Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Monday, June 8, 2026
Sunday, June 7, 2026
[Salon] Fwd: German Foreign Policy: "The consequences of double standards." (6/5/26) - Guest Post
The consequences of double standards
Berlin's power policy is suffering a stermer with the failure of the German candidacy for a seat on the UN Security Council. Double standards in foreign policy are considered one of the main causes.
05
JUNE
2026
"Shaping foreign policy"
Last year, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul openly expressed himself on the goals pursued by the Federal Republic of applying for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The United Nations Security Council is "the highest truly global body for the security of the world", for which despite all conflicts worldwide "there is still a fundamental consensus and support for all", Wadephul had before the conference of all German ambassadors on 8. September 2025 stated and added: "Germany belongs as one of the central European weights at this table." This is necessary, "because we want to shape foreign policy in this world" - "and because this corresponds to our interest". 1] This is also due to the fact that - "especially in an increasingly rough geopolitical climate" - "membership in the Security Council offers access to decisions, formats and information" "that remain open even years after our membership". This is of great importance for Berlin. Wadephul also claimed that, "especially when international law is under way and multilateralism is tumbling," we are to vigorously oppose our responsibility.
Crime? No matter.
The fact that the Federal Government preaches absolutely compliance with international law at all times, but in the specific case - even on the open world stage - does not care about accusations against its allies, is one of the reasons that are now put forward for the failure of the German application. For years, the German government has persistently refused to take a position against Israel's crimes against Israel's crimes of international law, among other things, in the Gaza war, contrary to meaningless phrases. In December 2025, under pressure from Israel, it did not even agree to extend the mandate for the Palestinian relief agency UNWRA. This is all the more striking as Berlin regularly attacks Russia - an opponent - in the most violent way for alleged or actual war crimes in the Ukraine war. In the case of Israel, the German silence is particularly important because in recent years, as Daniel Forti, UN expert at the International Crisis Group, notes, "a large majority of UN member states ... has supported Palestine and is very concerned about Israel's war in Gaza and the West Bank". 2] The repression in Germany against Palestinians and opponents of Israeli warfare is also received internationally with clear rejection. 3]
Complex questions
The federal government also encounters little understanding in many countries with its de facto approval of the wars of aggression in the United States. If Berlin still urges states around the world to impose punitive measures against Russia because of its war of aggression against Ukraine, it still does not see itself in a position to make an official classification under international law of the US war of aggression against Iran. The same applies to the US attack on Venezuela in early January and the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Chancellor Friedrich Merz had claimed that "the legal classification of the US deployment" was "complex"; one had to take "time" for this. 4] This "time" has now been going on for five months without a public statement. This now even triggers criticism in the Berlin governing parties. For example, Siemtje Möller, deputy chairman of the SPD parliamentary group, was now quoted as saying that it was necessary for the federal government in the future to "name behavior contrary to international law as such, regardless of who questions this". 5] Adis Ahmetovic, foreign policy spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group, also demanded that "international law should not be double standards".
Descending powers
Beyond the widespread criticism of the double standards of German foreign policy, the failure of the German candidacy is also due to shifts in international politics. In recent decades, the Federal Republic had always been able to assert itself with its demand to be elected to the UN Security Council every eight years. Since the term of office is two years, Germany, in the long term, held a non-permanent seat in the Security Council for a quarter of the eight-year periods. That was considerably disproportionate. In Berlin, it was justified by paying a larger UN membership fee than most other states - and that, as a large and economically strong country, you weigh enough to assert itself against the powerful permanent members. The acceptance for this is apparently waning; this is already shown by the fact that Austria and Portugal, two smaller countries of Western Europe were running against Germany at the same time. The failure of the Federal Republic in the vote proves that the need to push back at least a little bit of the great, particularly influential powers worldwide is increasing.
"Invest less in the UN"
This is a bitter for the federal government's global political ambitions - especially since Berlin actually pursues much more far-reaching goals and even seeks a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. How this is to be justified is more unclear than ever after the failure of the German application for a non-permanent seat. Accordingly, a decline in interest in the United Nations is now emerging – at least in the beginning. With a view to the fact that Germany is one of the largest contributors – Berlin transferred 3.22 billion euros to New York in 2025 – CDU politician Manfred Pentz, who currently is currently in Hesse as Minister of International Affairs, explained: “If we do not have the influence there in the future, the question arises: Why should we continue to invest so much money in the UN?”[ 6] With similar motives, the Trump administration has been withholding payments to the United Nations for quite some time. Their position is thus becoming more and more shaken.
[1] Speech by Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul at the opening of the Conference of Heads of German diplomatic missions abroad. auswaertiges-amt.de 08.09.2025.
[2] Martin Ganslmeier: Hangover mood and troubleshooting. tagesschau.de 04.06.2026.
[3] S. to this "Stigmatized, criminalized, attacked".
[4] Chancellor Friedrich Merz explains the situation in Venezuela. bundesregierung.de 03.01.2026.
[5] What does Germany's failed UN application mean? zdfheute.de 04.06.2026.
[6] That is why Germany was punished in the UN election. n-tv.de 04.06.2026.
Saturday, June 6, 2026
Friday, June 5, 2026
The Backlash to the Boom - HeatMap Guest Post
\ heatmapdaily_logo
ROBINSON MEYER • JUNE 5, 2026
A few times a year, Heatmap News surveys a few thousand Americans on the biggest questions driving the world of energy, environment, and climate change. We’ve spent the past few days writing up the results of our latest poll, which was in the field in late May and which I thought was particularly striking.
It’s worth taking a step back to look at the biggest results together, because the American view of data centers is essentially in free fall:
As I wrote on Tuesday, Americans have swung en masse against local data center development. As recently as August, Americans were split on whether they would support a new data center built where they live; now, 70% would be against it.
My colleague Emily Pontecorvo followed up by highlighting that the share of Americans blaming data centers for rising electricity costs has almost doubled since last August. Some 28% of Americans said new data centers helped drive up power prices back then; now, it’s 53%.
Nor are Americans optimistic about the technology that data centers represent. My colleague Jeva Lange revealed that 45% of Americans are “pessimistic” about AI’s effect on their lives — and 55% are downbeat about its effects on “society as a whole.”
Young people are particularly downcast. In virtually all of our polls, American adults younger than 34 stood out for being opposed to data centers and AI. Meanwhile, the only group that’s outright optimistic about AI’s effect on their lives? Men older than 65.
These feelings are driving policy: As my colleague Jael Holzman wrote today, an outright majority of Americans told us they would support a nationwide data center moratorium in some form. Fully 40% said they would “strongly support” a temporary pause.
The upshot of these findings: The public‘s turn against artificial intelligence and AI infrastructure is real, widespread, and cross-partisan. It doesn't matter whether Americans started out tolerating data centers or having no opinion about them; they now seem to resent them en masse.
[Salon] Fwd: From Ha'aretz: 'We Were Ordered to Kill': The 1967 Nakba That Israelis Don't Know About - Israel Security
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-06-04/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/we-were-ordered-to-kill-the-1967-nakba-that-israelis-dont-know-about/0000019e-93c7-d0a9-a7df-b3df1c6a0000?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=author-alert&utm_campaign=Adam+Raz&utm_term=20260604-23:29
>
> 'We Were Ordered to Kill': The 1967 Nakba That Israelis Don't Know About - Israel Security
Thursday, June 4, 2026
[Salon] Oil and a case of cognitive dissonance - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Oil and a case of cognitive dissonance
Summary: put to one side prospects for an Iran/US deal. Deal or no the world now faces an imminent and unavoidable severe energy ‘crunch’. The big ‘unknowns’ are when exactly it will hit, how high the oil price will go and how long it will be before it reverts to something like ‘normal.'
We thank our regular contributor Alastair Newton for today’s newsletter. Alastair worked as a professional political analyst in the City of London from 2005 to 2015. Before that he spent 20 years as a career diplomat with the British Diplomatic Service. In 2015 he co-founded and is a director of Alavan Business Advisory Ltd. You can find Alastair’s latest AD podcast (with Jim Krane) here.
The buffers and the shock absorbers are being steadily drawn down, and the ability for the market to absorb this imbalance is drastically diminished today versus where we started.
Mike Wirth, CEO Chevron, 28 May 2026
With Brent crude seemingly range-bound between US$ 90 and US$ 100 per barrel (pb) for almost two weeks now, it would be easy to conclude that either the doom-mongers have got it completely wrong or that investors remain in total denial. However, this is far from being the case. What we are actually seeing is no more than a reflection of how futures markets work — or, if you prefer, do not work! — as I outlined in the 23 April Newsletter. In short, as the FT’s Jonathan Vincent and Malcolm Moore wrote on 15 May, commodities markets are not a “crystal ball.”
The fact is that investors understand fully that a further sharp rise in the price of crude oil is both imminent and unavoidable, even in the still seemingly unlikely events of:
a) Donald Trump’s latest assertion that Iran and the US could finalise a deal “over next week” coming to pass; and,
b) ’Normal’ traffic through the Strait of Hormuz resuming immediately.
Indeed, if the recent dropping of claims by the US Administration that gasoline prices would fall sharply as soon as a deal is reached and Mr Trump’s (totally bogus) claim that voters care more about stopping Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon than they do about their pocketbooks are anything to go by, this stark reality seems finally to have been grasped even in the White House.
Despite Brent crude temporarily stabilising between $90 and $100 per barrel, experts warn that an imminent price spike to at least $150 is unavoidable due to record-breaking depletion of global inventories and strategic reserves.
So — and acknowledging that a 30 April article in The Economist was correct to assert that “markets have a poor record of pricing geopolitical risk” — why are we seeing here such an apparently blatant case of cognitive dissonance? Putting to one side Mr Trump’s repeated — and very largely unsubstantiated — efforts to talk down the price of oil, there are three major ‘real world’ factors in play here.
First, no-one knows exactly when the “future price spikes” of which the authoritative International Energy Agency (IEA) warned in its 13 May 'Oil Markets Report' will occur. As Chevron’s Mike Wirth (quoted above) went on to say at Bernstein’s 28 May conference:
Over the next few weeks, we’re likely to see those pressures flow through more directly to physical prices and there’s more upwards pressure that I would expect as we get into June and certainly into July.
Underpinning this is the fact that global oil consumption has been running at about six million barrels per day (bpd) above production since 28 February according to the IEA (with some experts putting it higher still) — i.e. as Malcolm Moore et al put it for the FT on 17 May: "Since the outbreak of the conflict, the world has been existing beyond its energy means."
To fuel this:
a) Governments in developed countries in particular have been releasing about 2mbpd from strategic reserves, a rate which is unsustainable beyond the end of next month at the latest; and,
b) Oil companies, traders and refineries have already released the majority of their inventories (totalling around three billion barrels globally in late February) into the system and are now rapidly reaching the point where they must hold on to what they have remaining in order to avoid damaging vital oil-related infrastructure.
Second, even in the event of ‘peace’ breaking out in the Gulf no-one can be sure how long it will take for exports of oil (and gas) from the region to revert to something like the status quo ante. However, it is worth noting that Adnoc Chief Executive, Sultan al-Jaber, warned on 21 May “It will take at least four months to get back to 80 per cent of pre-conflict flows and full flows will not return before the first or even second quarter of 2027.”
Third, the impact on future demand of emergency measures in around 80 mainly developing countries so far (according to the IEA) and of rising fuel prices in developed countries remains to be seen as (again quoting Malcolm Moore et al):
Demand for air conditioning and holiday travel at the start of the northern hemisphere’s summer will put further strain on supplies of crude oil, gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, when global stocks are already falling at the fastest rate on record.
Nevertheless, what does seem certain is that more emergency measures (e.g. fuel rationing) and still higher prices at the pump etc. are irrevocably in the proverbial pipeline.
Pull all this together (and putting to one side a propensity for headline-grabbing hyperbole among some analysts) and it is hardly surprising that expert opinion is now leaning increasingly firmly towards a minimum, but still record-breaking, oil price of US$ 150pb (i.e. more or less double the pre-war price) to restore supply/demand equilibrium, with some considering — “very seriously” in the case of Aberdeen’s chief economist, Paul Diggle — possible spikes of up to US$ 180pb.
While prices even at the lower end of this range are bound to lead to a sharp fall in demand which would ultimately help to bring prices down again, it is worth bearing in mind too that any easing is likely to be moderated by the urgent need for both governments and the private sector to replenish reserves in preparation for the (inevitable) next crisis.
All this being said — and even though we are approaching mid-year when I habitually review my oil price prediction for 31 December — I am still very disinclined to make a (revised) firm forecast for year-end. But I am willing to put it on the record that I am really struggling to imagine a price as low as the US$ 80-90pb range which the market is currently favouring and which is, indeed, a case of cognitive dissonance!
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for Trinity Sunday - Guest Post
In 1985, a movie titled “Clue” was released. Based on the classic board game, it blends comedy with a murder mystery theme, keeping audiences guessing “who done it” until the very end. Only in the final moments is the truth revealed, and everything suddenly makes sense.
Mysteries can be puzzling; even frustrating at times. Yet when they are finally understood, there is a deep sense of satisfaction and joy.
Today, we celebrate the greatest mystery of all: the divine mystery of the Holy Trinity. We profess that there is one God in three Persons: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is a truth that stretches beyond the limits of human understanding.
Each Person is fully God, yet they are distinct and different. It can seem impossible to grasp, like a mystery that cannot ever be fully solved or explained.
Over the centuries, people have tried to explore this mystery through simple images. St. Patrick famously used the shamrock, with its three leaves forming one plant. Others have compared the Holy Trinity to an apple. There are three layers – the skin, the flesh and the core – yet it is still only one apple.
Some have compared the Holy Trinity to water, which exists as solid, liquid and vapor. While helpful, these images only point toward the mystery; they cannot fully contain it.
Scripture, however, reveals that God truly lives and works as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. At Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan River, we see all three Persons present: the Son standing in the water, the Father’s voice heard from Heaven and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove.
In John’s Gospel, Jesus tells us, “I and the Father are one,” and promises the coming of the Spirit. And in the Great Commission, He sends His disciples to baptize new followers “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
St. Paul echoes this mystery in his blessing to the Corinthians: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” It is a blessing we still hear at the start of every Mass.
So, my friends, what are we to make of this mystery?
We may never fully understand the Trinity, but faith invites us to trust in what we cannot completely explain. As St. Augustine reminds us, “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”
In a way, our lives are like that unfolding mystery in “Clue.” We search, we question, we try to make sense of what we see. And perhaps, in the end – when we stand before the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – everything will be revealed. Everything will become clear and the mystery will open the way to perfect understanding.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, June 2, 2026
[Salon] Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Türkiye, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia - Guest Post
7:52 PM (16 minutes ago)
to salon@listserve.com
https://x.com/MofaQatar_EN/status/2061840842545885574?s=20
Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Türkiye, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia
Doha | June 2, 2026
The Foreign Ministers of the State of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Republic of Türkiye, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia condemn in the strongest terms the continued incursions by extremist Israeli settlers, into Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram Al-Sharif under the protection of the Israeli forces, as well as the raising of the Israeli flag within its courtyards.
They stress that these provocative and unacceptable actions constitute a flagrant violation of international law, the relevant United Nations resolutions, and the historical and legal status quo at the holy sites in occupied East Jerusalem.
The Foreign Ministers further condemn the continued and systematic violations and measures carried out by Israel, the occupying Power, aimed at altering the historical, legal, and demographic character of occupied East Jerusalem and undermining the sanctity and status of its Islamic and Christian holy sites.
They reaffirm their categorical rejection of any attempts to alter the historical and legal status quo in Jerusalem and its Islamic and Christian holy sites, and stress on its preservation while recognizing the special role of the historical Hashemite custodianship in this regard. The Ministers reiterate that the entire area of Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al Haram Sharif, which amounts to 144 dunams, is a place of worship exclusively for Muslims, and that the Jerusalem Endowments and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs Department, affiliated with the Jordanian Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, is the legal entity with exclusive jurisdiction to administer the affairs of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram Al-Sharif and to regulate entry thereto.
The Foreign Ministers hold Israeli authorities responsible for halting these escalatory actions and warn that repeated Israeli violations exacerbate tensions, fuel instability and extremism, undermine international efforts to achieve peace, and constitute a clear breach of Israel’s obligations under international law. They call for an immediate cessation of all such Israeli illegal and provocative practices and reaffirm the need to respect the historical and legal status quo at Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif in its entirety.
The Foreign Ministers reaffirm their unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people and their steadfast support for the realization of their legitimate and inalienable national rights, foremost among them their right to self-determination and the realization of an independent and sovereign Palestinian State on the 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital. They further reaffirm their support for all efforts aimed at ending the Israeli occupation and achieving a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace based on the two-State solution in accordance with international law, the relevant United Nations resolutions, and the Arab Peace Initiative.
Image
--
Salon mailing list
Monday, June 1, 2026
[Salon] Abu Dhabi bets on a new Syria - ArabDigest.org. Guest Post
Abu Dhabi bets on a new Syria
Summary: the UAE is moving briskly to entrench its presence in civil-war battered Syria but progress on that front can only move forward if its Abraham Accords partner Israel is pressured to end efforts to destabilise the regime of President Ahmed al-Sharaa.
We thank a regional contributor for today’s newsletter.
This past spring, as Iranian ballistic missiles and drones rained down on the United Arab Emirates, it was Israel’s Iron Dome batteries that helped shoot down the majority of them. Only weeks later, a large Emirati business delegation was in Damascus signing investment agreements worth potentially US$18 billion. The two facts are not unrelated.
The first Syrian-Emirati Investment Forum was held in Damascus on 12 May; speaking at the forum UAE Minister of State for Foreign Trade Thani Al Zeyoudi announced that non-oil trade between the two countries had reached a record US$1.4 billion in 2025, more than doubling year-on-year. Mohamed Alabbar, the founder of Emaar Properties, a real estate development company, detailed plans to assess projects in tourism and infrastructure along the Syrian coast worth between US$5–7 billion and up to US$11 billion in Damascus and its surroundings. This highlights Abu Dhabi’s infrastructure-led engagement to move to develop a strategic foothold in the country.
In Afghanistan, Egypt and elsewhere, the UAE has turned investments in infrastructure and logistics into regional influence. Earlier, in July 2025, DP World, part of a larger Emirati investment company, had committed US$800 million to expand Syria’s Tartus port, one of the first major investment agreements signed by Syria's new president Ahmed al-Sharaa, who had led Sunni Islamist militias in overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. The timing of the deal came shortly after US President Donald Trump signed an executive order to waive sanctions. This decision also led to Russia losing its earlier contract, which had been granted by Assad in 2019 to modernise and manage the Tartus port.
Alongside the economic announcements in May of this year, Sheikha Fatima bint Mubarak, the mother of UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, said she would sponsor the renovation of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and the historic districts surrounding it. For a state with a staunchly anti-Islamist regional posture, the UAE’s message to restore the mosque in Damascus is a signal that Abu Dhabi is being pragmatic in competing for lasting influence in Syria among other regional powers including Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
The UAE announcement of restoration of the Umayyad Mosque came during a visit by Noura bint Mohammed Al Kaabi, Minister of State, to Damascus.
The UAE's posture toward Syria has been circuitous to say the least. Early in the Syrian conflict, Abu Dhabi backed the opposition, before gradually re-engaging with Assad, eventually becoming the principal Arab advocate for Assad’s return to the Arab League. Following Ahmed al-Sharaa’s lightning offensive to take control of the country, the UAE was initially wary of the new leadership.
However, after the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran, and Tehran’s retaliation on the Arab Gulf states - with the UAE being hit harder than the others and even harder than Israel - the Emirati officials now increasingly view Syria as a strategic Arab ally, especially as Damascus tries to simultaneously deepen ties with the Arab Gulf and dismantle Iran’s military and economic influence. A series of high-level Syrian-Emirati meetings, including between the two heads of states in April, reflects the improving diplomatic atmosphere.
More structurally, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has created an acute vulnerability in the Arab Gulf’s energy logistics. Syria's coastline offers an alternative energy route. Iraq has already begun routing exports to European markets through Syria and the UAE wants to be involved in Syria’s role as a pipeline for oil, gas and other commodities.
A separate yet related layer to Emirati motivations is Israel’s military support in the wake of Iran’s attacks in the region. In an unprecedented move, Israel deployed one of its advanced Iron Dome batteries as well as troops to help destroy rockets and drones. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even announced that he secretly traveled to the UAE. Emirati gratitude will surely have geopolitical consequences. The UAE-Israel relationship, which was already the deepest of any Abraham Accords partnership, has emerged from the ongoing war considerably strengthened at precisely the moment when American engagement in the region is retrenching.
Since the start of this year, the US has mediated talks between Israel and Syria to try to reduce tensions. The UAE, with its unique position with Israel and growing influence in Syria will be well placed to help facilitate dialogue. However, the UAE’s economic stakes hinges on Israel actually curbing its efforts to destabilise Syria a task which has proven to be difficult to say the least.
Against this backdrop, regional competitors including Türkiye, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will also attempt to compete with what the UAE can give to Damascus right now. Ankara, though it has deep political and military influence in Syria, is economically overstretched due to the precipitous rise in Brent crude. It is not in a position currently to bankroll large-scale reconstruction in Syria. Much of Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s support to Syria has involved debt relief and Riyadh’s financial pledges have been slow to materialise. But Abu Dhabi, with financial liquidity and close ties to Israel, can move with agility to deepen its political leverage with Damascus through direct investment and its port management expertise.
Still the Syrian government’s authority remains fragile with reconstruction not yet underway. Israel with troops on the ground south of Damascus and close links to elements of the Syrian Druze remain a threat to the country’s stability. Given the urgent necessity for improved and sustained security in Syria Abu Dhabi must follow-through on the financial pledges made at the May investment forum and press Israel— directly and through the United States—to halt efforts that undermine the al-Sharaa government. If successful, the UAE’s strategic gamble could provide a lifeline for a country seeking to reshape its own future while entrenching Emirati influence in Syria and seeing off regional rivals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)