Connect with us

POLITICS

This is not the Joe Biden Europe was Hoping for

Published

on

Spread the love

Most Europeans regarded Joe Biden as a conquering hero when he overcame Donald Trump, hailing him as the calm, cool child who knocked the big-mouthed bully out of the schoolyard. What EU leaders anticipated was the Biden they had met on his several trips abroad and who participated in the annual Munich Security Conference on a regular basis. The Biden who was multilateralist, Europhile, and keen on transatlantic relations.

When Biden announced “America is back” at a special virtual Munich Security Conference to commemorate the start of his administration, European leaders did not imagine it was actually a return to the arrogant exceptionalism that has long characterized Washington’s attitude to the EU and NATO. A case in point is AUKUS, a security deal through which the United States and the United Kingdom will equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. Many saw the agreement as a slap in the face for the EU because it resulted in the termination of a massive contract for Australia to buy French-built submarines.

At a press conference last week, Josep Borell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, raised grave concerns about AUKUS. “Before coming here, on the same day that I was presenting the European Union’s Indo-Pacific strategy, the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom were announcing their Indo-Pacific defense alliance at the same hour,” Borrell stated. “It’s clear that this isn’t simply about a submarine deal. It has far-reaching ramifications for our ties with the United States.”

“The absence of communication and conflict amongst close partners has produced genuine difficulties,” he continued, calling it a “bad image of strong ally coordination” and “bad for the West.” “The work is growing more entropic,” Borrell added, echoing UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks. You’ve heard of the term entropy, which means “greater chaos.” There will be more multipolarity and less multilateralism. The globe used to be bipolar, then unipolar, and now it’s multipolar. As a result, there’s a sense of disarray, with new actors asserting themselves more and more.”

According to Borrell, Europe can no longer rely on America to lead. “The United States has made it perfectly clear not only in President Biden but also in Trump and Obama, that they will leave and stop fighting other people’s wars,” he added.  “Europeans must consider becoming a geopolitical actor,” Borrell said, adding that “our power can only come from our union since each member of the European Union alone does not have this ability, dimension, or power to truly influence on this new world.” “We can do it together.”

The usual issues that national governments have in determining who to work with within the EU, as well as the continued lack of a US ambassador due to Senate confirmation delays for Biden’s choice, Mark Gitenstein, are adding to the difficulties between Brussels and the White House. Denise Campbell Bauer, Biden’s candidate for ambassador to France, is also awaiting Senate confirmation, for instance.

Last Wednesday, President Joe Biden talked for the first time with French President Emmanuel Macron since the diplomatic crisis erupted. Following the meeting, Macron and Biden in a joint statement “agreed that the situation would have benefited from open talks among friends on topics of strategic significance to France and our European partners.”

While Macron appeared to gain some ground in that meeting, gaining what looked to be Biden’s backing for the EU’s development of stronger military capabilities, the entire incident further reaffirmed European leaders’ fears that Biden would not be the president or partner they had hoped for.

Certain EU officials expressed optimism that France might use Biden’s support for a stronger and more autonomous EU military stance to persuade some EU nations, particularly in Eastern Europe, who have long resisted so-called “strategic autonomy” for fear of undermining NATO and weakening US commitment.

President of the European Council Charles Michel, who earlier this week accused Biden of lacking devotion and openness during a press conference in New York, also made his official statement to the United Nations General Assembly, which had been reworked to emphasize the EU’s strategic independence.

Michel used a former United Nations Secretary-General as an example. “Kofi Annan once remarked, ‘Begin in your own neighborhood to become a good citizen.’ In this sense, I’d want to clarify why the European Union wants to strengthen and become more strategically independent while maintaining an open market,” Michel added. “Stronger not merely for its own sake, but also to contribute more effectively to a better world.”

Michel said, “More than ever, the European Union is supporting the rules-based international order and collaboration based on universal principles.” “To protect a better world, the European Union wants to be stronger, more independent, and firmer.”

In his address to the General Assembly on Friday, Michel stated unequivocally that the EU was closer to Washington than Beijing, but he also stated that in any struggle of great powers, Brussels will forge its own course. “Since becoming President of the European Council, I’ve been asked a simple but cruel question: Which side is the European Union on in the emerging competition between the United States and China?”

Michel responded to his own question by saying, “We are closely connected with the United States.” “We share goals, values, and a bond of affection that has been reinforced by history’s challenges. Our connection is still expressed in a crucial transatlantic partnership today. However, this does not exclude us from having differing perspectives or interests.”

Biden wrapped up his first high-level United Nations General Assembly week on Friday by gathering the leaders of “the Quad” — Australia, India, Japan, and the United States — at the White House. By emphasizing his focus on Asia while ignoring Europeans, Biden made it perfectly clear that instead of leading a revitalized Western alliance with Berlin, Paris, and Brussels as significant partners, he intends to lead smaller, regional coalitions centered on American interests.

The Quad continued with Washington’s plan to build a global technology supply network with like-minded, democratic countries – and without Chinese engagement even as European capitals have refused this anti-China strategy for fear of endangering economic ties with China and fueling the US-China tech competition.

For example, in the field of technology, the United States’ Quad partners have shown a greater willingness to align with Washington’s stance on China — exactly on areas where it has struggled to persuade European allies of its viewpoints. This year, India blocked Chinese applications such as TikTok, WeChat, and others, while Australia and Japan have already shown to be strong partners in Washington’s campaign against Huawei and other Chinese companies.

In a statement, the Quad leaders said, “The occasion of the Quad summit provides a chance to refocus ourselves and the world on the Indo-Pacific and our vision for what we want to achieve.” “We also welcome the September 2021 EU Strategy for Indo-Pacific Cooperation.” However, it was apparent that EU nations were among those being “refocused,” rather than being there to assist in leading the effort.


Spread the love
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

POLITICS

Ceasefire or Cycle? Gaza and the Politics of a Manufactured Peace

Published

on

By

Spread the love

Baba Yunus Muhammad

When dawn broke over Gaza on the 9th of November, 2025, it brought neither peace nor silence. The roar of Israeli jets shattered the pretense of calm as explosions tore through crowded neighborhoods, refugee camps, and hospital shelters. By morning, at least 104 Palestinians were dead — 35 of them children. Among the ruins stood the Insan camp, a temporary refuge for cancer patients, reduced to dust and disbelief.

The strikes came just three weeks after a ceasefire agreement that the world hailed as a “turning point.” For Palestinians, ceasefires have long ceased to mean peace. They are pauses — brief, exhausted silences before the next storm.

Anatomy of a Fragile Ceasefire

The October 10 ceasefire, brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump, was the latest in a series of fragile truces. Like its predecessors, it emerged not from mutual understanding but mutual fatigue. Israel retained control of Gaza’s airspace, borders, and sea routes; its drones continued to hover overhead; its army remained positioned just beyond the fence. Gaza, meanwhile, was expected to disarm while receiving little relief from a blockade that has strangled its economy for more than seventeen years.

Netanyahu’s renewed airstrikes followed a firefight in which an Israeli soldier was killed. Hamas denied initiating the clash, accusing Israeli troops of provocation. The immediate spark came amid public outrage in Israel over Hamas handing over fragments of a hostage’s body — remains Israeli forces claimed to have recovered two years earlier. The symbolism ignited nationalist fury, and Netanyahu reached for a familiar weapon: war.

War as Political Theatre

To understand why ceasefires collapse, one must look beyond the battlefield to the political theatre surrounding it. Netanyahu has long used Gaza’s suffering as a backdrop for domestic consolidation. Each escalation allows him to recast himself as Israel’s “protector,” diverting attention from corruption charges, coalition infighting, and mounting social unrest.

For Hamas, resistance remains a key source of legitimacy. Under siege since 2007, governing one of the most densely populated and impoverished territories on earth, defiance is a declaration of existence. Each exchange of fire sustains the cycle: Israel bombs to restore deterrence; Hamas fires back to restore dignity. Civilians are left to mourn, rebuild, and wait for the next pause — one that will hold just long enough for the world to look away.

Ceasefire Without Justice

Ceasefires in Gaza are often truce agreements without justice. They pause the violence but leave structural oppression intact. Since 2009, more than a dozen ceasefires have been declared, yet the roots of the conflict — occupation, displacement, blockade — remain. The siege restricts movement, bans exports, and limits imports, including medical supplies and construction materials. Unemployment hovers around 50 percent, electricity is rationed, and most children have never known freedom.

The Global Theatre

President Trump’s declaration that “nothing will jeopardise the ceasefire” while endorsing Israel’s “right to hit back” exposes the moral contradictions of global diplomacy. The United States presents itself as a peace broker while supplying Israel with weapons that make peace impossible. Europe, too, speaks of international law even as it trades with settlement-based companies and arms the Israeli military. The result is complicity. For Palestinians, the “international community” has become a bitter phrase — a chorus that mourns the dead but funds the killers.

Counting the Cost

Behind the numbers lie human stories. Children who had survived multiple wars, doctors performing surgeries by flashlight, teachers turning bomb shelters into classrooms — all perished or struggled to survive in this latest attack. At the Insan camp, a sanctuary for cancer patients, survivors described a night of terror and despair: “We thought a medical facility would be safe. Now we know that nothing is.”

Amid devastation, Gaza endures. Volunteers dig through rubble with their bare hands. Teachers reopen classrooms in the shadows of ruins. Mothers cook what little food remains for neighbors who have lost everything. Survival itself is resistance.

The Economics of Occupation

Every war leaves Gaza poorer and more dependent. The destruction of infrastructure is systematic: roads, factories, schools, and farms targeted to erase economic independence. The blockade prevents reconstruction, ensuring reliance on international aid, often routed through Israeli checkpoints and banks.

Occupation thus creates a paradox: humanitarian relief sustains the very structures that destroy lives. For Islamic economists, this reveals the moral bankruptcy of a global financial order that profits from misery. Decolonisation, therefore, is not only political — it is economic. Ending occupation requires dismantling systems that convert suffering into commerce and war into industry.

Africa’s Mirror

For Africans, Palestine’s struggle is painfully familiar. From apartheid South Africa to colonial frontiers in Algeria and Kenya, the continent knows what it means to have land stolen, identity erased, and resistance criminalized. African solidarity with Palestine is not sentimentality; it is historical memory. Nelson Mandela captured this truth: “Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

Economic justice, rooted in ethics, equity, and human dignity, must be the foundation for lasting peace — not only for Palestine but for the Global South as a whole.

What Will It Take?

The question before the world is simple yet profound: Will the ceasefire hold?

History offers little optimism. A truce that leaves occupation intact is a truce built on sand. Peace cannot be sustained by fear or imposed by force. It requires justice — not as rhetoric, but as reality.

For Gaza, justice means an end to siege, reconstruction without interference, accountability for war crimes, and recognition of Palestinian rights. It demands that the world confront its complicity and act beyond rhetoric. Islamic ethical principles remind us that peace (salam) cannot exist without justice (adl), and wealth should serve humanity rather than domination.

Will the Ceasefire Hold?

Not as it stands. A ceasefire can stop bullets, but not the machinery that fires them. It can pause violence, but not the ideology that justifies it. True peace will hold only when Gaza is free, Palestinians are sovereign, and the international community prioritizes justice over geopolitics.

Until then, each ceasefire is not the end of war, but preparation for the next. Yet hope persists — in Gaza’s hospitals, in classrooms rebuilt from rubble, in mothers who refuse despair. The ceasefire will hold only when the world’s conscience does — when justice, not expedience, becomes the guiding principle.

Footnote:

AFRIEF Webinar — “Palestine: Stolen or Decolonised?”

The Africa Islamic Economic Forum (AFRIEF) will host a two-hour virtual webinar exploring the political economy of Palestine, the structures sustaining occupation, and pathways toward decolonisation. Scholars, economists, and policy experts will examine how ethical finance, economic justice, and international solidarity intersect with the struggle for Palestinian sovereignty.

This webinar builds on discussions highlighted in this feature, providing a platform for informed dialogue on justice-oriented economics, human dignity, and the moral imperatives that must guide responses to Gaza’s ongoing crisis.

Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum and a political and economic analyst with a focus on sustainable development, global trade, and Islamic economics. He writes regularly on issues of economic justice, governance, and the intersection of faith and finance


Spread the love
Continue Reading

POLITICS

The Economics of Legitimacy: When Power is Stolen, Prosperity is Postponed.

Published

on

By

Spread the love

Every economy rests on a foundation deeper than currency or trade — it rests on trust. When citizens no longer believe in their leaders, when institutions are captured and laws become elastic, the economy’s moral infrastructure collapses. This is the real cost of Africa’s democratic decay.

Illegitimate power corrodes fiscal discipline. Leaders who rule through manipulation rather than consent spend to survive, not to serve. They inflate bureaucracies, buy loyalty, and mortgage the future for immediate political calm. Public debt balloons, corruption thrives, and the poor — who have no lobby — bear the cost.

The link between governance and growth is now undeniable. The African Development Bank estimates that corruption and mismanagement cost the continent up to $150 billion annually. Countries with transparent elections enjoy three times higher foreign investment and twice the rate of economic diversification. By contrast, states governed by decree or deception face chronic capital flight and social unrest.

For the Islamic economist, legitimacy (sharʿiyyah) is not only a political concept; it is an economic principle. The Qur’an ties justice (ʿadl) to sustenance (rizq): “If the people of the towns had believed and been mindful of God, We would have opened for them blessings from the heavens and the earth.” (Qur’an 7:96).

Where rulers govern through consultation (shūrā) and accountability, nations prosper. Where deceit rules, even natural wealth turns into a curse. The lesson is clear: no budget, bond, or bailout can compensate for the loss of legitimacy.

……….Power Without Expiry Dates: The Continent’s Longest Reigns and the Price of Their Politics

Across Africa, the ballot box is losing its moral weight. Constitutions promise renewal, but power lingers. From Cameroon to Tanzania, the story is the same: elections are held, but accountability is postponed. What emerges is not people’s choice but political endurance — and the longer rulers stay, the weaker their nations grow.

In Cameroon, Paul Biya has ruled since 1982 — a staggering 43 years — recently securing another victory amid boycotts and fraud claims. Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, in power since 1986, continues to suppress dissent and throttle the internet at every poll. Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea has outlasted every African Union chairman since 1979, routinely “winning” with over 95% of the vote. In Eritrea, Isaias Afwerki governs without a single national election since independence in 1993.

Others are newer but no less troubling. Alassane Ouattara of Côte d’Ivoire claimed a constitutional “reset” to justify a third term in 2020. Samia Suluhu Hassan of Tanzania returned to power in 2025 with 98% of the vote, following arrests of opposition figures and curbs on the press. In Guinea, Mamadi Doumbouya — the military ruler who once promised civilian rule — has now banned opponents while announcing his own candidacy.

These are not aberrations; they are the architecture of Africa’s political stagnation.

Rigged Votes, Real Losses

Weak governance has an economic signature — and it’s written in red.
The IMF reports that Africa’s average risk premium on sovereign bonds stands at 6.8%, more than double the emerging-market norm. UNCTAD finds foreign investment fell 12% in unstable states since 2019. Youth unemployment averages 33% across the region. Tax systems collect barely 13–15% of GDP, compared to 33% globally. The African Development Bank estimates 5–7% of GDP is lost yearly to corruption and mismanagement.

Where leaders cling to power, capital flees. Where institutions collapse, the poor are left to pay in silence.

Where Ballots Bow to Bayonets

Across the continent, only a handful of nations — Botswana, Mauritius, Cabo Verde — maintain genuinely free and fair elections. Others, like Kenya, Ghana, and Senegal, wobble between progress and regression. The majority now live under systems where democracy is a façade: Tanzania, Uganda, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Egypt — all red on the Freedom House map, where gavel, crown, and tank replace the ballot box.

The Democracy–Development Disconnect

The numbers expose the paradox: the top 10 authoritarian states have an average per capita income of USD 2,100; the most democratic average USD 6,700.
Over 25 African nations have known one-party or one-man rule for more than a quarter-century.
Only nine have experienced peaceful power transfers in the past decade.
And according to Freedom House (2025), 77% of Africans now live under “partly free” or “not free” regimes.

“No economy can flourish where institutions are hollow, and no democracy can endure where justice is for sale.”
\Justice Is the Currency of Governance

Islamic values offer a forgotten metric of leadership. The Prophet ﷺ ruled through shūrā (consultation), ʿadl (justice), amānah (trust), and maṣlaḥah (the public good). These principles are the “coins” of moral legitimacy — yet today, most regimes rate dangerously low on each. Governance has become transactional, not ethical.

Until Africa restores the moral foundation of its politics, democracy will remain ritual — and economic reform, an illusion.

……..When the Pulpit Falls Silent: Why Africa’s Ulema Must Speak for Justice

Silence is not neutrality. In the Qur’an, the Prophet Shuʿayb was sent to a people whose commerce was unjust; he warned them that cheating the scales invites divine wrath. Today, across much of Africa, our scales — political, economic, moral — are badly tilted. Leaders cling to office through manipulation, youth lose faith in ballots, and public wealth is consumed by private greed.

This is not merely a political failure; it is a spiritual one. The Qur’an commands: “O you who believe, stand firmly for justice, witnesses for Allah, even if against yourselves or your kin.” (4:135). If the faithful will not hold rulers accountable, who will?

Africa’s mosques and religious institutions wield enormous moral authority. They educate, they counsel, they comfort — but too often, they retreat from confronting injustice for fear of politics. Yet the Prophet ﷺ said: “The greatest jihad is to speak a word of truth before a tyrant ruler.” Silence before oppression is not prudence; it is complicity.

Imams, scholars, and Islamic economists can champion reform without partisanship. They can preach about stewardship (amānah), integrity in public service, and the sin of corruption. They can organise civic literacy workshops that teach believers their constitutional rights and responsibilities. They can remind the wealthy and powerful that every dinar taken unjustly will be accounted for before Allah.

Africa does not lack constitutions; it lacks conscience. When mosques become centres of justice education, when the faithful demand accountability as a religious duty, when economic policy is shaped by moral restraint — then democracy will cease to be a ritual and become a trust once more.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

POLITICS

Samia Suluhu Hassan: Power, Pragmatism — and a Presidency Under Strain

Published

on

By

Spread the love

Baba Yunus Muhammad

When Samia Suluhu Hassan assumed Tanzania’s presidency in 2021, she arrived on a tide of cautious optimism. The sudden death of her predecessor, John Magufuli, had left the country in shock and uncertainty. Samia’s calm tone and early conciliatory gestures—restoring international ties, meeting opposition leaders, reopening dialogue with donors—were widely read as signs of a gentler, more pragmatic leadership. Yet four years later, that optimism has largely faded.

The October 2025 election cemented her power in dramatic fashion: an official landslide, nearly 98 percent of the vote, granting her and the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) an overwhelming mandate. But it was a victory shadowed by suppression and fear. Opposition figures were disqualified or detained, campaign events broken up by security forces, and independent media throttled by new restrictions. When results were announced, protests erupted in Dar es Salaam, Mwanza, and Arusha. Police responded with curfews and force. Several deaths were reported.

The government insists it acted to preserve peace. Critics see the episode as proof that Tanzania’s democracy—once a regional example of quiet stability—has sunk into managed authoritarianism. The overwhelming vote margin, many observers argue, speaks less to popularity than to the absence of any genuine competition.

It is an irony of power: the leader once cast as healer now presides over an anxious nation. The ruling CCM, in office since independence, remains a formidable political machine. Its networks reach into nearly every district, its control of state resources entrenched through decades of incumbency. Samia’s presidency, in this sense, has deepened a long Tanzanian tradition—order without openness.

On the economic front, the picture is no less complex. Tanzania’s GDP growth has remained robust by regional standards, powered by construction, mining, services, and agriculture. Inflation is moderate, and the debt ratio comparatively healthy. Yet beneath these steady macro indicators lies a story of structural fragility. The country’s tax base is too narrow to sustain ambitious spending; vast public projects have piled up commitments without always yielding productivity gains. Youth unemployment is rising, rural inequality widening, and climate pressures increasingly threaten agriculture—the livelihood of most Tanzanians.

Multilateral institutions have praised Samia’s investment drive but warn that without deep revenue reform and stronger governance, Tanzania risks “growing without transforming.” Much of the growth remains urban and capital-intensive, leaving a restless young population excluded from its rewards. The president’s Vision 2050 blueprint—meant to drive industrialization and self-reliance—faces the same fiscal dilemma as similar plans before it: too few domestic resources, and too little political transparency to ensure that what’s spent is spent well.

The political climate only compounds those concerns. Human-rights organizations describe an expanding list of violations: arbitrary arrests, restrictions on assembly, forced evictions linked to development projects, and intimidation of journalists. In many regions, opposition rallies can only proceed under heavy surveillance, if at all. To international partners, Samia’s government projects a narrative of discipline and sovereignty; to her critics, it is a system increasingly allergic to dissent.

For ordinary Tanzanians, these dynamics are not abstract. Economic frustration meets shrinking civic space in dangerous ways. Farmers displaced from ancestral land, students struggling for jobs, and activists facing arrest—each is a symptom of a deeper imbalance between growth and justice. The protests that followed the 2025 election were not merely about votes, but about a sense that the system listens less and commands more.

Still, Samia remains a formidable political force. She has built her authority within CCM through a mix of pragmatism and patronage, consolidating the party’s factions and cultivating an image of motherly resolve. Her soft-spoken manner belies a leader keenly aware of power’s machinery and the price of control. In that respect, she has not betrayed her predecessor’s legacy so much as refined it—turning Magufuli’s confrontational nationalism into a more polished, internationally palatable form of dominance.

Tanzania’s future now stands at a delicate crossroads. One scenario envisions continued growth under tight political control—orderly, predictable, and perhaps efficient in the short term, but brittle in the long run. Another imagines a gradual opening, where the government restores civic freedoms and empowers institutions to check excess. The third, darker path would be escalation: more protests, harsher crackdowns, and international isolation that unravels the country’s economic promise.

The choice, ultimately, rests with the same woman who came to power preaching unity. Samia Suluhu Hassan governs a nation that still believes in its potential—a nation young, resource-rich, and eager for dignity. Whether she leads it toward inclusive prosperity or entrenched control will define not just her presidency, but Tanzania’s next chapter in history.

About the Author:
Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum and a seasoned political analyst focusing on governance, democracy, and socio-economic transformation across Africa. He writes extensively on the intersection of faith, leadership, and political reform on the continent. His work bridges politics, economics, and moral philosophy, highlighting how governance and ethics shape development outcomes across the continent. babayunus@icloud.com


Spread the love
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Focus on Halal Economy | Powered by Africa Islamic Economic Forum