger. We receive reports of torture, starvation, humiliation and psychological abuse. They are held in isolation, denied legal defence and a fair trial.

In Turkmenistan, there are no independent courts, lawyers or free media. People disappear into secret prisons for years, cut off from their families and the world. We don’t know where they are or if they are still alive. For their relatives and loved ones, this means endless waiting and despair, a slow, silent form of torture.

How has this affected your families?

Having my husband abducted has destroyed our lives. I am raising four children who ask every day when their father will return. We live in pain and fear, under constant surveillance and threats.

Being a Turkmen activist means facing harsh living conditions. Some, like Diana, live without documents or means of subsistence or social protection, caring for small children under the constant fear of being abducted.

Still, we refuse to stay silent; if we did, others would disappear too. Together with the DAYANÇ/Turkmenistan Human Rights Platform, we have declared a hunger strike until Abdullah and Alisher return home safely. We have also launched a campaign ‘If I Disappear – Don’t Stay Silent’ where we publicly name those who will be responsible if we too disappear. This is how we protect ourselves and our loved ones, because today it’s Abdulla and Alisher but tomorrow it could be any of us.

What do you expect from the international community?

The international community must act urgently to secure the release of Abdulla, Alisher and other disappeared activists. They must also demand Turkmenistan put an end to the criminal practice of labelling people as terrorists for simply speaking the truth.

IPS News for more

by HAN FEIZI

If he dies without the prize in economics, the committee should just disband, having proven itself utterly irrelevant and inconsequential

Mama, put my guns in the ground
I can’t shoot them anymore
That long black cloud is comin’ down
I feel like I’m knockin’ on heaven’s doorbob Dylan, Nobel Laureate

British economist John Ross impishly told one interviewer that if the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences were honest, the Nobel Prize in Economics would have been awarded to Chinese economists every year for the past four decades.

Objectively, he has a point. China’s real GDP is 50 times what it was since reform and opening up began in 1978, far outpacing growth rates in Japan and the Asian Tigers (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong) during their miracle decades.

A 50x increase in GDP since 1978 for 1.4 billion people has certainly been more impactful than, say, a neat little math tool whose most primary use case is to match US and Canadian medical students with residency programs.

A 50x increase in GDP since 1978 for 1.4 billion people has certainly been more impactful than, say, the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which, while clever, wasn’t necessary for options markets. Laureates Myron Scholes and Robert Merton did manage to blow up mega hedge fund LTCM in 1998, just a year after winning their Nobel Prize, when interest rates failed to follow their model.

A 50x increase in GDP since 1978 for 1.4 billion people has certainly been more impactful than, say, a self-congratulatory political theory on Western institutions, a theory surely belied by China’s spectacular growth and the West’s long malaise.

John Ross is now not alone. Economist Adam Tooze of Columbia University has suggested that the Nobel Prize in Economics be given to Chinese policy makers because China’s growth has been the most profound economic story of our lifetime.

Some would argue that the Nobel Prize in economics is for academic researchers, not practitioners. A fair point, perhaps, if such a rule existed. But in fact, we are unaware of such a rule and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Swedish Academy have a long history of arbitrarily changing the scope and definition of Nobel Prizes. Artificial intelligence for physics? What? Bob Dylan for literature? Huh?

The Nobel Prize in Economics has always been the bastard child of the Nobel litter. Not among the original five prizes established by Alfred Nobel (Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature and Peace) upon his death in 1896, the economics prize was tacked on in 1969 by Sweden’s central bank, Sveriges Riksbank, as a “Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”

Over the years, the Nobel Prize in economics has gone through 11 name changes from simplifying down to “Prize in Economic Science” to “Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel” to “Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences” to today’s unwieldy “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.” 

Asia Times for more

by ASATO IKEDA

[Ed. Note: This article is part of an ongoing series and online exclusive exploring contemporary artists through interviews, commentary, and visual engagements provided by art historian Asato Ikeda. For other interviews in this series, see “Art and Politics with Asato Ikeda.“]

Abstract: In this conversation with Asato Ikeda, Atsushi Funahashi discusses his 2022 film Company Retreat, which is fiction based on a true story.¹ The film tells the story of a female employee Saki who works at a hotel and was sexually harassed by her boss. The story unfolds in Kamakura, where she and her co-workers have an emotional company retreat where their differing opinions about the sexual harassment incident collide. The film centers on the secondary trauma and harassment that survivors often encounter in Japan and elsewhere.

Atsushi Funahashi (b. 1974) is a Japanese film director. Originally from Osaka, he graduated from the University of Tokyo with a B.A. in cinema studies and studied film directing at the School of Visual Arts in New York. His representative works include Big River (2005), Nuclear Nation (2012), and Company Retreat (2022), and his films have been screened at major international film festivals, including Berlin, Annonay in France, Pusan, Shanghai, Sao Paolo, and Tokyo.

Ikeda: Thank you for making the time for this today. I re-watched Company Retreat for this interview a few days ago, and I’m still struck by how uncomfortable the film made me. As somebody who grew up in Japan, I remember how human relationships there can be convoluted in a particular way. There are certain very abstract phrases that are often used in Japan, such as “you are relying too much on other people” (amaeteiru), “you must work hard” (ganbatte), “we are a team” (nakama dakara),” or “don’t run away” (nigenaide). I am working on collaborative research on NHK data regarding sexual violence and consent with other researchers, but the survivors’ voices there are isolated from the cultural context.²I thought your film did a great job presenting that context—the dark aspects of Japanese culture—though I am having a hard time articulating exactly what they are. Perhaps narrow-mindedness and herd/village mentality?  I know you talked about the goal of your filmmaking as capturing the “unconsciousness of the times” (jidai no muishiki), which might be relevant here. Would you like to elaborate on this?

APJJF for more

by MOHAMAD HASAN SWEIDAN

As its military bombs Gaza, despite agreeing to a ceasefire, Tel Aviv launches a parallel online offensive aimed at silencing resistance narratives, manipulating global perceptions, and re-engineering the digital memory of its war crimes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the “Eighth Front” of his war as the battle over truth. “Seven fronts against Iran and its proxies. The eighth: the battle for the truth,” he said during a ceremony hosted by US network Newsmax at Jerusalem’s Waldorf Astoria hotel. 

Its aim is to refute accusations of genocide and deliberate famine linked to Israel’s two-year-long war on the strip, with social media and artificial intelligence (AI) programs serving as the most important battlegrounds on this front.

Digital Iron Dome

In the wake of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October 2023, Israel’s so-called “Digital Iron Dome” was activated to intercept digital content just as its military dome intercepts missiles. But instead of shrapnel, the targets are ideas – posts, images, videos – that expose Israel’s atrocities in the besieged enclave.

This digital dome operates on two main layers. First is the volunteer-driven reporting system: a nationwide campaign in which users flood social media platforms with mass complaints against content deemed unfavorable to Israel. A hybrid of AI and human reviewers rapidly classifies flagged posts, then pushes takedown requests to platforms like Meta, TikTok, and X. The goal is speed – to kill the narrative before it spreads.

TikTok alone deleted 3.1 million videos and cut off 140,000 live streams in the first six months of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The Israeli Attorney General’s Cyber Unit filed nearly 9,500 takedown requests during the same period, with Meta allegedly complying 94 percent of the time.

The second layer is algorithmic warfare: AI systems scan over 200,000 websites to identify dissenting narratives, then bombard exposed users with paid pro-Israel content in real time. Using ad campaigns that mimic the look and timing of organic posts, Israel floods timelines with a manufactured counter-narrative.

This dual strategy aims to overwhelm and erase. The first suppresses the spread of resistance voices. The second replaces them with state-approved fabrications.

Weaponizing social media for war

“We’re all the targets of these wars. We’re the ones whose clicks decide whose side wins out.” 

– Peter Singer, co-author of LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media

On 26 September 2025, Netanyahu met with 18 US-based social media influencers. The directive was to flood TikTok, X, YouTube, and podcasts with pro-Israel messaging. A week later, Tel Aviv allocated $145 million to its largest-ever digital propaganda campaign, dubbed “Project 545.” The campaign targets US public opinion, especially Gen Z, with AI-assisted content tailored for TikTok and Instagram.

The Cradle for more

by WALDEN BELLO

An interview with Jean Luc Melenchon and the leadership of La France Insoumise on the future of the French left.

Walden Bello Interviews Jean-Luc Melenchon and the leadership of La France Insoumise on the the deepening political crisis in France and its implications for the left and the alternative to the ancien regime.

In the nine years since its founding in 2016, La France Insoumise (LFI) has become the leading left formation in France, with its current parliamentary representation at 71, ahead of the traditional parties of the left, the Socialist Party and Communist Party. The personality most identified with it is Jean Luc Melenchon, who has run for president three times, the last time in 2022, when he gathered 21.9 percent of the votes, finishing third after second-placer Marine Le Pen of National Rally and Emmanuel Macron.  La France Insoumise describes its orientation as democratic socialist and ecosocialist.

The following is a composite interview. When he visited Paris in July 2025, Walden Bello interviewed some of the leaders of LFI, including Nadege Abomangoli, vice president of the National Assembly; Aurelie Trouve, chairwoman of the Economic Affairs Committee of the Assembly; and members of parliament Arnaud Le Gall, Aurelien Tache, and Aurelien Saintoul. This was followed in September 2025 by an email interview with LFI leader Jean Luc Melenchon (JLM).

The Crisis of Macronism

Walden Bello: Can you give your assessment of the current political situation in France?

La France Insoumise: In terms of the strategic situation, we are at the end of Macronism. The Macronists     are very divided and in their desperation, they’re allying with the far right.

Let’s begin by pointing out that last year, when the National Rally won the European Parliament elections, Macron was willing to make a deal with them. He was going to appoint a prime minister from the National Rally. That was the plan.

That did not happen. But even if it did not, the reality is that, Macronism has already absorbed much of the ideology and slogans of the far right. The Macronists are in an alliance with the far right in the current government. The Republicans, the traditional right-wing party, is already, more than ever, positioned alongside the far right. The new head of this party, a man named Bruno Retailleau, is now minister of the interior, and therefore of the police. In a meeting, he said, “Down with the veil.” As you know, this a slogan of the far right. Also, as you probably know, during the colonial war in Algeria, the French colonial community, also shouted, “Down with the veil,” targeting Muslim women. So this is something very old but at the same time very worrisome given the current situation. Islamophobia represents a very real threat insofar as it provides the ideological glue of all the right-wing forces in our country.

Popular Protests and the Left

WB: What are the key challenges facing the left at this point?

Jean Luc Melenchon : The capitalists are getting behind the far right. Do you know why? Because there is intense social mobilization against the decisions stemming from the neoliberal program. There is a pre-revolutionary atmosphere in France, by the admission of analysts who are themselves favorable to those in power.In fact, all over the world, for many years now, there have been revolutionary situations. We call these events “citizen revolutions.” In my book Now the People, I try to analyze them, including the conditions that produce them. This situation is what has worried Macron and the establishment.

In France, there was a movement of the yellow jackets. In the beginning, the traditional left did not support them. They said the yellow jackets were fascists. It was only 10 days after it began that the left, the trade unions, and the alter-globalization movement made a declaration saying we support them. What was happening was that a new line of conflict was emerging: not left versus right, but the oligarchy versus the people.

As you know there were mass protests that took place in 2005 and 2023. The character of the two protests were different. Those in 2005 took place in the suburbs of big cities.  Those in 2023 were in smaller cities as well. They were very young people. Some sociologists said the 2005 and 2023 protests had the same causes, but we think the 2023 protests were different. The people participating in them were very young, and they felt very deeply what they were against, including the right of the police to kill them, the license to kill, especially young Arab men.

There was no spokesperson, but it was clear what it was against. It was a reaction to an extra-judicial execution. And the polarization was sharper in 2023, partly because of social media. There was this outpouring of anger from the right in reaction to the protests, with some people expressing that it was right for the police to kill these young Arab and Black men.

Capitalism and Racism

WB: Were the protests in 2023 linked as well to economic issues?

LFI: Yes, they were, and we pointed out that the events were caused by neoliberal policies.

Foreign Policy In Focus for more