How Israel Executed Its Surprise Assault on Iran | When Buddhism Turns Violent | Will China Force a Rethink of Biological Warfare?, and more
The case marks the culmination of a decade-long judicial investigation into a sprawling corruption scheme “fanned by ambition, lust for power and greed, weaving its web in the highest levels of government,” according to the prosecution. Judges of the Paris Criminal Court heard arguments from Jan. 6 to April 10, and will deliver their verdict on Sept. 25.
In the meantime, much of the media attention has focused on how the “Sarkozy-Gaddafi affair” is challenging France and its democratic institutions, with too little coverage of how the corruption has harmed the people of Libya. Since NATO’s intervention in 2011 and Gaddafi’s resulting death, two competing factions emerged from the power struggle that followed the regime’s fall: the internationally backed Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) turned Government of National Unity (GNU) in 2021 in western Libya and the Government of National Stability (GNS), led by de facto leader warlord Khalifa Haftar and his Libyan National Army (LNA) in Benghazi in the East. A civil war raged between these factions until October 2020. Since then, numerous United Nations-led attempts at a more permanent peace have failed to materialize on the ground. Tensions remain high and elections have not been held. Libyans continue to endure the consequences of decades of political instability, worsened by foreign interference, institutionalized corruption, and escalating repressive authoritarianism.
As the Sarkozy trial nears its conclusion this fall, it should provoke deeper scrutiny of how democracies engage with dictatorships – pushing policymakers to critically consider the real-world consequences of Western actions on the lives of local populations. Acknowledging Sarkozy’s legacy in Libya, France should go beyond its lip service to the U.N.-led peace process and work to foster democracy and fundamental freedoms Libyans crucially need, holding both the GNU and the LNA accountable. Alongside its democratic commitments, France should also reckon with the human rights consequences of its Libya foreign policy and interference in the post-Sarkozy era.
Will China Force a Rethink of Biological Warfare? (Al Mauroni and Glenn Cross, War on the Rocks)
Is the Defense Department still preparing to fight biological warfare as if it’s 1970?
When preparing for biological warfare, most nations picture scenarios in which an enemy openly sprays traditional agents over wide areas to kill their adversaries. However, revolutionary capabilities in the life sciences and biotechnology have transformed the threat. China’s approach to warfare, combined with these emerging technologies, reveals new vulnerabilities among Western forces that, to date, have not been fully acknowledged. In no small measure, this is due to the U.S. government’s continued reliance on a 20th-century strategy for countering weapons of mass destruction. In particular, as China is a major nuclear power, it cannot be threatened after it uses biological weapons as easily as a non-nuclear state. Given these points, can China be deterred from using such advanced biological weapons during a regional crisis in the Indo-Pacific, especially an invasion of Taiwan? And if not, is it possible to mitigate the damage from such a scenario?
Although Western attention has focused on the rapid expansion of China’s nuclear and conventional warfighting capabilities, one ought to expect equal analysis of China’s biological warfare potential. By examining China’s most recent efforts at biological research, we put forward that it has bypassed 20th-century Western concepts of biological warfare and has new capabilities that could be effective across the entire conflict spectrum. Given China’s new capabilities and nuclear arsenal, we assess that standard strategies of deterrence and protection likely will not work in the future. New approaches and new concepts will be necessary if the United States is to prepare itself for potentially new forms of biological warfare in the 21st century.
Asia’s Autocrats Welcome USAID’s End (Joseph Rachman, Foreign Policy)
Conspiracy theories about U.S. power are now shared by the Trump administration.
