International politics has ceased to be a theater and has become a circus without a big top and without shame.

By Alberto García Watson

What used to be disguised as strategic diplomacy is now openly exhibited as geopolitical pantomime without shame or principle. Donald Trump's recent decision, with the enthusiastic blessing of diplomats from the United Kingdom and Spain, to remove Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) from the list of terrorist organizations is not only an affront to memory: it is an official consecration of hypocrisy as a diplomatic doctrine.

HTS, the marketing version of Al-Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, has a Nuremberg-worthy record: a decade of beheadings, suicide bombings, slavery, sectarian repression, ethnic cleansing and social destruction under the leadership of its charismatic executioner, Abu Mohammad al-Golani. But, of course, it was enough for him to put on an Armani suit and take a couple of photos with his beard trimmed and combed for Syria's number one terrorist to suddenly become a “regional stability actor”. Hollywood should be taking note.

The marketing of terrorism: from jihad to “multilateralism”

The most insulting thing is not only its media whitewashing, but the real motive that has made it “digestible” for the West: al-Golani is now the guarantor of a future Syria that, surprise, would gladly adhere to the Abraham Accords. Yes, the same agreements that normalize relations with Tel Aviv, while bombs continue to fall on Gaza and illegal settlements devour Palestine. So he is not only forgiven for the past: he is rewarded for betraying what was once the most sacred pan-Arab cause.

This turn is not pragmatism: it is geopolitical prostitution. Golani has not changed his principles; he has simply learned to put them up for rent. And nothing rents more today than to offer a fragmented but obedient Syria, submissive to Israel's interests and aligned with Washington's whims. The noble Palestinian cause, which for decades was the banner of resistance in the Arab world, is today conveniently pushed under the bus by the same man who preached its defense with blood and fire.

The West: selective memory and moral balance

Meanwhile, European capitals are juggling to justify this diplomatic resurrection. The British minister speaks of “pragmatism”. The Spanish Chancellor calls for “reviewing certain designations”. That is to say: if a terrorist is useful, he is called a partner. If he serves the narrative, he is called reformed. And if he kisses the ring of power, he is offered immunity with canapé and glass in hand.

The victims, thousands of Syrians, beheaded journalists, massacred civilians have been filed away as footnotes in the great novel of realpolitik. Not a mention. Not an apology. Not a hint of memory. The West, which once painted its face with the war against terrorism, today paints its face with indifference.

What's next? Golani at the UN talking about Human Rights?

It would not be unusual to see him next as a panelist at a forum on “peaceful transitions” or “security in the Middle East”. Perhaps he will be invited to Davos, or even Jerusalem, to talk about how “regional cooperation is the way to the future.” The same man who murdered in the name of extremism will now lecture on interfaith coexistence. This is not satire. It is foreign policy.

Conclusion: Treason as diplomatic currency

Al-Golani's whitewashing is not a mistake, it is a clear message: terrorism is forgiven, recycled and rewarded, as long as the traitor on duty signs where he is told to. It doesn't matter if he stabs his own people, if he betrays the Palestinian cause or if his record is worthy of the Hague Tribunal: if he surrenders to the new order, he becomes a preferred partner.

And so, terrorism is institutionalized, betrayal is celebrated and dignity is exported at a bargain price. The fight against extremism is no longer a cause: it is a slogan. And forgiveness, like sovereignty, is bought in cash or oil.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/32856514

Einar Tangen is a Senior Fellow at Teihe Institute & Chairman of Asia Narratives. How is Asia adapting to America's strategic unpredictability? While China seeks to lock America into reliable trade agreements and diversify its trade partnerships, other states in East Asia are seeking more predictable alternatives.

Analyst Marcelo Ramirez points out that there are two clearly differentiated visions within BRICS: a more radical one, led by Russia and China, and a more cautious one, led by Brazil and India.

The consolidation of the Brics as a global player represents not only the shift of the economic and political center of gravity towards the Global South, but also the reflection of a profound crisis of the traditional international order, dominated by the United States and its Western allies.

However, tensions and strategic divergences are beginning to emerge within the bloc itself, which will mark its future as a real power alternative, according to geopolitical analyst Marcelo Ramírez, in a recent interview for teleSUR.

Ramirez identifies two main currents within the Brics. On the one hand, a “hard” core made up of Russia, China and Iran (the latter a member since 2024), which seeks a definite break with the current international system.

This group is committed to a profound transformation of global institutions, especially in the area of security, where a radical reform of the United Nations Security Council -more democratic, equitable and less concentrated in the veto power of the current five permanent countries- is proposed.

“Solving these internal tensions and approaches,” says Ramirez, “is the great challenge for it to really become a power alternative and not just a rhetorical organization.”

On the other hand, there is a group that Ramirez describes as the “negotiating” Brics, represented mainly by Brazil and, to a lesser extent, India, which seeks to advance in the construction of a new order without completely breaking with existing structures. This position reflects a more cautious strategy, seeking to maintain open channels with the West while pushing for gradual multipolarity.

“The idea of India managing the agenda puts a bit of lethargy and that hard stance which is what we are seeing with the Russia-Ukraine confrontation,” says the analyst, pointing out how Brazilian leadership in 2025 has introduced some sluggishness to the group's radicalization process.

This debate on the relationship with the international system is not new. As early as 2005, with the formation of the G4 (Brazil, India, Japan and Germany), a similar drive to expand representation on the UN Security Council was attempted. But that attempt failed, among other reasons, because there was no internal consensus, especially in Latin America, on whether the proposed seat was for the region or exclusively for Brazil.

“If we tend to repeat this kind of history, it will be difficult for us to confront a power that, although dying, is still very, very powerful,” warns Ramirez.

One of the most interesting cases is that of India, a country that maintains an ambiguous position, difficult to place in a single direction. As Ramirez points out, “India can be a friend of the West, of Russia or of China, depending on the sector we are talking about”. This behavior reflects a strategy of renewed non-alignment, but it also hinders the formation of a common foreign policy within the Brics.

A clear example is its defense policy. Although it has historically maintained strong military ties with Russia, in recent years it has diversified its suppliers, including acquisitions of French weaponry and technology from the U.S. and its allies.

“I believe that this is the great challenge for, for example, for the core sector of the Brics, which I said was the hardest, headed by Russia and China, to get India and Brazil to accompany this process and to break away,” explains the analyst.

In this context, the success of the Brics will depend on its ability to articulate a shared vision, overcome the divisions between a hard core and a negotiating wing, and propose concrete reforms that respond to the real needs of the Global South.

According to Marcelo Ramirez, the challenge is not small, but perhaps never before has there been so much collective awareness of the need to build an alternative. To this end, the Brics will have to resolve the crossroads: either it becomes a cohesive and transformative actor, or it is reduced to a rhetorical alliance in times of transition.

https://archive.ph/MmXbQ