Connexion
… not just another ballad: a timeless Hymn to Resistance.
Roger Waters has got a brand new song. It’s called Sumud. A ballad, but not just another ballad: actually a timeless Hymn to Resistance. From now on, these sounds, and their rallying cry, should ideally straddle the global spectrum from Mali to Java, forging an already budding Global Resistance Alliance.
Gently, nearly whispering, setting up a Leonard Cohen-esque mood, Roger starts by introducing “Sumud” in Arabic: “steadfast perseverance”. As in non-violent everyday Resistance, at every level, against the occupation, exploitation and vicious, forced colonization of Palestine. But what’s at stake is even bigger, larger than life, as he evokes how “voices join in harmony” all the way to the positive, cathartic chorus. Resistance against injustice, conceptually, should imply the profound commitment of all of us.
Roger evokes martyrs from Rachel Corrie to Marielle Franco – “oh my sisters / help me to open their eyes” – bridging gaps “across the great divide” all the way to a state of awareness as “reason comes of age”.
The persistent, hypnotic theme of “Sumud” is the struggle to reach that stage of collective consciousness “when voices join in harmony”.
As we “follow our moral compass”, voices inevitably will come to a point of “standing shoulder to shoulder”. And “from the river to the sea”, “ordinary people just standing their ground” are and will be able to make their mark.
The long dark clouds comin’ down, over and over again, do not intimidate Roger’s intuition. He chooses to close “Sumud” in the most auspicious manner, evoking parallels with Buddhism: “Together these ordinary people /they will turn the ship around”.
How to turn the ship around
The notion of an ordinary people’s collective being able to turn the current ship of (dangerous) fools around could not be more at odds with the fully oligarch-orchestrated dementia of liberal totalitarianism cum techno-feudalism, totally out of control and bent on normalizing even genocide and forced starvation. This paradigm is set to intimidate, harass, demoralize and destroy exactly these “ordinary people”.
Roger, with a simple ballad, shows that turning the game around may be in the realm of the possible. This insight comes with age, experience, and mastery of one’s craft. Roger, after all, since the 1960s is one of the prime embodiments of Shelley’s intuition about poets being “the unknown legislators of mankind”.
Many of us spent our younger days mesmerized by the ceaseless exploration and experimental overjoy contained in “Relics”, Ummagumma” or “Meddle” – even before the outer space expedition to the Dark Side of the Moon.
On several layers, “Sumud” can be apprehended as a contemporary echo of – what else – the epic transcendental experience “Echoes” , whose lyrics are as crucial as the musical voyage: “Strangers passing in the street / By chance, two separate glances meet / And I am you and what I see is me / And do I take you by the hand / And lead you through the land / And help me understand the best I can?”
London in the late 1960s meets the Global Resistance in the mid-2020s: it’s all about human inter-connection. And once that happens, nothing is more noble than reaching towards a higher purpose.
It’s the same spirit already present in “Us and Them”: “With, without / and who’ll deny / it’s what the fighting’s all about.”
The defining fight of our time is how to turn the ship around from a death cult, with impunity, being able to unleash a homicidal potential equivalent to 12 atomic bombs in Hiroshima on a population ceaselessly subjected to serial assassination, famine and calculated extermination – live, on every smartphone across the world, and all that fully blessed by the collective West.
Is it possible to lead the fight just by brandishing – and singing – a ballad? Perhaps not. But that’s an almighty start.
Resist. Persevere.
Like the Houthis in Yemen – hailed as ethical heroes, with a clear moral purpose, by the Global Majority. Roger’s uplifting message is that one day, that rotten ship will sink.
Pravin Sawhney of FORCE Magazine clarifies & discloses a number of agreements, undercurrents & commitments which are not commonly discussed.
Six Observations:
War is Not An Option
A triangular security matrix comprising India, Pakistan and China adds to India’s vulnerability
By Pravin Sawhney at FORCE Magazine.
Heated debates are happening in television studios after the terrorists’ attack in Pahalgam on April 22. Senior veterans, much sought after by TV anchors, are the flavour of the moment, with some running from one studio to another offering advice on how the government should punish Pakistan for its dastardly act. Four assumptions have been made: Pakistan is behind the attack; it is a bilateral India-Pakistan matter; defeating Pakistan military in war would be a walk in the park; and the Narendra Modi government with the reputation of being the strongest one since Independence will not let Pakistan get off the hook without genuine retribution for its heinous act.
Cutting short his visit to Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Modi returned to India and convened a meeting with his top security team comprising the defence minister, national security advisor, chief of defence staff and the three services’ chiefs at his residence on April 29. Photograph of the meeting was released to the media with Modi’s message that he had given a free hand to the three services to decide the time, place and quantum of response to Pakistan. This event, the experts said, was an indication that India would not let Pakistan go unpunished.
Subsequently, news was leaked that Modi met the navy and air force chiefs separately at his residence on two consequent days. With this news, the choice of reprisal narrowed down to action by the air force and the navy. While various scenarios were discussed with visuals and war gaming models displayed on television raising hopes of punishing Pakistan for the emotionally charged nationalist viewers, most expert veterans from the army did not rule out options on the Line of Control (LC). Moreover, the news that the Union home ministry has issued an advisory to all border states to carry out civil defence action drills needed to protect people from Pakistani air strikes reinforced the belief of an early kinetic war.
Meanwhile, heightened action on the LC by both sides started after the Pahalgam killings. Increased small arms firing leading to perhaps an end of the ceasefire by India is expected. Long range artillery fires and even raids (where enemy posts are attacked by special forces) by both sides, which have been a norm in earlier decades, might come back soon. While all such activities are manageable to keep an escalation in check, they are unlikely to satisfy most Indians who have great expectations from Modi, seen as a strong leader.
Strangely, two important issues were missed by the media, both print and electronic. The first was that after India removed Articles 370 and 35A from Jammu and Kashmir, downgraded the state to two union territories of J&K and Ladakh, and printed new maps showing Aksai Chin under China as a part of Ladakh UT, the traditional India-Pakistan binary ended. Instead, a triangular security matrix comprising India, Pakistan and China emerged with negative security implications for India. The evidence of this was the repeated statement and pronouncement by all Chinese leaders after 5 August 2019 that China will support Pakistan’s territorial integrity and security. This was particularly significant when China after a telephonic call between Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi and his Pakistani counterpart Ishaq Dar, following the Pahalgam incident, released a statement quoting Wang Yi reiterating China’s support to Pakistan’s sovereignty.
The triangular security relationship was formed after 5 August 2019, when Pakistan’s then prime minister and army chief went to China to consult with their strategic ally. In a personal meeting, China’s President Xi Jinping advised army chief, Gen. Qamar Bajwa to focus on connectivity and development for Pakistan’s progress. Thereafter, Xi took it upon himself to discuss Pakistan’s security issues with India. Thus, in October 2019, Xi met up with Prime Minister Modi at the second informal summit in Chennai and suggested triangular peace between India, Pakistan and China. Modi did not accept Xi’s suggestion.
Given this, no one should doubt that in case of India-Pakistan war, China will help Pakistan in at least five ways, without showing its hand. However, before we get to that, there are three reasons why China will not enter the fray with its full war capabilities (kinetic and non-kinetic): its non-kinetic capabilities are enough to tilt balance in hot war between India and Pakistan in Islamabad’s favour; China will not do anything to jeopardise its strategic narrative of peaceful rise at time when the world in undergoing momentous geopolitical changes; and a war with India would freeze bilateral relations for at least a decade. This is something that Beijing would not do until it decides to reclaim its territories (Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh) from India.
Let’s briefly see how China can help Pakistan with its non-kinetic capabilities. One, the PLA with heightened grey zone activities on LAC would ensure that the Indian Army’s and the Indian Air Force’s limited combat assets get divided with very little left for the Pakistan front. Two, in the India-Pakistan war theatre, the PLA will provide Pakistan military with round the clock battlefield watch, military keyholes of Baidu satellite system for accurate targeting for Pakistan missiles, and real time Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR). Three, Pakistan military, unlike the Indian military, would have regular supply of ammunitions, missiles, spares and critical assembles for war surge for salvo firing at intense rates. Four, given its huge cyber and non-kinetic anti space assets, China can, without being accountable, bring civilian life to a standstill across India. The experience gained by undertaking large cyber-attacks amounting to cyber war would help the PLA with the first mover advantage in this war against its peer competitor, the US military. And five, China has ships in the region capable of cutting subsea internet cables that come into India. India does not have any ships for internet laying and repairs.
Thus, not only will the next India-Pakistan war not end favourably for India. But there is a possibility of India losing territory in Kashmir. To top it all, India will lose its standing in its neighbourhood with small nations of South Asia, which are already onboard China’s Belt and Road Initiative, tilting decisively in Beijing’s favour.
The other issue underplayed by the analysts and media is Modi government’s track record on national defence since 2014. A fast learner, Modi has learnt from the Vajpayee government that doing full mobilisation for war without political will to fight with Pakistan gets egg on one’s face. Without much thought and adequate war appreciation, Prime Minister Vajpayee ordered full mobilisation within four days of terrorists’ attack on Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001. It was hoped that Pakistan’s ruler Gen. Musharraf would either get coerced by mobilisation of 1.2 million strong Indian army. Or he would be pressurised by US President George Bush to end his proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir. Nothing of the sort happened. Much like the present Pakistan army chief, Gen. Asim Munir, Musharraf turned belligerent and started test firing its ballistic missiles. Thus, after 10 months of military standoff, Vajpayee had to find a face saver to demobilise the army, which suffered loss of men due to mine accidents, funds and equipment owing to wear and tear, with nothing real to show. The face saver was provided by a retired army chief, General V.P. Malik, who declared that all objectives of the mobilisation had been met. Never mind that in May 2002 after the terrorists’ attack on Kaluchak military camp, tempers ran so high on both sides that Vajpayee’s National Security Advisor had to seek his US’ counterpart’s help to calm things down in Pakistan.
FORCE Magazine is an 80-page monthly print magazine (with an Internet edition www.forceindia.net) on national security: defence, homeland and civil aerospace. It started in August 2003 with an edition dedicated to Indian Army operations on the Line of Control with Pakistan.
It is a short story, and little detail is available currently, but there is enough for this story to cause further chaos. The empire wants to deny China and Rusia (shadow fleet) from ports and waterways.
For a quick start, listen to Seun Foo here: https://globalsouth.co/2025/03/28/as-china-retaliates-against-panama-ports-deal-us-wants-chinese-tech-assets-for-tariff-relief/
The idea is for the US to constrict ports and shipping lanes used by China, as well as Russia’s shadow fleet. This is untenable for China, and they will not allow it. The first shot in this fight that was going to drag on was the buyout of two Chinese ports situated as part of the Panama Canal. Note that China built them as part of the infrastructure of the Panama Canal. The buyout became huge, and at the end of the day, the deal was set to buy a number of Chinese ports.
The deal, led by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with an enormous pool of $11.6 trillion in assets, was announced earlier this month . BlackRock agreed to lead a group that would buy Hong Kong firm CK Hutchison’s controlling interest in 43 other ports around the world, comprising 199 berths in 23 countries.
It was expected among the China watchers that China would block the deal. Chinese antitrust regulators are now investigating, as far as the media goes, only the two ports in the Panama Canal, but actually the whole of the Hong Kong firm, CK Hutchison. This deal is now delayed, and my expectation is that it will not go through, or perhaps some partial deal will be cut. (Remember Jack Ma, who did not put China’s requirements first. After years, he is only now allowed to enter into a room with the Chinese business community).
The closing of this deal was set for next week, and again, among the China watchers, it became an issue of ‘Will China stop it?’ or ‘Won’t China stop it?’. I would not be surprised if the Chinese did not put money on it for a quick gamble. (I would have if I only knew where to put a few silver slivers, lol, but then again, I am not a gambler.)
President Donald Trump has incorrectly claimed that China controls the canal (Panama controls it, although China owns ports on both sides of the crucial maritime passage). Trump has threatened to have the United States once again take control of the canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and at that point, Blackrock and their consortium stepped up with a deal.
This is not the end of the story.
The US wants to break China’s vast economic clout. China says it is easy to start a trade war, but not easy to win a trade war. Panama is set to cancel the registration of 128 ships that are sanctioned by the US, its allies, or the United Nations, according to Ramón Franco, the general director of the Panama Maritime Authority. At least 70 of these vessels, including tankers, have already been removed, and more are expected to follow. This move aligns with Panama’s commitment to penalize blacklisted vessels, though it will result in a loss of up to $2 million in revenue.
Panama, which manages one of the world’s largest flag registries, is responding to growing scrutiny of the “shadow fleet”—ships used to transport sanctioned cargo, particularly in relation to Russia and Iran’s oil and energy sectors. I am not sure how deep Venezuela is into shadow shipping, but with the latest sanctions on Venezuela’s oil trade, I expected them to enter the shadow fleet in a big way.
This is still not the end of the story.
So, if we talk about Trump, we spell that Tariff. Trump’s plan goes further. He wants to impose tariffs or port taxes on China-linked vessels operating in US ports. Of course, this will bring the economic house down. Competition will be distorted across the whole of the container shipping industry. And he wants to charge Caricom ports if they receive products from China through the US, which is common. How is that for a double whammy?
According to estimates, Cosco Shipping, a Chinese state-owned shipping line, would be one of the most affected, facing a 15% increase in costs for transporting containerized goods on the Trans-Pacific route. This looks like an underestimation to me if all the nickel and diming is added together, and then tariffs must be added as well.
The US says in order to avoid the application of port taxes, shipping companies must meet specific requirements to avoid their port taxes:
Increased freight costs, delivery delays, a potential restructuring of trade routes, and cargo diversion to non-US ports will be the order of the day. The shadow shipping fleet will only grow, and other ship registries will be used. Before we can watch this for too long, we will have serious economic consequences that you and I will feel in our pockets and in what we purchase.
I’ve seen this warning: If anyone wants to buy anything, absolutely anything, that requires a sea shipment, you should do it now. Things are going to get ugly and the only ones who end up paying for all this mess are the end users.
Trump continually says that the whole world is unfair to the US. Sure, sure but somehow, that story gets old.
China’s Premier Li Qiang, in a gathering of global executives in Beijing a few days ago, said that China is prepared for possible unexpected shocks from the outside. He urged the business leaders to “resist protectionism” and defend globalization. The US cannot compete as it has lost its manufacturing base. These methods will not bring it closer to rebuilding a manufacturing base if there is no trust. Li warned that “decoupling and breaking supply chains would only deepen crises” while pledging to further expand market access in various sectors for foreign investors.
If the world returns to the law of the jungle, it will be a step backward in history and a tragedy for humanity.
The old canard that we’ve heard hundreds of times during our lifetime – Iran may not have The Bomb, and the current almost desperate push to get Iran back into some kind of negotiation with the US has much less to do with The Bomb and much more with the Suez Canal. It also explains the bombing of Yemen. Iran notified that the requirements from the US for negotiations are suddenly impossible; for example, Iran may not do a whole range of things, and that includes support for the resistance. In the end analysis, I think the new requirements, if it is written today or not, are for control of the Suez Canal. Trump believes he is the King of the World, and he wants to get his world under his control.
Michael Hudson spells out the problem:
… sanctions and threats are the only thing that the United States has left. It no longer can offer other countries a win-win situation, and Trump has said that America has to be the net gainer in any international deal it’s made, whether it’s a financial deal or a trade deal. And if America is saying, any deal we make, you lose, I win, that is not a way to attract people into making deals with you.
And Trump’s way of negotiating: when you don’t have very much to offer economically, all you can do is offer not to hurt other countries, not to sanction them, not to do something that will be against their interest. And other countries want to get away from that strategy of American diplomacy.
How soon will this shipping and ports ‘house of cards build with bluster’ of Trump fall apart? Not even here can it offer other countries a win-win situation. We still are in a ‘just-in-time’ supply line shipping economy. If this falls, the results will show very quick in our wallets and on our household shelves.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)