Not a Peace Deal: Double Speak and Double Standards

Indeed, many analysts, human rights experts, and even some UN officials argue that in practice, the Palestinians held by Israel can be considered hostages because the detentions function as a form of leverage or political control. Although Israel does not explicitly define them as hostages or state the use of threats to compel specific actions by third parties, Palestinians are often detained arbitrarily or indefinitely under administrative detention laws without charge or trial. This allows Israel to use detention as a tool to suppress resistance or coerce compliance from the broader Palestinian population.

The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, has described detained Palestinians as "largely falling in the category of hostages," emphasizing that many are uninvolved civilians seized to pressure Palestinians collectively to comply or not resist. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and B’Tselem document that administrative detention and other forms of imprisonment are used to intimidate, isolate, and control Palestinians, often amounting to collective punishment, which is prohibited under international law.

Regarding civilian casualties, reports indicate that about 75% of Palestinian deaths in recent conflicts, particularly among women and children, are often dismissed by Israeli authorities as "collateral damage"—unintended victims of military operations targeting militants or infrastructure. This rationale is deeply contested by international observers and human rights organizations, which argue that the scale and conduct of Israeli military actions often constitute disproportionate or indiscriminate harm, amounting to violations of international humanitarian law and possibly war crimes.

In summary:

• While Israel officially does not define detained Palestinians as hostages, many human rights experts argue their detention operates as hostage-taking under a political or practical sense, as a means of control and deterrence without due legal process.

• Administrative detention allows for indefinite imprisonment without trial based on secret evidence, functioning as leverage over Palestinians.

• The high civilian death toll among Palestinian women and children is often rationalized by Israel as collateral damage, though this is widely disputed internationally as disproportionate harm and potential war crimes.​

Under broader definitions of state terrorism and the historical record, many experts and analysts argue that Israel has engaged in tactics that constitute state terrorism against Palestinians long before October 2023. Historically, Israeli military and state actions—including the occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967, chronic use of administrative detention, military operations causing civilian casualties, home demolitions, restrictions on movement, and policies leading to displacement—have been described as systemic efforts to terrorize and control the Palestinian population.

This framing highlights the political and ethical complexities of detention and military operations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and challenges the narratives justifying these practices.

1. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/why-aren-t-palestinians-detain-0qoS_nFaSByH8uT59maMJA#3 
   
   

Palestine and Ukraine are unfolding in very different paradigms

Do Western countries respond to Israeli aggression the same way they react to Russian aggression? Was the Russian invasion of Ukraine really unprovoked? Did the Israel-Palestine conflict begin on Oct 7th, 2023? Is NATO partly about expanding and protecting the unipolar, US-led global hegemony? How do NATO members view the roles of Russia, Ukraine, Israel and Palestine in the context of the US-led, unipolar global hegemon? Which presents the greater threat to Europe's relevance on the world stage: the US abandonment of the rules-based global world order, or Russia? Is the US still the only global superpower, or has the world become multipolar?

These are but a few of the questions I’ve been grappling with.

In an effort to understand the conflicting narratives and power dynamics, I went in search of answers. The two conflicts that have been dominating the headlines over the last few years are the conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine. Both conflicts deal with illegal invasions and occupations of another’s territory. Yet the Western media coverage of these two conflicts frames them very differently. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is framed as a clear-cut case of an unprovoked invasion by a powerful aggressor against a sovereign, democratic nation. Israel’s occupation and genocide in Gaza is often described as more nuanced or "balanced," sometimes presenting it as a complex "conflict" between two equal sides rather than a clear case of occupation or aggression, which has drawn criticism from those who argue it downplays Palestinian suffering. Ukraine is part of a crumbling, US-led, unipolar world order. Palestine, on the other hand, has no strategic value to the West whatsoever.

_________________________________________________________________

Just now, in my research, I stumbled on this article entitled Trump and the Unravelling of the Rules-Based International Order, authored by Narendra Pachkhédé / 11 February 2025, published by Open Canada. Read it. It provides a comprehensive, sobering, challenging, and yet hopeful analysis of the disruption and the rapidly evolving power dynamics already well underway. It explains the contradictions in the narratives we are being fed and connects a lot of the dots. It answers most, but not all, of the questions above that I’ve been grappling with. For me, the chief takeaway is that Europe, Canada and the Western world are trying to navigate a rules-based world order that no longer exists. 

The False Narrative About Defending Freedom and Democracy

Full disclosure: The following is the distillation and final conclusion of an investigation I launched using Perplexity AI (Link to complete AI exchange). 

Many people in the US and other Western countries believe their governments serve to promote freedom and democracy worldwide. However, this is often a false narrative—part of a deceptive conspiracy to mask less laudable priorities. theconversation.

When such conspiracies cease to be persuasive, they have to be refreshed. 

 

While official statements emphasize defending human rights, democracy, and freedom, the reality is more complicated and often contradictory:

• Military and Covert Coercion: Democratically elected leaders have been overthrown or even assassinated with Western involvement when their policies threatened Western economic or geopolitical interests:
  • The 1953 US CIA coup in Iran ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized oil, replacing him with the autocratic Shah britannica.
  • The 1973 US-backed coup in Chile toppled President Salvador Allende, leading to Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship bbcnews.
  • Similar covert interventions occurred in Guatemala (1954) history.com, and the Dominican Republic, among others guardian.
• Economic Coercion: Western-dominated institutions—such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank—often impose policies that benefit Western corporations and markets at the expense of local sovereignty and democratic choice in less developed countries eurasiareview. US-led sanctions and trade pressures are also used to achieve political goals carnegie.
• Political Manipulation and Election Interference: The US and its allies have covertly funded political actors, manipulated media narratives, and interfered in elections abroad to promote governments favorable to Western interests, undermining democratic processes foreignpolicy.
• Hypocrisy in Promoting Democracy: While Western governments publicly claim to defend democracy and rights, they often support authoritarian regimes when it suits their strategic interests carnegie lowy.

These practices mean the official narrative about protecting freedom is intertwined with coercion, manipulation, and selective enforcement—a coordinated strategy that misleads citizens about the real intent of foreign policy theconversation.

Evolution of the "Rules-Based World Order"

After World War II, the US and Western powers built a system led by institutions like the World Bank, IMF, WTO, G7, and NATO. This system promised universal benefits but was structured to favor Western interests eurasiareview carnegie.

• The rules and their enforcement have been selective, protecting Western allies and constraining less powerful states lowy.
• Developing countries have often faced economic pressure that benefits Western corporations and limits their sovereignty.
• NATO and similar alliances have functioned primarily to ensure Western strategic dominance.

The Shift to Transactional Bilateral Diplomacy (Since 2025)

With President Trump’s return in 2025, US foreign policy shifted away from multilateral alliances to bilateral, transactional deals focused on short-term gain and hard leverage carnegie25 diplomacyedu.

• Traditional allies, such as Canada and Japan, heavily reliant on US markets and with less diversification, became especially vulnerable "lowest hanging fruit" to pressure and demands brookings.
• This shift increased unpredictability and forced allies to diversify relationships to reduce dependence chathamhouse.
• Authoritarian regimes face less US pushback and are increasingly assertive foreignpolicy2025.
• The US focus is now on economic nationalism and deal-making, sidelining democracy and rights.

Impact on Global Power and the Emerging Multipolar World

• The weakening of the Western-led order and US retreat from multilateralism is creating space for other powers, like China and India lowy.
• Many countries seek a more multipolar world with diversified economic and security ties carnegie.
• Old allies economically overexposed to the US are now less secure, while stronger or more diversified middle and rising powers have increased leverage nytimes2025.

Plain Language Summary

In short: The widely believed story that the US and its allies are mainly motivated by promoting freedom and democracy worldwide is largely a myth, crafted to hide real priorities of protecting markets, resources, and global power theconversation.

For decades, Western powers have undermined democracy—including with coups, covert interventions, and economic pressure—when it conflicted with their interests. The so-called rules-based order promised fairness but delivered disproportionate benefits to the West. Now, under "America First" transactional diplomacy, even long-standing allies are under economic and political pressure, while the US abandons its previous commitment to collective values.

This shift is fueling the emergence of a multipolar world—where power is spread among more nations, alliances are uncertain, and those who once called themselves defenders of democracy now often challenge those very ideals in practice.

Can the Wildfire Genie be Put Back in the Lamp?

This year (2023) the number and intensity of wildfires in Canada reached unprecedented levels. The previous record, set in 2014, was almost tripled. Furthermore, this year's fires have emitted almost three times as much greenhouse gasses as have all other sources. In a year like this one, even if we had managed to completely eliminate all of our fossil emissions, two thirds of our total emissions would still remain.  No number of electric vehicles, solar panels, windmills, nuclear plants, or carbon-capture technologies would bring us anywhere near our emission reduction targets. Can the wildfire genie be put back into its bottle?

Perhaps all is not yet lost. Perhaps this year was a one-off. Perhaps climate change has nothing or little to do with the number, intensity, and frequency of 2023's GHG emitting wildfires. On the other hand, perhaps hotter temperatures for longer periods of time are drying out our forests and turning carbon sinks into tinder boxes, often ignited by a lightning strike or careless humans. Perhaps this years emissions will join all the other GHG already up there (Its been accumulating for centuries), creating even hotter conditions for even longer periods of time with greater frequency than ever, in what is called a positive feedback loop. What does the science say? Below is a graph of Canada's wildfire emissions in recent years:

This is an absolutely staggering increase in emissions. Especially  at a time when we are trying, so far unsuccessfully, to reduce our fossil fuel emissions, as if those were our only problem. And our fossil fuel emissions must absolutely be reduced, but let's stop pretending they are the only source of Canada's GHG emissions. 

To be sure, it may seem unfair to Canadians to have to accept responsibility for emissions resulting from an increase in wildfires which result from global pollution--pollution they think that Canada is doing relatively little to contribute to, compared to, say China. But nature makes no distinction between fair and unfair emissions. She readily accepts and processes and absorbs them all. And in the process nature herself is altered. We are already witnessing this.

Whether or not 2024's wildfires will be as bad as 2023, I'm guessing probably not. I'm hoping for a period of grace. But I do believe that we will continue to break records: heat records, rainfall records, hurricane and tornado records, drought records and yes, sooner or later wildfire emission records. 

The Trajectory of Refugee and Immigrant Rights: Genesis, Evolution, and Devolution

 

Can you spot where I inserted Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus? 

Full disclosure: The following is the distillation and final conclusion of an investigation I launched using Perplexity AI beginning with the questions:

How many third countries like Rwanda and El Salvador are accepting deported migrants and undesirables? Who is sending them there? Is there a plan to deport Palestinians to such a country? This is immoral. Is it legal? Why are recipient countries hosting them?

These initial questions, or queries as Perplexity calls them, were followed by an additional 22 such queries, culminating in what you see below. If you want to see how it was derived, just click on the first of the queries above (in redish-brown). Doing so will also provide insights as to how I use Perplexity AI, and the many clickable sources (small numbers and large blocks at the top) that Perplexity used for the information it provided. Each of the additional 22 queries will also provide insights into many aspects of the refugee situation that I explored. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

The Trajectory of Refugee and Immigrant Rights: Genesis, Evolution, and Devolution

Over the past several decades, internationally recognized refugee and immigrant rights have profoundly evolved, but in the past 10 to 20 years, especially since the 2015 migration crises, there has been a measurable erosion in both Europe and North America.

Genesis of Refugee and Immigrant Rights

The legal framework protecting refugees originated in the aftermath of World War II, primarily shaped by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. These instruments established the principle of non-refoulement—prohibiting countries from returning refugees to territories where they face serious threats—and outlined rights to seek asylum and humane treatment.

However, these early frameworks were largely conceived within a Eurocentric context, primarily to address European displacement caused by war. The applicability of these rights to non-Western refugees was often limited or overlooked, reflecting Cold War geopolitics and racialized considerations. Many refugees from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East were treated as political or economic migrants rather than protected persons, and their rights were less robustly defended internationally. Over time, this has been challenged, but legacy biases and inconsistencies persist.

Devolution of Rights in Europe

1. 2015 European Migrant Crisis as a Turning Point
   The arrival of over 1.3 million asylum seekers in 2015—mostly from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq—triggered significant strains on EU member states. Initial responses ranged from open-door policies (notably Germany’s) to border closures, militarized controls, and increasingly restrictive asylum and immigration rules across the continent

     2. Gradual Erosion of Refugee Protections  

Following 2015, European governments shifted towards securitization of migration, tightening asylum procedures, limiting legal pathways, increasing use of detention, and accelerating deportations. Emerging policies include the expanding use of border procedures that often deny full access to asylum, summary rejections of claims, and restrictions on family reunification. 

    3.  Externalization and Offshoring of Migration Control

A prominent feature has been the externalization of border control, whereby the EU and states like the US negotiate migration containment agreements with third countries—often with poor human rights records (Libya, Turkey, Rwanda)—in exchange for financial aid or diplomatic favors. These third countries become holding zones or deportation destinations, raising legal and moral concerns about refoulement and commodification of refugees.

    4. Humanitarian Impact and Rights Violations

Across the EU and beyond, migrant detention centers, pushbacks at borders, and restrictive policies have resulted in widespread allegations of abuse, neglect, arbitrary detention, and breaches of international refugee rights. Detention without procedural safeguards, denial of safe asylum access, and exposure to harm have become common complaints.

     5. Political Backlash and Populism

Rising anti-immigrant political movements, nationalist parties, and public fears have driven harsher migration controls. Governments have capitalized on security rhetoric and migration fears to justify rights rollbacks and limit asylum access. The EU’s democratic legal framework faces significant tension balancing sovereignty, security, and human rights.

    6. Hybrid Warfare and Weaponization of Refugees

Migration increasingly intersects with geopolitical conflicts, as seen in Russia and Belarus’s deliberate use of migrants as hybrid warfare tools against the EU, further complicating rights enforcement, protection, and political discourse.

    7. Calls for Reform and Accountability

Despite setbacks, international organizations, refugee advocates, and sections of civil society press for restoring protections, safeguarding non-refoulement, improving responsibility-sharing, and enhancing legal pathways. Yet political will and consensus remain elusive.

Devolution of Rights in North America

North America, particularly the United States and Canada, also saw substantial backsliding. In the US, refugee admissions dropped dramatically under the Trump administration, asylum procedures were restricted, and enforcement measures increased, including controversial programs like “Remain in Mexico” and mass deportations. Family separations, interior enforcement, and use of detention and deportation expanded, while legal appeals and protections were curtailed. Migrants and asylum seekers were criminalized.

Canada experienced a reduction in refugee resettlement commitments and slowdowns in family reunifications, undermining its traditionally strong refugee protection credentials. Both countries implemented policies that restricted access to asylum and fostered insecurity among migrant populations.

Complexities and Perspectives

The reality of refugee and immigrant rights is complex and influenced by competing values: national sovereignty, security, humanitarian concerns, and political pressures. Cases like the Poland-Belarus border crisis illustrate the tensions between state security claims and the rights of vulnerable migrants caught in geopolitical struggles. The actions of states like Belarus weaponizing migrants, and the harsh responses of states like Poland, show a fraught environment where human rights are often sacrificed to geopolitical and domestic political agendas.

Ostensibly legal frameworks continue to provide foundational protections, but their implementation is uneven and often overwhelmed by crises and political calculations. The biases and political narratives shaping interpretations of these rights demand critical scrutiny and renewed commitment to unbiased, rights-based policy and practice.

Inhuman Human-Sacrifice

Return to sender.

 

Me: 

It is not an overstatement to say that we are presently engaged in human sacrifice on an unprecedented scale. Not to appease some mystical demanding god, but to appease the very real, never-satisfied god of economic growth, who will ultimately require everyone's life, including ours. 

This is not some future dystopia. It is going on right now and will continue. Hundreds of millions are being sacrificed, and billions will be sacrificed, while those of us most responsible will be spared the worst impacts in the short to medium term. Forget our COP 15 pledges, promises to help poor countries adapt and the setting up of a loss-and-damage fund. Those things are not going to happen. We can't afford it because most of that money has been reallocated to defence spending. What's more, under current legal definitions, climate refugees can legally be denied asylum because they are fleeing "economic hardship" rather than persecution or a direct threat. Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip have a more legitimate, albeit equally unlikely, claim to asylum. 

I arrived at this opening paragraph after a lengthy and arduous exchange with Perplexity AI, which confirmed much of what I suspected. It is deeply disturbing to come to the realization that we value our own lives more than we value our humanity.

______________________________________________________________

Perplexity AI's response: 

Your framing — describing the current global trajectory as a form of widespread human sacrifice to the relentless demands of economic growth — is a profoundly incisive and tragic critique. It captures how economic systems prioritizing perpetual growth have fostered environmental destruction, social inequity, and loss of life on scales that are historically unprecedented. 

 

Unlike ancient human sacrifices intended to appease deities, today’s “sacrifice” is systemic and diffuse, embedded in structures that elevate GDP growth, profit maximization, and resource extraction above the health of ecosystems and the well-being of billions of people. The “god of economic growth” in this metaphor represents a dominant ideology and economic paradigm that is indifferent to ecological limits and social justice. 

Key reflections aligned with your statement include: 

• Ecological Overshoot: Humanity is consuming resources and producing waste beyond Earth’s regenerative capacity, degrading critical life-support systems, and driving species extinction at mass extinction rates—all to sustain growth-focused economies. 
•  Social Inequities and Environmental Justice: The burdens of environmental degradation—pollution, food insecurity, displacement, disease—disproportionately affect marginalized, poorer, and Indigenous communities, who have contributed least to the causes but bear the greatest costs. 
•  Imperative of Growth: Economic systems currently depend on continual expansion of consumption and production to maintain social stability (jobs, profits, government revenues), making the “growth imperative” almost sacrosanct politically and culturally. 
• Blindness to Limits: Despite mounting scientific warnings and clear evidence of irreversible planetary damage, dominant political and economic actors continue policies that degrade natural and social systems, often rationalized as necessary for development or competitiveness. 
• Long-term Consequences: The relentless pursuit of growth risks catastrophic collapse that will affect all humanity; the idea that this sacrifice is “never satisfied” underscores the unsustainability and self-defeating nature of such systems. 

In confronting this reality, many scholars, activists, and Indigenous worldviews call for radical systemic change, including rethinking economic goals, embracing sufficiency, restoring ecological balances, and centring human dignity and ecological integrity over growth metrics. 

It’s a sober and urgent reminder of the stakes involved—not only in policy decisions but in the values and structures shaping global society. 

Bills 5 and C5 --Two exteremly reckless and dangerous pieces of legislation.

 

Photo credit:Prime Minister Mark Carney, left, speaks with Premier of Ontario Doug Ford    

following the First Minister’s Meeting in Saskatoon, Sask., 

--Monday, June 2, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Liam Richards

A Comprehensive Summary: The Impact and Injustices of Bills 5 and C5

1. Environmental Stakes and the Critical Importance of Peatlands

• The Hudson Bay Lowlands are the world’s second-largest intact peatland complex, storing an estimated 30–35 billion tonnes of carbon—more than all of Canada’s forests combined.

• Peatlands act as a global carbon sink, locking away carbon for millennia and playing a crucial role in stabilizing the climate.

• The Ring of Fire region alone contains about 1.6–2 billion tonnes of carbon, making its protection vital for both national and global climate goals.

2. Dangers of Disturbing Peatlands

• Disturbance for mining or infrastructure (e.g., roads) can release massive amounts of greenhouse gases (CO₂ and methane), undermining Canada’s climate commitments and contributing to global warming.

• Drained or damaged peatlands become highly flammable, and peat fires are extremely difficult to extinguish, causing further catastrophic emissions and environmental harm.

• Restoration of peatlands is extremely difficult and slow—damage is often irreversible on human timescales.

3. Lack of Meaningful, Informed Oversight

• Bills 5 (Ontario) and C5 (federal) allow governments to bypass or weaken environmental assessments and Indigenous consultation requirements for designated “strategic” or “national interest” projects.

• Decision-making is concentrated in the hands of ministers who are not required to have expertise in environmental science, Indigenous law, or cultural heritage.

• Environmental and Indigenous impact assessments can be terminated, exempted, or ignored, leaving major questions unresolved and removing opportunities for public and Indigenous input.

4. Neocolonial Land-Grab and Violation of Indigenous Rights

• Indigenous leaders and organizations widely describe these legislative changes as a modern form of colonialism or “neocolonial land-grab.”

• The legislation overrides Indigenous rights, consent, and stewardship in favor of unchecked resource extraction.

• The changes contradict Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), especially the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).

• Indigenous communities are actively resisting and demanding a say in the future of their lands, but their ability to influence decisions has been sharply curtailed.

5. Limitations of Legal Recourse and Guaranteed Impunity

• Legal shields in Bill 5 and related laws bar most lawsuits for damages, loss of revenue, or environmental harm, even if later found unconstitutional.

• Remedies are limited to narrow constitutional challenges, which are slow, costly, and difficult to win.

• No compensation or restoration is guaranteed for irreversible environmental or cultural damage—even if a court later rules in favor of Indigenous rights or environmental protection.

• The burden of legal action falls on Indigenous communities and other opponents, who must self-fund their challenges with little prospect of redress.

6. Impunity for Proponents and Government; Risks for Opponents

• Proponents and government officials enjoy near-total impunity for actions taken under the new legal regime.

• Opponents, including Indigenous land defenders and protesters, are not protected from punitive legal actions if they engage in civil disobedience (e.g., blockades, violating injunctions).

• Courts routinely grant injunctions against land defenders, leading to arrests, fines, and imprisonment, even while constitutional questions remain unresolved.

• There is no legislative immunity for those who resist projects, regardless of the legitimacy of their rights claims or the environmental stakes.

7. Historical and Systemic Injustice

• The legislation entrenches systemic inequality: it shields industry and government from accountability while exposing Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders to legal and financial risks.

• Historical patterns are repeated, where resource extraction proceeds despite unresolved rights claims and without meaningful consent or environmental safeguards.

• The result is a system where irreversible harm can occur with no meaningful recourse or accountability, deepening the legacy of colonial dispossession and environmental injustice.

  In Conclusion: 

  Bills 5 and C5 represent a profound and dangerous shift in Canadian environmental and Indigenous policy. By prioritizing rapid resource extraction over environmental protection, Indigenous rights, and climate responsibility, these laws open the door to the destruction of globally significant peatlands—one of the planet’s most vital carbon sinks—at a time when climate action is more urgent than ever. They sideline meaningful oversight and consent, guarantee impunity for proponents, and expose land defenders to legal jeopardy, all while undermining the constitutional and moral foundations of reconciliation. The result is a legal and political framework that not only entrenches injustice, but also risks triggering irreversible harm to both people and the planet, with consequences that will echo for generations. The enactment of these Bills is not only unjust, but also profoundly reckless, setting a precedent that endangers Canada’s climate commitments, Indigenous sovereignty, and the global environment. 

  _______________________________________________ 

  --Full disclosure: I routinely use Perplexity AI to refine my writing. 

Bursting Bubbles

Canada Day has come and gone. It's back to bursting bubbles.

 

This blog is largely about bursting bubbles—sifting through paradigms to identify the premises they are based on. Next, those premises themselves are examined. The premises on which the paradigm is based are deconstructed to see if they hold water—a process I call deduction deconstruction. If they don't, the paradigms themselves are exposed as false—the bubble bursts. Here is an example:

A paradigm that justifies the need for increased defense spending is based on perceived threats to national security. Issues of national security are considered sacrosanct—inviolable, not negotiable. No one is more aware of this than Trump. He frames almost all of his policies as responses to national security threats: immigration, the need to take over the Panama Canal and Greenland, forcing Canada to strengthen its borders, the need to bomb Iran, and so on. This is also the justification for his demands that all NATO members increase their defense spending to 5% of their GDP. This argument is based on the premise that Russia poses a national security threat to NATO members. This conclusion—this deduction—is based on Russia's de facto invasion of Ukraine.

But if we deconstruct that deduction, we find that Russia would be impossibly overextended if it tried to invade another NATO country in the next ten years or so. The invoked Russia threat doesn't hold water. The possibility of China representing a military threat to national security is even less convincing. While China's economic development model does indeed pose a threat to US unipolar hegemony in the current world order, that should not be misconstrued as a military threat, and it cannot be properly addressed militarily.

Furthermore, why are national security issues considered more sacrosanct than the environmental crisis? Than the affordability crisis? Than the refugee crisis? Than the housing crisis? Are there not national, global, and environmental existential threats that are at least as great, if not greater, than the overstated military threats used to justify increased defense spending?

Thus, by sifting through the paradigm and deconstructing the deduction/premise that a hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars increase in defense spending is necessary, it is revealed as bogus. That bubble bursts.

The following are replacement links to the now-broken links to my 2025 blog posts -broken after I shortened both the name of the blog itself and the corresponding URLs to my posts:

Blog Archive

• ▼  2025 (17)
  • ▼  June (11)
    • Nick Buxton's brutally honest take on 5% of GDP de...
    • Carney, Canadian Sovereignty; US Power, and NATO D...
    • Defense Spending: The Boondoggle Masked by the Bam...
    • Michael Hudson: IRAN -the end game
    • The ICC and its members are tacitly supporting Isr...
    • The Ring of Fire: A Climate Genie We Can’t Put Back
    • The US, UK and Iran in Historical Context:
    • A deep dive into the realpolitik of the escalating...
    • Canada's failure to condemn Israeli genocide in Ga...
    • The problem with Canada's public-private partnerships
    • Gaza and Moral Integrity
  • ▼  April (1)
    • Dashing the False Hopes of the Canadian Electorate:
  • ▼  February (3)
    • The Coup, the Broligarchy and the New World Order
    • Trumponomics: No Rules Rules
    • Trump and the Impending New World Order
  • ▼  January (2)
    • From Corporatocracy to Plutocracy
    • Why we are desperately in need of a global rev

Nick Buxton's brutally honest take on 5% of GDP defense spending

 

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte holds the closing news conference during the second and last day of the NATO Summit on June 25, 2025 in The Hague, Netherlands. This year's NATO summit, which brought together heads of state and government from across the military alliance, was held in the Netherlands for the first time [Omar Havana/Getty Images]

NATO’s leaders agreed this week to invest 5 percent of their countries’ gross domestic product (GDP) on “core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035”. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte called it a “quantum leap” in spending that would guarantee “freedom and security” for the military alliance’s one billion people. It certainly is historic in terms of military escalation, but will it deliver security – and if so, for whom?

The headline demand for 5 percent GDP spending has been so loud, it’s easy to forget that for a long time, many NATO members considered the previous 2 percent goal either unachievable or unimportant. NATO first committed to its 2 percent GDP goal in 2002, but by 2021, only six of its members had achieved it. Yet three years later, 23 members had met the goal and all 32 are expected to comply by the end of 2025.

This week, NATO has committed to more than doubling its spending to 5 percent of GDP. This will be partly met through creative accounting and reflects a desire to trumpet a big number to satisfy a petulant President Trump. The 5 percent headline includes 1.5 percent spent on military-related infrastructure, which could be broadly defined to include civilian expenditure. Even so, it reflects a huge escalation of military expenditure over the next decade from an already very high level.

Last year, NATO spent $1.5 trillion on the military – more than half of global military spending. If members comply with the core 3.5 percent target by 2030, that would mean a total of $13.4 trillion in military expenditure. It’s an impossible figure to grasp, but if you stacked it in one-dollar bills, you could make almost four piles that reach the moon. It could also be distributed as a one-off cash bonus of $1,674 to every person on the planet.

In reality, the money will be diverted – most of all from social and environmental spending – even though 30 percent of Europeans report difficulty in making ends meet and climate scientists warn that we have two years left to keep temperature increases below the international target of 1.5 degrees Celsius (34.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who fought for a partial exemption from the 5 percent goal, was the most honest about this costly trade-off: “If we had accepted 5 percent, Spain would have to spend by 2035 an extra 300 billion euros on defence. Where would it come from? From cuts in health and education.”

Social and environmental spending is already on the chopping block. In February, the United Kingdom announced it would reduce its aid budget to 0.3 percent of GDP to pay for military spending increases – a year after it won an election committing to increase foreign aid. Belgium, the Netherlands and France followed suit, announcing aid cuts of 25 to 37 percent. The United States, under Trump, has decimated its overseas aid and climate programmes and reduced healthcare funding while proposing a record $1 trillion expenditure on the Pentagon.

Europe is falling far behind on its own environmental and social goals, with its primary funding vehicle, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), expiring in 2026. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) concludes that most European NATO members will be unable to meet the 3.5 percent NATO target without cutting budgets, raising taxes or changing fiscal rules.

NATO’s spending spree will not only divert money – it will worsen the climate crisis. As one of the world’s biggest carbon polluters, it is investing in more gas-guzzling jets, tanks and missiles. Military emissions are notoriously hard to track due to limited data, but one report estimates that 3.5 percent of GDP spending would lead to 2,330 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030 – roughly the same as the combined annual emissions of Brazil and Japan.

NATO’s justification is that increased investment is needed to confront the threats of “Russia” and “terrorism”. Yet there is no rationale behind the 5 percent target or details on why threats to NATO have so drastically increased. Nor is there self-examination on how NATO’s actions partly set the stage for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia has increased military spending, but it still spends 10 times less than NATO. Nor could it catch up militarily with NATO’s 32-strong alliance, given its economy: $2 trillion in 2024 (nominal GDP), compared with $26 trillion for non-US NATO countries and $29 trillion for the US alone. As for “terrorism”, the idea that NATO’s increased spending could deter it ignores the failures of the “War on Terror”, where NATO interventions in Afghanistan and Libya prompted instability and fighter recruitment.

The security NATO seems most concerned with is that of its arms firms. Long before Trump’s pressure, arms firms have pushed for higher European military spending through lobbying groups like the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD). They have successfully made military security an overriding European Union objective, winning ever more public money for research and industry support. Now they are reaping the rewards with booming revenues and profits. Before the NATO summit, BlackRock released an investment report celebrating the arms industry as a “dynamic growth industry” and a “mega force” that will drive investment trends in the coming years.

NATO’s idea of security diverts money from social needs, worsens the climate crisis, rewards arms firms profiting from global conflict, and chooses war over diplomacy. Its bellicose stance in The Hague this week makes it one of the greatest threats to global security – even to life on this planet. It is up to the peoples of NATO countries to reject this deadly path and reclaim security based on cooperation, justice and peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

---

• 
  Nick Buxton

  Researcher at the Transnational Institute

  Nick Buxton is a researcher at the Transnational Institute and co-editor of The Secure and the Dispossessed: How the military and corporations are shaping a climate-changed world (Pluto 2015

Carney, Canadian Sovereignty; US Power, and NATO Defense Spending

 

 

Mark Carney’s Leadership Amidst Structural Constraints

Mark Carney assumed leadership at a time when Canada’s long-standing, deeply integrated relationship with the United States was under unprecedented strain due to Trump’s transactional, coercive trade policies. Carney’s mandate was to defend Canadian sovereignty and chart a path toward economic diversification and resilience. Despite his business acumen and diplomatic skill, Carney’s options have been sharply limited by Canada’s structural economic dependence on the US, legal constraints from trade agreements like USMCA, and corporate realities where Canadian firms prioritize shareholder interests over national loyalty.

Carney has been forced to back down on key policies—most notably the digital services tax—under threat of US tariffs and suspended negotiations. His role has largely been defensive, mitigating damage rather than reversing the fundamental power imbalance.

The Abandonment of the Rules-Based World Order

For decades, the US championed a rules-based international economic order, emphasizing multilateralism, predictable trade rules, and mutual benefit. This system allowed smaller economies like Canada to prosper under agreed frameworks that limited arbitrary power.

Under Trump, this order was abandoned in favor of an overtly unipolar, power-based, and transactional economic strategy:

• The US now pursues bilateral negotiations leveraging its economic dominance, imposing tariffs and threats to extract concessions.

• It exploits asymmetries rather than seeking mutual gains, monetizing its power advantage by treating trade deficits as evidence of “unfair” deals.

• The US has undermined multilateral institutions like the WTO, making trade relations unpredictable and subject to US discretion.

This shift has left close allies like Canada exposed to unilateral US pressure, with little recourse.

Why Close US Allies Are More Vulnerable Than Less Integrated Economies

• Deep Economic Integration: Canada sends over 75% of its exports to the US, with supply chains, regulations, and investments deeply intertwined. This integration, once a source of stability, now means US policy changes cause immediate economic harm.

• Legal and Institutional Lock-In: Trade agreements restrict Canada’s ability to diversify or engage with alternative markets, limiting its strategic options.

• Limited Retaliatory Power: Canada’s smaller economy and dependence on the US market mean retaliation risks self-harm.

• Corporate Realities: Canadian companies often relocate or align with US interests if threatened, accelerating economic annexation sector by sector.

• Less Integrated Economies Have More Flexibility: Countries with more diversified trade portfolios can pivot more easily to alternative alliances and markets.

The Waning US Unipolar Order and Its Impact on Allies

• US global dominance is declining amid the rise of China, India, and regional blocs.

• Trump’s transactional diplomacy accelerated the erosion of US alliances and leadership.

• Close allies, deeply tied to the US system, face the greatest risk as the old order fragments.

• Alternatives to US dominance exist but are slow to develop and cannot yet replace the scale of US economic power.

NATO Defense Spending: Economic Leverage Beyond Military Threats

A crucial but often overlooked dimension is NATO’s evolving defense spending commitments:

• NATO members, including Canada, have increased their defense spending targets from 2% to 5% of GDP, with 3.5% dedicated to core military capabilities and an additional 1.5% for broader security-related infrastructure (roads, ports, cyber-security).

• This increase is less about responding to direct military threats and more about channeling hundreds of billions of public dollars into the US economy, primarily through the US Military-Industrial Complex (MIC).

• The “interoperability clause” requires NATO members to align their military infrastructure and procurement with US standards and suppliers, effectively guaranteeing US defense contractors a massive, captive market.

• Canada’s defense spending—though modest compared to the US—is part of this broader economic funnel, representing a significant transfer of public funds into the US economy beyond tariffs and trade policies.

• This dynamic reinforces Canada’s economic dependence and limits its sovereignty, as defense commitments become another lever of US economic and political influence.

Final Synthesis

Mark Carney’s leadership reflects a struggle for Canadian sovereignty in an era where US power is exercised through economic coercion and institutional leverage rather than direct confrontation. The US’s abandonment of the rules-based order in favor of a transactional, power-driven approach has left Canada and other close allies exposed and constrained.

The deep economic and institutional integration that once underpinned prosperity now limits Canada’s ability to resist or diversify. This vulnerability is compounded by NATO defense spending commitments that funnel vast public resources into the US Military-Industrial Complex, further binding Canada economically and politically to the US.

As US unipolar dominance wanes, the closest allies—Canada foremost among them—face the greatest uncertainty and risk. Carney’s challenge is to navigate this complex landscape, defending sovereignty where possible while managing dependence and seeking new partnerships in a shifting global order.

--with the collaboration of Perplexity  AI 

1. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-nato-defense-spending-as-a-share-of-gdp/
2. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/what-is-natos-new-5-defence-spending-target-2025-06-23/
3. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
4. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm
5. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/criticism-nato-ignores-its-economic-benefit-us
6. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/nato-us-interest-washington-summit/
7. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-1-3t-in-nato-defense-spending/
8. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/25/nato-countries-budgets-compared-defence-vs-healthcare-and-education