by EITAY MACK

The last thing the Bolivian people need is for the previous “good relations” to be restored, with Israel once again becoming involved in the country’s internal repression.

On October 20, Israel’s foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar announced on X that he had spoken with Bolivia’s president-elect Rodrigo Paz, congratulating him on his “impressive victory” in the elections. Sa’ar highlighted “the history of relations between Israel and the Jewish people with Bolivia” and added, “Now, after two decades of strained relations, it is time to restore our friendship and put the ties back on track.”

In his post, Sa’ar joined previous foreign ministers who had been responsible for glossing over the darker chapters of Israel’s relations with Bolivia, particularly during the years marked by a series of military coups and dictatorships from November 1964 to 1982.

Like a game of musical chairs, members of the juntas and heads of the security apparatus rotated among themselves, but Israel maintained friendly relations and conducted security business with all of them. Some were even trained in Israel or by Israelis in Bolivia before assuming their positions in the new junta. For example, on November 24, 1978, a military coup brought Raul Lopez Leyton to the head of the interior ministry – he had parachuting wings from Israel.

Documents in archives in Israel, the United States (from the CIA and the State Department), and Bolivia indicate that the military regimes purchased aircraft from Israel and regularly acquired communications equipment, mortars and shells, Uzi submachine guns, and ammunition.

According to the documents, neither Israel nor its representatives were concerned that Nazis and neo-Nazis were active within the security forces and militias, that the regimes murdered, tortured, and disappeared opposition leaders and workers, or that they “broke strikes” in mines using machine guns, mortars, tanks, planes, and helicopters against striking workers.

Bolivia was a poor country, and its defence procurement budget from Israel was limited compared with its neighbours Argentina and Chile. However, its importance to Israel was significant, as Bolivia remained one of its loyal allies at the UN and in other international forums, and even maintained an embassy in Jerusalem during some years.

The Wire for more

by AJAY KAMALAKARAN

Lured by glowing promises of work and land, hundreds of Sikhs reached Argentina in the 1910s, only to confront discrimination, destitution and broken promises.

In the early 1900s, Argentina was among the wealthiest countries in the western hemisphere. Its economy was booming and, fuelled by foreign investment, its vast, fertile lands had made it a major exporter of livestock and agricultural produce. New industries sprang up, creating a demand for labour that European migrants alone could not meet.

Noticing how Indian workers were employed across the Caribbean, the authorities in Buenos Aires approached their representative in India to explore the possibility of encouraging migration from the subcontinent.

In a letter dated February 13, 1911, the Argentine consul in Calcutta wrote to Foreign Secretary Henry McMahon, requesting that Argentina be added to the list of countries Indians were permitted to emigrate to.

Promoting his country as a promising destination, the consul wrote, “It is because, with the aid of a kindly climate, and a fertile soil, the seed sown in our fields by the labourer gives a return of a thousand to one, and because domestic happiness and prosperity flourish under the aegis of an honest, wise and progressive government, which requires from its immigrants nothing except honesty and diligence.”

With the letter, the consul enclosed a pamphlet outlining the “laws and decrees” applicable to immigrants and investors.

The response in Calcutta was one of surprise. An internal memo noted that under the Indian Emigration Act of 1908 – the very law cited by the diplomat – a colonial committee was needed to assess a destination’s annual labour demand and the facilities it offered.

“But the Committee considered the case of British colonies only,” the memo observed, adding that “it might be questioned by some whether the settlement of Indians in a foreign country is equally desirable.” To deal with this unusual case, the memo said, approval from the Secretary of State in London would also be necessary.

The memo went further: “It may be added that the Government of India do not regard with favour any proposals for the extension of emigration to foreign countries. The objection is not so much on the score of obtaining good laws as of getting them well administered in the interests of the Indian immigrant.” Suriname, where “coolies” were said to be treated well, was listed as the only “foreign” country suitable for Indian migration.

Calcutta informed the consul that the matter would have to be taken up between the British and Argentine governments, though this was hardly the end of the issue.

Dashed dreams

Despite official discouragement, word spread in Punjab of the abundant opportunities supposedly awaiting agricultural and industrial labourers in Argentina. Much like in the 21st century, families sold land and pooled resources to send young men on the long journey to South America.

Scroll for more

CHANNEL AFRICA

It’s Independence Day in Tanzania but instead of the usual festive crowds, the streets are lined with police and army units. The government has deployed a heavy security presence across major cities to deter planned protests, after activist groups called for nationwide demonstrations over economic pressures and governance concerns. It further says the planned protests would be unlawful and amount to an attempted coup. We spoke to political analyst, Sebatho Nyamsenda about the mood of in the country on #AfricaWorldHour

Youtube for more

by IMTIAZ GUL

You may make progress in an island but development beyond that level is difficult if surroundings are backward

As Pakistan remains embroiled in internal power struggles, its external friends and foes wonder where the country is politically and economically headed. The circumstances post 26th Amendment offer enough evidence to forecast the political direction Pakistan has taken. The economic distress is writ large too.

The decision of Qatar’s Al Thani Group to withdraw its $2.09 billion investment from Pakistan’s Port Qasim Power Project underscores Pakistan’s growing reputation for broken contracts and unpaid obligations. No surprise foreign direct investment plummeted to a mere $26 million by September this year — compared to India which boasts more than $81 billion in the same period. The Qatari group’s pullout — preceded by the exit of global firms like Shell, TotalEnergies, Pfizer, Sanofi, Telenor, Uber, IGI and Microsoft inter alia and partial or full closure of even domestic prime producers such as Gul Ahmed Textiles — epitomises a fractured system that is asphyxiating under the acute indifference and incompetence of a power-centric elite that loathes real reform.

The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) — often touted by Minister Ahsan Iqbal as a game-changer, a phrase our Chinese friends never favoured — suffers from the same malaise: lofty, irrational talk, little walk. Over a decade into CPEC, a number of Chinese academics, intellectuals and officials, who had dreamed of an economically viable, self-sustaining Pakistan with the help of CPEC, today sound disillusioned — wondering if Pakistan’s rulers are concerned at all about the economic viability and development of the country.

Some points from conversations with Chinese friends are worth pondering:

• China came in to improve infrastructure and help the people of Pakistan and not to please a particular political priority.

• CPEC was intrinsically designed to focus on areas that needed development, regardless of who was proposing what.

• Ten years on, big investment ($25.4 billion) has not helped the approaches to governance — decision-making and implementation — nor has the security improved.

• Holding high-profile events with the PM and COAS at closely guarded venues swarming with intelligence and security officials are optically bad for foreign investors, who always look for comfortable zones to invest their money.

• Pakistan’s policymakers keep telling us: “We are doing our best to protect you.” Little do they realise that the issue at stake is not about protecting individual Chinese nationals but about protecting the long-term Pakistan-China relationship.

• In security conversations, Pakistanis often lecture us on geopolitics as the reason of insecurity. Do they take us for fools? We know what is happening around but such challenges and risks need to be managed — the way China gradually defied and eventually blunted the entire Western opposition to it. The talk needs to be followed up with calculated walk.

• When even your own people are not investing, why would then outsiders risk their money, particularly when the energy sector continues to reel from the crippling circular debt?

• They also succinctly point to the minister for planning Ahsan Iqbal’s long speeches as an example. If a minister in this era doesn’t value the time and takes his audience for students then something serious is certainly missing. This age dictates precision, focus and execution and not lofty, lengthy rhetoric.

• China developed because it took underdeveloped regions along but Pakistan’s peripheral regions — Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit-Baltistan and Balochistan — remain excluded, conflict-scarred and badly managed. How can the country progress if these regions are step-motherly treated?

This reminds me of the ancient Chinese philosophy of development: you may make progress in an island but development beyond that level is difficult if the surroundings are backward and turbulent. They keep emphasising a cross-party consensus for national development and not just CPEC.

Epress Tribune for more

Trump’s new Monroe doctrine is MAGA imperialism. Feat John Bellamy Foster

MROnline for more

from RALPH NADER & BRUCE FEIN

December 5, 2025

Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani
24-08 32nd Street
Suite 1002A
Astoria, NY 11102

Dear Mayor-elect Mamdani,

It should not come as a surprise to alert citizens that your decisive victory in the Mayoral race has prompted your opponents – the privileged super-rich and their indentured servants in City Hall – to label you as an “extremist,” “radical,” or, in Trump’s view, a “communist.” How ludicrous! Your affordability agenda is hardly immoderate. Many Democratic politicians have taken these positions over time.

Free bus fares exist in some municipalities in the U.S., including Kansas City, Missouri, Tucson, Arizona, and Alexandria, Virginia. Proposing half a dozen city-run grocery stores in New York City’s “food deserts” (meaning a geographic area with limited access to affordable, healthy food options) is hardly radical. You could even have them structure these stores as consumer cooperatives (owned by consumers). Food co-ops have existed in numerous communities in the U.S. for years. Your rent stabilization proposal is not uncommon – many large cities have rent controls to protect powerless tenants from avaricious landlords, especially from today’s very large corporate landlords with their fine-print contract peonage. Also, there are cities in the U.S. offering partially publicly subsidized child care. New Mexico just launched a statewide universal child?care program.

The social democratic countries in Europe and other countries, including Canada, have long had much broader social safety nets that go far beyond what you have proposed.

What the oligarchy and large corporations really do not like about you is that you are projecting a consistent and wide-ranging voice for the people, the workers, the poor, and the powerless in the corridors of political power of City Hall. They have had long-game statism, or a corporate state, at the local, state, and federal levels, with little opposition by the two-party duopoly.

Regarding your self-description as a democratic socialist, that doesn’t pass the laugh test. You are not arguing for nationalization of banks and insurance companies, utilities, not even, to our knowledge have you called for a “public bank,” which has existed so effectively in North Dakota (now a Republican stronghold) founded in 1919.

You call for increasing taxes on the undertaxed super wealthy and large corporations. So do over 80% of the American people. Pretty normal.

Indeed, President Donald Trump has become a corporate socialist par excellence. As The New York Times reported on November 25, 2025, (“$10 Billion and Counting: Trump Administration Snaps Up Stakes in Private Firms”) the Trump administration has de facto partly nationalized an array of private companies for ulterior political motives under the contrived banner of national security. The companies include Intel, U.S. Steel, Westinghouse, MP Materials, Vulcan Elements, and MP Materials. This invites bribery by other means, i.e., a Trump donation in exchange for an administration sweetheart investment. The fabled Central Intelligence Agency now features a venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, ostensibly to fund commercial technologies to fortify the U.S. intelligence community and the Department of Defense. But under Trump, partisan political motives likely will inform the CIA’s investment portfolio.

As for taking a stand on pending legislation ending the unconscionable daily electronic rebate of tens of millions of dollars in stock transaction taxes (a progressive tiny sales tax of one tenth of one percent on stock sales), you have been AWOL despite urgings by your numerous colleagues in the state legislature to sign on to a bill that would end the rebate and specifically allocate the many billions of dollars annually to mass transit, education, health care and environmental protection.

So far, your silence has put you to the RIGHT of former Mayor MICHAEL BLOOMBERG. During his presidential run in 2020, he said:

“Harness the power of the financial system to address America’s most pressing challenges. Introduce a tax of 0.1% on all financial transactions to raise revenue needed to address wealth inequality, and support other measures – such as speed limits on trading – to curb predatory behavior and reduce the risk of destabilizing “flash crashes.”

Ralph Nader for more

by LUKAS SLOTHUUS

At the beginning of the year, Norway looked set to elect the most right-wing government in its history. The right-populist Progress Party was surging in the polls while the centre-left government was in disarray, with the Centre Party withdrawing from the Labour-led coalition after a row over further integration into European energy markets. Yet in the parliamentary elections of 8 September, the incumbent Labour Party staged a recovery – clinging onto power with a slightly increased vote share of 28 per cent. Jonas Gahr Støre now leads a second government, this time principally supported by the Red Party, Socialist Left and Greens, which won a combined 16 per cent, rather than its erstwhile coalition partner, which collapsed to 6 per cent. On the right, power shifted to the more radical Progress Party, led by Sylvi Listhaug, nearly doubled its share to 24 per cent, overtaking Erna Solberg’s Conservatives, which dropped to 15 per cent. According to its own post-election evaluation, the Conservatives – who ruled from 2013 to 2021 – were punished in part for not having a sufficiently distinct platform to the Progress Party, with whom they faced the widely unpopular prospect of governing in coalition.

Both Labour and Conservatives ran on the same set of issues: welfare, the cost of living, national security. In the televised debates, the urban-rural divide was high on the agenda – a perennial subject in a country with the lowest population density in mainland Europe. The Conservatives campaigned for increased privatisation of healthcare to cut waiting lists, and tax cuts, even for the rich; Labour’s headline pledges were a hospital waiting list cap, cutting the cost of nursery fees and a fixed-price electricity scheme. On national security, meanwhile, the parties were united in preaching loyalty to NATO, full-throated support for Ukraine and a large-scale increase in military spending. Indeed, Labour – whose finance minister is former NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg – has made NATO membership a red line for any coalition with the left parties, and Støre’s government last year pledged to double the defence budget, touting the proposal as a ‘historic boost’.

Militarism was the ‘cause above all causes’ in the election according to Aftenposten, Norway’s paper of record. Bordering Russia in the Arctic, the spectre of the Cold War looms large in a country that once refused permanent foreign bases or the stationing of nuclear weapons on its soil to avoid antagonising the USSR. Tensions with Russia rose after a significant increase in American troops from 2018 and bomber planes were stationed in 2021. Norway is now set to be a maritime stronghold for NATO in the strategically vital gap between Greenland, Iceland and the UK, as well as the broader North, Norwegian and Barents Sea area.

NLR for more

by B. R. GOWANI

Perpetually at war

Every time the US empire, or “the imperialists of the planet,” as Nicaragua’s co-President Rosario Murillo put it, is on a war-mission to spread “democracy” or to fight “communism” or “terrorism” or “Islamic terrorism” or “narcoterrorism” or whatever label it decides to put on its enemy, the question raised by many critics is:

• when will the US learn a lesson that wars are not achieving anything but are instead harmful to the US itself?

The critics may be right but the problem is that the US leaders don’t want to learn any lesson.

• Why?

Because none of the wars have been detrimental to their person or their well-being because almost all wars are fought hundreds or thousands of miles away on “enemy” land. There have been a few incidents where the US has been counter-attacked as the burning of White House and other buildings by the British troops in 1814, the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and Taliban attack on World Trade Centers in 2001.

Just comparatively, minor incidents.

Imagine if the US was attacked the way Vietnam, Guatemala, Haiti, Chile, Afghanistan, Philippines, Cuba, Cambodia, Iraq, and so many other countries have been attacked by the US. The US leaders thinking on starting wars would have been completely different, But that is not the case, and so the constant wars by the US, continue.

Of course, US suffers financial losses in these wars, and also incurs some loss of lives. The financial losses are covered through borrowing which its leaders don’t worry about because they’ll be gone after 4-8 years. (The total US debt January 8, 2026 stands at 38.6 trillion dollars, highly doubtful will ever be paid.) US didn’t care about loss of life of its soldiers either until, the Vietnam War, where 58,220 US citizens lost their lives. Over three million Vietnamese were killed. The US government kept lying:

“The U.S. was winning in Vietnam, until it was not. Right up to the moment diplomats in the U.S. embassy turned the lights off and were airlifted off the building’s roof.”

Gordon Adams, “From Vietnam to Afghanistan, all US governments lie.”

Anti-war protests and media coverage in second half of 1960s and first half of 1970s of planes arriving in US carrying coffins of US soldiers forced the ruling elite to take care of the problem, by asking TV channels not to show the coffins.

Today, advanced warring technology has solved the high casualty problem, thus allowing the war-show to continue uninterrupted and filling the coffers of the death merchants.

Empire’s Juggernaut <1> out of control

On January 3, 2026, US forces bombed Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, and kidnapped President Nicolas Maduro and wife Cilia Flores. An absolutely criminal and illegitimate act. (Several articles on Maduro’s abduction here.)

Anita Naidu reminds us not to forget the white supremacy involved in these warring acts:

Here, white supremacy is the global system that ranks nations, people and sovereignties according to proximity to Western power and allocates legitimacy accordingly.

In 2002, Maduro’s predecessor President Hugo Chavez was kidnapped by the US government of George W. Bush who supported right-wing elites in Venezuela. It was a short-lived 47-hour coup because Chavez supporters and his military succeeded in crushing the coup d’etat.

Chavez once said:

“Years ago, someone told me: ‘They’re going to end up accusing you of being a drug trafficker – you personally – you, Chávez. Not just that the government supports it, or permits it – no, no, no. They’re going to try to apply the Noriega [2] formula to you.’ They’re looking for a way to associate Chávez directly with drug trafficking. And then, anything goes against a ‘drug trafficker president’, right?”

Trump has also threatened Columbia, Cuba, Greenland, Iran, and Mexico with establishing its dominance over them.

Why Trump wants to own Greenland?

“Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

Trump’s predecessors who came to the Americas in what is now the US did the same thing with the Native Americans — ordered them to sign papers and hand over the territory or get killed so they would get the territory, anyway.

On January 5, 2026, White House advisor Stephen Miller clearly laid out Trump & CO’s philosophy on how they would rule Latin America:

“The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We’re a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard [the Latin America] to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries [China and others] but not to us.”

In 1993, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright yelled at Colin Powell, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

The US did go to war against Yugoslavia in 1999 when Albright was Secretary of State. That war came to be known as “Madeleine’s War” and “Albright at War.”

In an interview to the New York Times on January 8, 2026, Trump answered a question on whether there were any restrains on his “global powers”:

“Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

“I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.”

About morality and mind: Trump suffers from WMD — not weapons of mass destruction but Whopping Morality Deficiency. Trump’s mind is constantly thinking how to increase his, family’s, and cronies’ wealth through stealing or forcefully acquiring goods, services, and resources of other countries. He wants to exert his power over the entire globe and acts like previous US leaders, as the Global Emperor. Only such a leader could dismiss “international law” so casually, and could let Israel ignore UN resolutions regarding genocide of Palestinians.

Not looking to hurt people? Really? The cities in US are experiencing ICE atrocities. People getting killed, deported, or sent to El Salvador’s notorious prison.

Nigeria was bombed on false pretext. US attacks on Venezuelan boats as a prelude to force Maduro to go into exile, killed 123 people. During Maduro’s abduction 80 people were killed. One could go on but suffice to say that Trump’s actions are tremendously hurting and uprooting lives every second.

Historically, US leaders have ignored international laws when it has suited them. As did German Chancellor Adolf Hitler on September 1, 1939, when he attacked Poland. Hitler’s justification:

“The Polish state has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and appealed to arms… In order to put an end to this lunacy I have no other choice than to meet force with force from now on… Destroying Poland is our priority… The winner is never asked if what he said was the truth or a lie. As far as starting and fighting a war is concerned, there is no law – victory is the decisive factor. Be brutal and be without mercy.”

In above words, one can easily identify similar excuses given by US presidents for their deadly illegal wars.

When will China wake up?

With full financial and military support, US let Israel commit genocide in Palestinian territory of Gaza ignoring United Nations Resolutions, the World Court, and hundreds of protests by millions of people world wide. China remained quiet, except for polite diplomatic condemnation and call for ceasefire.

Israel bombed Iran several times killing many people, including several scientists. Later Israel joined the US in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. but China reacted mildly.

The US kidnapped Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro. Ditto.

The question is when will China wake up and realize that every US military action, is making it bold and enhancing its power. And, every Chinese inaction is making it weaker. If the Trump juggernaut keeps on like this, who knows where it will end.

As one of the most economically and technologically powerful country, people around the globe expect China to form some kind of security coalition with countries threatened by the US. One wonders will China only wake up when the US shows up at Taiwan’s doorstep.

Trump’s thundering doesn’t raise as much fear, world wide, as Xi Jinping’s silence does.

Will the US empire’s juggernaut stop?

It depends on our Dear Leader’s mood. If he restricts himself to the Western Hemisphere, that is North and South Americas, without any challenge from Russia or China, Trump could maintain the US hegemony for a long time till guerilla movements with some leader like Che Guevara or Fidel Castro seriously challenge it. But if Trump overstretches himself like Adolf Hitler did, by attacking the Soviet Union, than the end may not be very pleasing. And there are strong chances that Trump will cross the red line due to his arrogance and over confidence.

What then will happen to our Dear Leader? Well, Elon Musk, his buddy, will fly him to Mars before people chase after him.

Is peace possible?

Global peace is somewhat possible if a Warsaw Pact kind of alliance is formed that could deter US and NATO from roguish overt and covert wars. Post 1991, after dismantling of USSR and Warsaw Pact, NATO not only stayed intact but increased membership, including some Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet Republics, and now reaches almost the border of Russia. (See the maps here.) In 1991, US became the only superpower, because the other superpower, Soviet Union, was dismantled. With more than 750 bases encircling the world in 81 countries, including the Middle East, US doesn’t have to go to war all the time; it just threatens small countries and gets what it wants.

Notes:

<1> English word Juggernaut (meaning: overwhelming or unstoppable force) comes from the name of a Hindu Lord of the Universe Jagannath. (One of Indian Prime Minister Modi’s BJP party members got carried away declaring: Lord Jagannath is a devotee of Modi!)

<2> In 1989, US government of George H. W. Bush Sr. invaded Panama and captured it’s leader Manual Noriega on drug charges. The actual reason was his refusal to support US war against the small Central American country of Nicaragua. Noriega had been involved in drug business for a very long time but was on good terms with the US, so was safe from them. In an Orwellian manner, the US news media, almost always supports the US government lies.

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

Artist Misha Japanwala preserves what we are told to be ashamed of

IMAGES STAFF

She calls her work a love letter to Karachi and the people who have given her the courage to be as shameless as she can be.

Pakistani artist and designer Misha Japanwala described herself not as a sculptor, but as a documentor — creating an archive of both life and loss — in a recent interview with CBS News.

“My practice is documenting people and their bodies,” she said, as she walked CBS News’ Elaine Quijano through her exhibited works at the Hannah Traore Gallery in New York City.

Born and raised in Karachi, Japanwala made it to the Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia list in 2021. Her signature breastplates and human-form sculptures draw from Pakistan’s social issues, serving as social commentary as much as they reflect her own evolving aesthetic.

Her moulds have been worn by a number of artists, including Oscar-winning actor Lupita Nyong’o, and rapper Cardi B, both in her music video for ‘Rumours’ and photographs that announced her pregnancy in June. She was also featured in a special issue of V Magazine guest-edited by model Gigi Hadid.

She moved to the United States to pursue fashion, but found herself captivated “not with clothes, but the bodies that wear them”. Today, she works from her home studio in New Jersey, inviting subjects to have their bodies moulded.

Reflecting on her journey, she told the channel with a sparkle in her eyes, “Instead of feeling like I had to conform my body to fit a certain garment, I was creating a garment out of my body itself.”

Dawn for more