top of page

Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff

C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter and sub-editor covering science and geopolitics.

 

The deteriorating state of transatlantic relations is driving an increase in military expenditures and prompting a reassessment of geopolitical strategies across Europe.

Image Source: (Reuters/AP/NYTmes)
Image Source: (Reuters/AP/NYTmes)

However, for Europe to truly emerge as a formidable player in the future multipolar world and acquire strategic autonomy, it must also undertake a clear and decisive departure from its reliance on the United States.


Re-Arm Europe


On March 19, the European Union unveiled its new defence strategy, marking a significant shift in its approach to security. Historically reliant on the US for military support, the EU now finds itself facing growing vulnerabilities and a sense of betrayal following the Trump administration’s policies. The new plan, which allocates €800 billion for European defence in the coming years, aims to bolster the continent’s military capabilities. In announcing the strategy, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen underscored the changing security landscape, stating, “The era of the peace dividend is long gone.


The security architecture we once relied upon can no longer be taken for granted. Europe is ready to step up. We must invest in defence, strengthen our capabilities, and adopt a proactive approach to security.” Von der Leyen’s remarks were also notably pointed, as she emphasized the need for Europe to prioritize domestic defence procurement over reliance on foreign suppliers, thus urging European nations to invest in their military-industrial base and prevent further financial enrichment of the US defence sector.


At the moment, the EU’s dependence on the US is not only huge, but it has increased lately as well. So, beyond the rhetoric of ‘buying European’, the task facing EU leaders is by no means simple. In early March, a new report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute showed Europe’s increasing reliance on the US. NATO countries in Europe have more than doubled their arms imports between 2020 and 2024, with the US supplying over 64% of the total, up from 52% over the previous five-year period.


The state of Dependency and Vulnerability


This issue extends beyond the simple transaction of buying and selling weapon systems. When European nations procure military technology from the US, they effectively grant Washington the power to halt operations at its discretion. This vulnerability is not limited to the EU but also affects traditional allies like the UK. Take, for example, the UK’s Trident nuclear deterrence program, which consists of four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines. Although the UK retains operational independence in terms of control and decision-making regarding the launch of these systems, it remains heavily reliant on the US for the underlying nuclear technologies. These technologies, essential to the Trident system, are designed by the US and leased to the UK through Lockheed Martin.


At present, there is no alternative to this arrangement. In a hypothetical scenario where the UK found itself in a military conflict with Russia, the US could influence the UK’s actions by leveraging its control over critical maintenance and support for the Trident system. Washington would do to prevent the UK from doing anything that might sabotage the Ukraine deal. The UK’s dependence on US support underscores the risks of relying on foreign-made defence systems, particularly in scenarios where political considerations may intersect with military needs.


This serves as a crucial lesson that European leaders must take to heart as they strive for a future in which they can act independently on the global stage. In fact, they must come to the sobering realization that they are not truly “allies” of the United States. Washington, as recent statements have suggested, views Europe not as a partner, but as a potential adversary in the future. For instance, when former President Donald Trump ordered Boeing to develop the F-47 fighter jet, he remarked that a modified version would be sold to U.S. allies, noting, “Our allies may no longer be our allies in the future.” This statement was not only telling but also deeply insulting to Europe, suggesting that the longstanding transatlantic relationship is being redefined.


In light of this, European nations must seriously consider the possibility that Washington could become an adversary in the future. Under these circumstances, it would be strategically unwise to continue relying on a nation for defence that may no longer share their interests or regard them as allies. For Europe to secure its future, it must chart its course and build a defence infrastructure independent of American influence.


Build European for Multipolarity


Europe is more than capable of building and defending itself. Led by Germany, the EU collectively outproduces the United States in several key industries, including steel, ships, and civil aircraft. On average, EU member states also pay less to service their debts than the U.S., providing Europe with both industrial strength and financial resources necessary to embark on a path of domestic rearmament. Recent reports in the U.S. media reveal that Europe not only produces more vehicles than the U.S. and 50% more steel, but in 2024, Airbus also delivered twice as many aircraft as the financially troubled Boeing. Additionally, Europe maintains critical upstream industries essential for defence production, such as steel and chemicals, even as it grapples with the effects of high-energy costs.


Harnessing these resources is crucial for Europe’s future. The stakes are not only high for the EU itself, but also for the broader global order. In a multipolar world, the international system will undergo significant shifts, reducing the likelihood of conflicts fuelled by Washington’s unilateral decisions. Take the Ukraine conflict, for instance - it was largely precipitated by the Biden administration’s aggressive push to expand NATO. This strategy was designed to reduce Europe’s reliance on Russia. However, the unintended consequence has been a growing European effort to reduce its own dependence on the U.S. itself. In this context, unilateralism has effectively disrupted the transatlantic alliance.


As Europe begins this journey towards greater autonomy, it is clear that the path forward will be pivotal for its own security - and for the stability of the global order.

Hadisur Rahman, Jadetimes Staff

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Asia

 

repatriation
Image Source: Mohammad Ponir Hossain

In a long awaited development, Myanmar has confirmed that 180,000 Rohingya refugees currently residing in Bangladesh are eligible for repatriation, according to a statement from the Bangladeshi government. The announcement was made following a high level meeting held in Bangkok on the sidelines of the 6th BIMSTEC Summit, sparking cautious optimism among observers while raising critical questions among the refugees themselves.


What Does This Mean for the Repatriation Process?

The confirmation comes as part of a verification initiative involving a list of 800,000 Rohingya submitted by Bangladesh to Myanmar in six separate batches between 2018 and 2020. While the endorsement of 180,000 names may signal the first tangible progress in years, the figure represents only a fraction of the over one million Rohingya currently residing in sprawling refugee camps in southeastern Bangladesh.


Myanmar has also pledged to expedite the verification process for an additional 70,000 names, pending further examination of photographs and identity documentation. A further 550,000 names from the original list still await review. Despite this recent diplomatic engagement, Myanmar's government has not issued any formal statement in response to the outcomes of the Bangkok talks.


Background: Years of Displacement and Broken Promises

Most of the Rohingya refugees fled Myanmar’s Rakhine State in 2017, following a brutal military crackdown widely condemned by the international community as ethnic cleansing. Since then, they have remained stateless, marginalized, and confined to makeshift shelters in the world’s largest refugee settlement in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh.


While attempts were made in 2018 and 2019 to begin voluntary repatriation, these initiatives collapsed as Rohingya refugees refused to return without guaranteed safety, citizenship, and civil rights all of which remain largely unaddressed.


Voices from the Ground: Hope Mixed with Skepticism

For many Rohingyas, the news brings more frustration than relief. Shafiqur Rahman, a refugee living in Bangladesh, voiced the sentiment of many when he told Reuters: “After all these years, they are confirming only 180,000 names. This feels like nothing more than an eyewash. We want a genuine solution.”

The skepticism is deeply rooted in the continued systematic denial of citizenship and fundamental rights to the Rohingya in Myanmar. Without a legally binding framework ensuring safety, dignity, and full reintegration, refugees fear that repatriation may become another hollow gesture.


Regional and International Implications

The recent talks were held between Bangladesh's high representative, Khalilur Rahman, under the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, and Myanmar's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Than Swe. This diplomatic engagement marks a rare moment of cooperation amid otherwise strained regional dynamics.


The announcement also follows increased regional attention on Myanmar, including the junta chief’s rare appearance at the Bangkok summit and international efforts to address humanitarian crises in the conflict ridden state.


A Tentative Step, but Is It Enough?

This recent confirmation of 180,000 names marks a potential shift in the long-stalled repatriation dialogue. However, without guarantees of citizenship, security, and rights, the core issues remain unresolved. Many refugees and rights advocates argue that the repatriation process must prioritize justice, inclusion, and long term reintegration not just numerical targets.

As the international community watches closely, the question remains: will this be the beginning of a sustainable solution or yet another chapter of unfulfilled promises for the Rohingya people?

Hadisur Rahman, Jadetimes Staff

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering the USA

 

Gaza
Image Source: Leah Millis

In a high profile diplomatic development, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit Washington, DC, for a meeting with former US President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday, according to US media reports citing unnamed officials. The meeting marks a significant moment in US-Israel relations as both leaders seek to address pressing geopolitical concerns, trade disputes, and mounting international pressure over the war in Gaza.


Key Topics on the Agenda

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that the meeting will cover a broad range of issues, including:

  • The Iranian threat and nuclear negotiations

  • Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza, including ceasefire efforts

  • Israel-Turkiye relations amid recent diplomatic tensions

  • Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” policy, affecting Israeli imports

  • The fight against the International Criminal Court (ICC)


The talks follow a phone call on Thursday during which Netanyahu raised concerns over the 17 percent tariff Israel faces under Trump’s tariff strategy. In a reciprocal move, Israel recently eliminated its remaining tariffs on US imports. Notably, the two countries have a decades old Free Trade Agreement, with approximately 98% of American goods entering Israel duty-free.


A Defiant Visit Amid ICC Charges

Netanyahu’s upcoming trip comes while he is under an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza. Despite this, he continues to travel internationally. On his current trip to Hungary his first European visit since 2023 he was welcomed by Prime Minister Viktor Orban, shortly after Hungary controversially withdrew from the ICC.

The United States, notably, is not a member of the ICC and has historically opposed its jurisdiction over Israeli or American nationals.


Gaza Conflict: Ceasefire, Captives, and Renewed Violence

Also expected to dominate the meeting is the deteriorating humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel resumed its military operations last month after a brief ceasefire collapsed, reigniting the war with Hamas and further escalating regional instability.


Negotiations for a new truce and the release of Israeli hostages held by Palestinian factions remain stalled. The White House meeting could serve as a platform for renewed discussions on achieving a durable ceasefire and potential mediation pathways.


Iran and Nuclear Diplomacy

The Trump-Netanyahu dialogue will also focus on Iran, as efforts continue to revive diplomatic engagement over its nuclear program. Trump has expressed interest in pushing Tehran toward a new agreement, although past talks fell apart following the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal during his presidency.


Iran has signaled its willingness to engage in indirect talks but insists its nuclear activities are strictly civilian, rejecting Western claims of weaponization.


A High Stakes Encounter with Global Implications

As Netanyahu prepares to meet Trump, the stakes couldn’t be higher. From war crimes allegations to international sanctions and nuclear diplomacy, the issues at play span far beyond bilateral ties. With the Middle East on edge and international institutions closely watching, the outcomes of this meeting could significantly shape the geopolitical landscape in the months ahead.

bottom of page