Israeli minister calls for Western-Arab alliance against Iran

Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, called on Thursday for a Western-Arab alliance headed by the US against Iran, in order to curb its missile development and “aggression”.

This call came following a letter sent by France, Germany and the UK to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, warning that “Iran’s developments of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles” violates a UN Security Council resolution endorsing the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

Katz posted on Twitter: “The next step must be an effective military threat of a Western-Arab coalition led by the US to deter Iranian aggression. These are critical moments.”

According to the Times of Israel, Katz also tweeted: “This is the decisive moment.”

This came in the context of a meeting between Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Lisbon, where they discussed the Moroccan-Israeli relations.

NATO’s irrelevance self-evident

Crescent International

The recent public spat between head of the fanatic-secular French regime, President Emmanuel Macron and the moron-in-chief heading the regime in Washington DC, Donald Trump, about NATO’s current and future prospects is a positive development for global peace.

The military-political alliance of war-mongering Western neo-colonial regimes, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), has outlived its usefulness.

It should have been disbanded with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Recent public disagreements between key NATO members that surfaced due to Trump’s crude antics would hopefully generate lively debate about the military alliance’s irrelevance.

At 70, it is time to perform its last rites and consign it to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

The post-WWII military alliance was created in 1949 to confront the Soviet Union and prevent its expansion into Western Europe.

NATO has now expanded much beyond the shores of the North Atlantic and has spread its tentacles even into landlocked Afghanistan and Niger.

From strictly a military point of view, in the age of hybrid and guerrilla warfare, NATO’s conventional military approach rooted in nation on nation warfare is outdated.

This is probably the reason why Kremlin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov responding to NATO’s communique of December 4, highlighted that Moscow would not get involved in an arms race with NATO.

The Soviet Union committed this mistake in the 1980s thereby weakening itself economically.

Russia clearly understands the radically altered military landscape of 2019, where a lightly armed but highly motivated Taliban movement has forced Washington to negotiate its retreat.

Nevertheless, it is not the military aspect that renders NATO irrelevant for the contemporary situation, but its political failure.

Created supposedly to hold Europe together against an external threat, NATO’s arrogance is probably one of the primary reasons for EU’s current crisis.

Despite EU’s many shortcomings, the Western part of Europe is the most successful socio-political project. It has prevented war among these states since the Second World War.

True, wars have been exported elsewhere: Africa, Latin America, and the Muslim East but Europe has remained conflict-free since 1945.

Nonetheless, NATO’s use of EU as a political cover to expand eastward toward the Russian borders, under its “partnership for peace program” triggered harsh Russian responses in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014.

One of the key reasons for EU’s current political crisis is that the bloc stopped being an economic union and was pushed by the US to turn into a political and security project closely linked to NATO.

The EU’s acceptance of East European states as members, while most of them are still not ready to be part of the bloc economically and politically, created an array of economic and political problems.

Influx of cheap labor from Europe into Britain was one of the key contributors to the Brexit disaster.

Apart from clear divisions among NATO member Western regimes, Turkey is also beginning to gradually distance itself from the Western designed security system.

While it is too early to predict Ankara’s date of departure from NATO, Turkey’s disdain for the alliance is a small step towards regional Muslim security architecture.

As Turkish society is becoming more Islamicaly conscious and its government more oriented toward advancing its own interests, at some point Turkey will leave NATO.

It will then seek an alternative and that would most likely be a regional alliance that will include Iran and Pakistan.

Among Muslim countries, these three are the only ones that pack military punch. In the past, they had formed an economic bloc under the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD).

It petered out due to internal changes in the three countries. Recent developments point toward the possibility of a revival of cooperation between them.

This should be welcomed and encouraged.

How Western media bias allows Israel to getaway with murder in Gaza

Ramzy Baroud

An Israeli attack on Gaza was imminent, and not because of any provocations by Palestinian groups in the besieged, impoverished Gaza Strip. The Israeli military escalation was foreseeable because it factors neatly in Israel’s contentious political scene. The war was not a question of “if”, but “when”.

The answer came on November 12, when the Israeli military launched a major strike against Gaza, killing an Islamic Jihad Commander, Bahaa Abu al-Ata, along with his wife Asma.

More strikes followed, targeting what the Israeli military described as Islamic Jihad installations. However, the identities of the victims, along with damning social media footage, pictures, and eyewitness accounts indicate that civilians and civilian infrastructure were bombed and destroyed as well.

As of November 14, when a truce was announced, 32 Palestinians have been killed and over 80 wounded in the Israeli aggression.

What truly frustrates any meaningful discussion on the horrific situation in Gaza is the feeble response, whether by international organisations that exist with the sole purpose of ensuring world peace or by Western mainstream media, that ceaselessly celebrates its own accuracy and impartiality.

A most disappointing response to the Israeli violence was offered by Nickolay Mladenov, the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process.

Mladenov, whose job should have long been deemed pointless considering that no “peace process” actually exists, expressed his “concern” about the “ongoing and serious escalation between Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Israel”.

Not only Mladenov’s statement creates a moral equivalence between an occupying power, which instigated the war in the first place, and a small group of a few hundred armed men, it is also dishonest.

“The indiscriminate launching of rockets and mortars against population centres is absolutely unacceptable and must stop immediately,” Mladenov elaborated, putting great emphasis on the fact that, “there can be no justification for any attacks against civilians”.

A destroyed house seen in Gaza, after Israeli airstrikes hit the building in Khan Yunis, Gaza on November 13, 2019 [Ali Jadallah / Anadolu Agency]

Shockingly, Mladenov was referring to Israeli, not Palestinian civilians. At the time that his statement was released to the media, there were already dozens of Palestinian civilians that had been killed and wounded, while Israeli media reports spoke of few Israelis who had been treated for “anxiety”.

The European Union did not fare any better. The EU parroted the same American knee-jerk response by condemning “the barrage of rocket attacks reaching deep into Israel”.

“The firing of rockets on civilian populations is totally unacceptable and must immediately stop,” a statement by the European bloc read.

Is it not possible that Mladenov and top EU foreign policymakers do not truly comprehend the political context of the latest Israeli onslaught  –  that embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using military escalation as a way of fortifying his weakening grip on power.

Considering this, what is one to make of the poor media coverage, the inept analyses and the absence of balanced reports in major Western news media?

In a report published by the BBC on November 13, the British broadcaster referred to “cross-border violence between Israel and militants in Gaza”.

But Gaza is not an independent country and, per international law, it is still under Israeli occupation. Israel declared Gaza a “hostile territory” in September 2007, arbitrarily establishing a “border” between it and the besieged Palestinian territory. For some reason, the BBC finds this designation acceptable.

CNN, on the other hand, reported on November 13 that “Israel’s military campaign against Islamic Jihad” is entering its second day, while emphasizing the UN condemnation of the rocket attacks.

CNN, like most of its American mainstream counterparts, reports on Israeli military campaigns as a part and parcel of some imagined “war on terror”. Therefore, analyzing the language of US mainstream media with the purpose of underlining and emphasizing its failures and biases, is a useless exercise.

Sadly, US bias regarding Palestine has extended to mainstream media in European countries that were, to some degree, fairer, if not somewhat sympathetic, with the Palestinian peoples’ situation.

El Mundo of Spain, for example, spoke of a number of Palestinians – making sure to emphasize that they were “mostly militants”, – who “died” as opposed to “were killed” by the Israeli military.

“The escalation followed the death of Gaza’s armed branch leader,” El Mundo reported, failing once more to pinpoint the culprits in these seemingly mysterious deaths.

La Repubblica, which is perceived in Italy as a “leftist” outlet, sounded more like a rightwing Israeli newspaper, in its description of the events that led to the death and wounding of many Palestinians. The Italian newspaper used a fabricated timeline that only exists in the mind of Israeli military and decision-makers.

“Violence continued. Several rockets were thrown towards Israel by Gaza’s Islamic Jihad (militants), breaking the brief truce, according to (rightwing Israeli newspaper) The Jerusalem Post and to the Israeli army”.

It remains unclear what “truce” La Repubblica was referring to.

France’s Le Monde followed suit, reporting the same deceptive and cliched Israeli lines and emphasizing statements by the Israeli military and government. Interestingly, the death and wounding of many Palestinians in Gaza did not deserve a place on the French newspaper’s homepage. Instead, it chose to highlight a comparatively irrelevant news item where Israel denounced the labeling of illegal settlement products as “discriminatory”.

Maybe, one could have excused these across-the-board journalistic and moral failings if it were not for the fact that the Gaza story has been one of the most covered news topics anywhere in the world for over a decade.

It is obvious that the West’s “newspapers of record” have maintained their blindspot on fairly reporting on Gaza and intentionally kept the truth from their readers for many years so as not to offend the sensibilities of the Israeli government and its powerful allies and lobbies.

While one cannot help but bemoan the death of good journalism in the West, it is also important to acknowledge with much appreciation the courage and sacrifices of Gaza’s young journalists and bloggers who, at times, are targeted and killed by the Israeli army for conveying the truth on the plight of the besieged but tenacious Strip.

Concerning JCPOA, France, European countries are playing with Iran : Velayati

TEHRAN, (MNA) – A top Advisor to Iranian Leader Ali Akbar Velyati has criticized the European signatories to the JCPOA for bringing up the issue of Iranian missile defense capabilities instead of abiding by their JCPOA obligations.

Ali Akbar Velayati made the comments in an interview with the France 24-Arabic Language TV, during which he said that Iran does not trust France as it has not abided by its commitments to the Iran nuclear deal or the JCPOA like other European countries.

It is noteworthy that the French President Macron has been holding regular phone conversation with his Iranian Counterpart President Rouhani with an attempt to save the JCPOA as Iran gradually take steps to reduce its own commitments to the deal in reciprocation for US illegal withdrawal and Europe’s failure to abide by their own obligations under the accord to make up for Iran’s losses.

In response to a question on the promised $15 billion credit line proposed to Rouhani by Macrone in exchange for reversing Iran’s JCPOA commitment reductions, the top advisor to the Leader said that “the main problem is that France and other European signatories to the JCPOA do not keep their promises. Nor did they live up to their promises in the nuclear deal. That is why we do not trust the French government to hold to its promises.”

He added that France like other EU countries are all talk and no action.

The official further lambasted the European countries for bringing up the issue of Iranian missile defense capabilities instead of abiding by their JCPOA obligations.

He called the French and other European states’ gestures with regard to the JCPOA as a show which is aimed at a political victory.

They want to tell the people of the world that they are trying to maintain and realize peace while the case is different, according to Velayati.

He further noted that when the US re-imposes the sanctions on Iran, Europe abides by them.

“France is seeking a political game with Iran,” he noted, adding as long as France does not take practical steps, Iran does not trust it.

Call for Complete overhaul of the UN

Firoz Osman

In the midst of simmering global tensions, the 74th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meeting in New York staged many of the adversaries. These included Donald Trump, Hassan Rouhani, Narendra Modi, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Imran Khan, Boris Johnson and Abdel Fattah el Sisi.

A notable absentee was Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu who is fighting for his political life in order to avert a prison sentence for corruption.

The theme at the UNGA was to address multilateral efforts for poverty eradication, quality education, climate action and inclusion, but it was the threat of war in the Muslim (Middle) East and the Subcontinent that was the main focus and dominated headlines.

US president Trump projected a forlorn figure, a far cry from the menacing and bombastic speeches previously delivered at the forum.

Perhaps he was absorbed in the impending danger of impeachment he faces in coming weeks.

British prime minister Johnson had to rush back after the courts found he violated the law by proroguing parliament. Brexit could prove to be his political nemesis.

And Egypt’s al-Sisi senses the beginning of the end as another uprising erupts against his illegitimate rule.

There seems to be a shift in the rhetoric at this year’s UNGA, one from obsequiousness by some “Third” world leaders, not only exposing the hypocrisy and double standards of the dominant Western countries but accusing them, and the United Nations, of failing to uphold international law and prevent war, the UN’s raison d’ etre.

In his address, Trump barely touched on the main conference theme, instead lambasting Iran’s “menacing behaviour… fuelling the tragic wars in Syria and Yemen… and the attack on the Saudi oil refineries”.

No evidence was provided. The biggest gap in Trump’s address, of course, was his deafening silence on climate change.

Turkish president Erdogan rightly asked: “Where are the borders of the State of Israel? Is it the 1948 borders, the 1967 borders, or is there any other border?”, adding that Israel’s seizure of Palestinian territories is not legitimate.

He produced a map showing just how Israel, non-existent in 1947, colonised Palestine and expelled its people.

Malaysian PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad also castigated the Zionist entity, stating that the creation of Israel by seizing Palestinian land and expelling its 90 per cent Arab population is the root cause of terrorism.

“Since then, wars have been fought in many countries, many related to the creation of Israel. And now we have terrorism when there was none before, or at least none on the present scale.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, in contrast to Trump, called for a commitment to signed international deals, dialogue and cooperation to achieve regional peace and stability without any interference in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries, and to guarantee the security of free oil flow from each Persian Gulf country.

He alluded to disruptive American interference in the region, hinting that such interference had inflamed the Muslim East with wars of extremism, fanaticism, terrorism and occupation.

In an impassioned speech Pakistani PM Imran Khan launched an extraordinary attack on his Indian counterpart, prime minister Modi, warning of a “bloodbath” when India lifts its curfew in Indian-occupied Kashmir, currently facing an unprecedented security lockdown with 900,000 troops for nearly two month.

He warned that any all-out conflict between the two nuclear-armed states would reverberate far beyond their borders. He gave a history of the RSS, the progenitor of Modi’s BJP, the ruling party, calling it a terrorist group that admired Hitler and Mussolini.

On the side-lines of the UNGA the leaders of Turkey, Pakistan and Malaysia agreed to jointly fight the rising global trend of Islamophobia, mainly in the West, and to launch an English TV channel dedicated to confronting the challenges posed by Islamophobia. They also discussed ways to enhance cooperation on regional and global developments.

A number of other leaders called for reform of the United Nations, particularly the extraordinary powers through veto of the five permanent members at the UN Security Council (UNSC).

South Africa’s call for additional African seats simply entrenches and reinforces the lopsided system. The veto must be abolished, and the Security Council become the executive branch of the UNGA. Only then will the UN cease being a tool for the oppressors.

There can be grave consequences resisting coercion by the West and for taking such a stance against hegemonic powers, such as the economic blockade faced by Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. There will be destabilisation, turmoil, destruction and attempts to overthrow governments as happened in Egypt and Turkey.

It is time that only the UN General Assembly, which comprises all countries of the world on an equitable footing, were to sanction the use of force against a member state that has violated the UN Charter or international Law.

Further, it should only be the UNGA that should sanction trade embargo and control global institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The UNSC, dominated by the victors of the Second World War—the US, France, Britain and Russia—plus China, will never willingly acquiesce to forego incarcerating, bullying, invading, bombing and occupying other countries and peoples.

Uighurs, Yemen, Libya, Mali, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Palestine immediately come to mind.

They will not allow any reforms or structural changes to the United Nations that will abolish their absolute control of the world body. It is time for courageous, smaller states to unite in their demand for a more effective, equitable and just world body.

DR FIROZ OSMAN is an executive member of the Media Review Network, an advocacy group based in Gauteng, South Africa.

 

Firoz Osman

The War Ahead: Netanyahu’s Elections Gamble Will be Costly for Israel

Ramzy Baroud

On September 1, the Lebanese group Hezbollah struck an Israeli military base near the border town of Avivim. The Lebanese attack came as an inevitable response to a series of Israeli strikesthat targeted four different Arab countries in two days.

The Lebanese response, accompanied by jubilation throughout Lebanon, shows that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may have overplayed his cards. However, for Netanyahu, it was a worthy gamble, as the Israeli leader is desperate for any new political capital that could shield him against increasingly emboldened contenders in the country’s September 17 general elections.

An Israeli soldier stands guard near the border with Lebanon on 4 December 2018 [Amir Levy/Getty Images]

A fundamental question that could influence any analysis of the decision to strike Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza is whether the strategy originated from the Israeli government or the limited personal calculations of Netanyahu himself. I contend that the latter is true.

Israel has already violated the sovereignty of all of these regions, bombing some of them hundreds of times in the past, but striking all at once is unprecedented. Since neither Israel nor its US allies offered any convincing military logic behind the campaign, there can be no other conclusion that the objectives were entirely political.

One obvious sign that the attacks were meant to benefit Netanyahu, and Netanyahu only, is the fact that the Israeli Prime Minister violated an old Israeli protocol of staying mum following this type of cross-border violence. It is also uncommon for top Israeli officials to brag about their country’s intelligence outreach and military capabilities. Israel, for example, has bombed Syriahundreds of times in recent years, yet rarely taken responsibility for any of these attacks.

Compare this with Netanyahu’s remarks following the two-day strikes of August 24-25. Only minutes after the Israeli strikes, Netanyahu hailed the army’s “major operational effort”, declaringthat “Iran has no immunity anywhere.”

Regarding the attack on the southeast region of Aqraba in Syria, Netanyahu went into detail, describing the nature of the target and the identities of the enemy as well.

Two of the Hezbollah fighters killed in Syria were identified by the Israeli army, which distributed their photographs while allegedly travelling on the Iranian airline, Mahan “which Israel and the United States have identified as a major transporter of weaponry and materiel to Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon,” according to the Times of Israel.

Why would Israel go to this extent, which will surely help the targeted countries in uncovering some of Israel’s intelligence sources?

The Economist revealed that “some … in Israel’s security and political establishments are uncomfortable” with Netanyahu’s tireless extolling of “Israel’s intelligence-gathering and operational successes in surprising detail.”

The explanation lies in one single phrase: the September 17 elections.

In recent months, Netanyahu has finally managed to wrestle the title: the country’s longest-serving Prime Minister, a designation that the Israeli leader has earned, despite his checkered legacy dotted with abuse of power, self-serving agenda and several major corruption cases that rope in Netanyahu directly, along with his wife and closest aides.

Israel’s first prime minister David Ben Gurion

Yet, it remains unclear whether Netanyahu can hang on for much longer. Following the April 9 elections, the embattled Israeli leader tried to form a government of like-minded right-wing politicians butfailed. It was this setback that pushed for the dissolution of the Israeli Knesset on May 29 and the call for a new election. While Israeli politics is typically turbulent, holding two general elections within such a short period of time is very rare, and, among other things, it demonstrates Netanyahu’s faltering grip on power.

Equally important is that, for the first time in years, Netanyahu and his Likud party are facing real competition. These rivals, led by Benjamin Gantz of the Blue and White (Kahol Lavan) centrist party are keen on denying Netanyahu’s every possible constituency, including his own pro-illegal settlements and pro-war supporters.

Statements made by Gantz in recent months are hardly consistent with the presumed ideological discourse of the political center, anywhere. The former Chief of General Staff of the Israeli army is a strong supporter of illegal Jewish settlements and an avid promoter of war on Gaza. Last June, Gantz went as far as accusing Netanyahu of “diminishing Israel’s deterrence” policy in Gaza, which “is being interpreted by Iran as a sign of weakness.”

In fact, the terms “weak” or “weakness” have been ascribed repeatedly to Netanyahu by his political rivals, including top officials within his own right-wing camp. The man who has staked his reputation on tough personal or unhindered violence in the name of Israeli security is now struggling to protect his image.

This analysis does not in any way discount the regional and international objectives of Netanyahu’s calculations, leading amongst them his desire to stifle any political dialogue between Tehran and Washington, an idea that began taking shape at the G7 summit in Biarritz, France. But even that is insufficient to offer a rounded understanding of Netanyahu’s motives, especially because the Israeli leader is wholly focused on his own survival, as opposed to future regional scenarios.

However, the “Mr Security” credentials that Netanyahu aimed to achieve by bombing multiple targets in four countries might not yield the desired dividends. Israeli media is conveying a sense of panic among Israelis, especially those living in the northern parts of the country and in illegal Jewish settlements in the Occupied Golan Heights.

This is hardly the strong and mighty image that Netanyahu was hoping to convey through his military gamble. None of the thousands of Israelis who are currently being trained on surviving Lebanese retaliations are particularity reassured regarding the power of their country.

Netanyahu is, of course, not the first Israeli leader to use the military to achieve domestic political ends. Late Israeli leader, Shimon Peres, has done so in 1996 but failed miserably, but only after killing over 100 Lebanese and United Nations peacekeepers in the Southern Lebanese village of Qana.

The consequences of Netanyahu’s gamble might come at a worse price for him than simply losing the elections. Opening a multi-front war is a conflict that Israel cannot win, at least, not any more.

Why G7 Is No Longer Relevant

• 
  

TEHRAN (FNA)- G7 leaders are free to meet in Biarritz, France for the 45th G7 Summit, but the grouping is losing relevance by the day.

This is certainly not because almost every single G7 leader attending the summit is in some kind of trouble, whether it's economic, political or simply health-related. Nor is it because the grouping is becoming economically insignificant. After all, it still represents 40 percent of the global economic output and incorporate some of the world’s most innovative industrial powerhouses.

The lack of legitimacy isn't the culprit as the grouping has never been trying to be globally representative or come up with binding resolutions that have to be implemented multilaterally by countries that do not sit at the table. So, what's the problem with the G7? It is the value erosion that is causing the seemingly irreversible decline of the G7.

The G7 process was first established in the mid-1970s in the wake of the economic recessions caused by the 1973 oil crisis and the infamous Nixon shock. Besides coordinating economic policies to assist in each other’s economic recovery efforts, the G7 grouping more fundamentally sees itself as a community of like-minded countries that uphold such supposedly universal values as liberal democracy, peace and stability, and economic prosperity and sustainable development. The very “like-mindedness” on those values is the glue that has been holding G7 countries together for the past decades. But the degree of “like-mindedness” among G7 members is quickly dissipating in recent years.

Under President Trump, the United States is slipping towards an illiberal democracy. The erratic US president governs with a dictatorial leadership style, advances the alternative fact campaign that suppresses truth and press freedom, and makes repeated, humiliating speeches or running comments deeply hurting ethnic minorities, females, religious groups and foreign leaders in the name of making America great again.

Across the Atlantic in the UK, Boris Johnson with his signature divisive politics and the reckless “do-or-die” attitude towards Brexit on October 31 is making the country a tyranny of (52 percent) majority. The political rights and economic appeal of the 48 percent of the British population who voted to remain in the European Union are being appallingly trashed. And the sort of sensible center-ground politics that we normally associate with a liberal democracy is dying in the UK.

How about peace and stability? Indeed, G7 members, notably France, Germany, the UK and the European Union, played an instrumental role in brokering the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), popularly known as the Iran nuclear deal.

It is hard to overstate the importance of the JCPOA for the sake of global security. But Trump pulled the US out of the deal in May 2018 and unilaterally imposed sanctions on Iran despite the opposition shown by the other signatories, including its close G7 allies. The withdrawal caused internal cleavage within G7 as the European Union had to announce countermeasures - at least in words - to preserve the integrity of the agreement.

And finally, in relation to economics and trade, the G7 is no longer the go-to forum to handle global economic affairs. The Group of 20, thanks to the participation of a wider collection of systemically important economies, is replacing G7 as the premier forum for international economic cooperation.

There are enormous trade tensions between G7 members as well. Without exaggeration, the United States and the European Union are literally on the brink of a full-blown trade war that mirrors the on-going Sino-American trade conflicts.

Trump has earlier slapped national security tariffs on 

European iron and steel exports and is threatening Europe's auto and aeroplane industries with renewed stiff punitive tariffs. Trump is also publicly flirting with Johnson about the prospect of striking a post-Brexit bilateral US-UK trade deal at the expense of the interest of the European Union in the Brexit negotiations.

Meanwhile, the bullying Trump administration has inserted into the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement a blatantly shameful anti-China article against the sovereign will of Canada which eyes a separate trade deal with China, and is imposing upon Japan a lopsided Trade Agreement on Goods that would force Tokyo to asymmetrically open up its auto and agricultural industries to American businesses.

The last G7 Summit held in Canada was believed to be the lowest point in the history of G7. This judgement could soon be a false statement after Biarritz. With heightened tensions plaguing the cohesion of G7 in the absence of unwavering commitments the common values that ideologically brought them together in the first place, there should be deep rethink if the bloc still has its place on the stage of world politics.