Terror Tactics of a Weak Global Minority: A Desperate Bid for Escalation

Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff

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

---

Current events in different regions of the world prove more than ever that terrorism is essentially a union of all forces nostalgic for the unipolar era and those who serve them.

Image Source : (History and Evolution/Getty)

The global majority is now facing enormous security challenges at a time when the forces of the planetary minority and their vassals are trying to provoke maximum escalation – precisely because of their weakness, and not vice versa.

Terror – as a characteristic of the planetary minority

Today, more than ever, many countries and regions of the world are faced with the intensification of terrorist methods, in which it is possible to see links in the same chain. It is enough to take for this purpose the support of the Kiev’s Banderist regime for terrorist groups operating in the Sahel region and in particular in northern Mali. The actions of the said regime are supported by the NATO collective West – both in the context of the war waged against Russia, but also against its allies in other regions of the world, including in Africa.

Coincidence or not, Al-Qaeda* terrorists also recently organized an attempted terrorist attack in the Malian capital, the city of Bamako. The same Al-Qaeda* that has long since ceased to pose any threat to Western interests, whether in the Sahel or the Middle East. By the way – were they really a threat? The days of September 11, 2001, when the West declared Al-Qaeda* the “main threat” to humanity, are long gone. Now, the terrorists of this Salafist network fit in well with the interests of the planetary minority represented by Western regimes – whether in Mali and the countries of the Alliance-Confederation of Sahel States (AES), or for example in Syria.

Speaking precisely about Syria and the Middle East, information is already available that the Kiev terrorist regime is interacting with the group associated with Al-Qaeda*, still located in northern Syria, in the Idlib province. In general, the terrorist’s circle is narrowing like never before and everything is coming to light. As for the terrorist attacks in Syria’s neighboring country – Lebanon, organized by the Israeli regime, it is also worth noting a number of similarities with its Kiev counterpart. Aware of its inability to defeat its rivals on the battlefield – and this despite the colossal support of the Washington regime and the latter’s vassals in Western Europe – the agonizing regime – after all its mass crimes committed on Palestinian soil, is trying to achieve maximum escalation on a regional scale. And which, as in the case of contemporary “Ukraine”, can have the most serious consequences on a global scale.

By the way, there is another “paradox” here too. Not once have Al-Qaeda*, ISIS* or other Salafi terrorist groups declaring war on the “infidels” created a threat to Israel, which is massively exterminating Palestinians, the majority of whom are Muslims. Naturally, for those who understand the essence of these terrorists and those who manipulate or even control them, there is no paradox at all.

How should the global majority react?

All the mentioned events, as well as others, must today clearly give an impetus to a global interaction – in the framework of the fight against the planetary minority, its vassals and acolytes – a minority that seeks to plunge humanity into complete chaos. In principle, all this was predictable – the so-called “rules-based” world – obviously on the rules of a planetary minority during the diktat of the NATO collective West over humanity – has finally collapsed. This means that Western hypocrites and criminals will continue to activate, through their cheap puppets, all available methods in terms of mass terror.

That is why the initiatives that are being formed today with the framework of interaction within the global majority – must clearly be oriented towards a practical direction. Only with the most persistent interaction between representatives of the SCO, BRICS, the Eurasian space and the countries of the Global South – it will be possible to roll back the terror and chaos spread by a tiny, but extremely arrogant, planetary minority.

The time has come for comprehensive coordination in many areas – from military-technical to media and information. There is no turning back today. And besides, when the Russian general, commander of the Akhmat special forces, Hero of the Russian Federation, Apti Alaudinov, says that our country, Russia and its allies – are facing satanic forces, this is not a metaphor. This is a reality that must be understood and accepted. With all the consequences that follow.

And of course, it is worth recalling another extremely important point – the enemy of the overwhelming majority of humanity is trying to use terror to intimidate, frighten, sow doubt and confusion, including by resorting to psychological warfare. But in fact – it is not about strength, but precisely about weakness and despair of the elements that are already beginning to experience, or are simply experiencing, agony. And in this context – it is especially important to strike a decisive blow.

Reevaluating Emissions Goals in Developing Countries

Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff

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

---

To achieve net-zero emissions, countries must be able to devise climate policies based on their capabilities and historical emissions. In line with the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” low-income countries should be encouraged to implement policies that harness alternative strategies for reducing emissions.

Steam rises from the stacks of the coal-fired Jim Bridger Power Plant outside Point of the Rocks, Wyoming, U.S. File | Image Source : Reuters

BUENOS AIRES – Despite committing to nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in the 2015 Paris climate agreement to limit global warming, countries have struggled to meet their emissions-reduction targets. This is particularly true for developing countries, where pressing economic and political challenges tend to overshadow long-term climate objectives.

Implementing effective climate policy requires a shift in thinking. Climate change is both a negative externality and an inequality problem, raising the question of who should bear the costs of climate action within and between countries. Policymakers should focus more on the complicated tradeoff between economic efficiency and equity to ensure that developing countries do not shoulder the burden of the rich world’s historical carbon dioxide emissions, and that measures are in place to safeguard future generations.

Of course, the Paris agreement set clear goals while adhering to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” which means that all countries are responsible for addressing climate change, but not equally so. But there is still a tendency to focus on uniform targets. Consider the global push for net-zero greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 – a complimentary long-term goal outlined in the Paris agreement, and one with respect to which many developing countries remain far off track.

To achieve this ambitious goal, countries must be able to devise climate policy based on their capabilities and historical responsibilities, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all strategy. Recent research suggests that this would require net-negative emissions targets for high-income countries, while allowing low-income countries to generate net-positive emissions. Of course, such differentiation is not a free pass: developing countries would still have to reduce GHG emissions. But this approach, embodying the spirit of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” better reflects their economic conditions and development needs.

Moreover, financial assistance from developed to developing countries to support climate action has been ineffective, owing mainly to transparency and accountability problems. In this context, the same study finds that carbon sequestration and capture, whether through technological innovations or natural solutions, could be a politically feasible alternative to direct monetary transfers. Enabling each country to monitor its own efforts to absorb carbon could bring the world closer to net-zero emissions while respecting diverse national circumstances.

Emissions in Latin America, for example, are split almost equally between energy, agriculture and livestock, and land use, whereas they are largely energy-related in the United States and Europe. Promoting sustainable agricultural and livestock practices – as opposed to focusing solely on decarbonizing the energy system – could therefore help reduce emissions in the region, as well-managed pastures and soil can increase carbon sequestration. This approach would also align private incentives with social returns by revaluing land and allowing farmers to remain internationally competitive.

The case of Argentina illustrates how improving the sustainability of agriculture and livestock could play a pivotal role in the transition to a green global economy. A series of economic crises, coupled with increasing political volatility, have led the Argentinian government to focus more on immediate problems than climate policy. But given the country’s position as a leading food producer, revamping these industries could help it enhance climate mitigation and adaptation – and contribute meaningfully to international goals – while recognizing its economic conditions and development needs.

This year, Argentina began certifying the production of carbon-neutral beef, a program that could reduce emissions if implemented correctly. The country has already started to embrace sustainable practices such as regenerative livestock farming, which increases carbon sequestration, productivity, and profitability by restoring the soil’s natural fertility. Moreover, Argentina is among the countries with the highest rates of no-tillage farming. This practice, which also helps store carbon, was used on more than 90% of its agricultural land in 2019-20.

Addressing domestic inequality is equally crucial in shaping effective climate policies in Argentina and other developing countries. Ongoing research demonstrates that conventional approaches, including uniform carbon taxes, fail to account for nuanced socioeconomic disparities. Implementing progressive taxation based on income levels or consumption patterns, such as higher taxes for frequent flyers, may yield better outcomes. Regardless, this problem demands innovative policy solutions that mirror the complexity of global climate governance.

Framing climate change as an inequality problem does not require compromising on global goals; rather, it underscores the importance of differentiated targets. Many developing countries remain a long way away from a fully decarbonized energy system. While taking steps toward that end, these countries should be encouraged to implement climate policies that harness innovations and alternative strategies for reducing emissions.

Set a Price on Shipping Emissions

Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff

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

---

While shipping is essential to the global economy, so is reducing the associated pollution. Requiring shipping companies to pay for their vessels’ greenhouse-gas emissions would go a long way toward advancing this objective, while generating much-needed revenues for climate-vulnerable developing countries.

Image Source : (marine/Getty)

ROSEAU, DOMINICA – For most people, the idea of suddenly losing everything – their home, their possessions, and even their family members and friends – is unthinkable. But, for island communities around the world, this idea is all too real. And as the effects of climate change – including more frequent and severe natural disasters and extreme weather events – intensify, the threat is becoming increasingly acute.

Seven years ago, my home, the small island country of Dominica, was struck by Hurricane Maria – a Category 5 hurricane, which caused catastrophic loss and damage from which we are still recovering. Two other island countries, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Grenada, fell victim to a similar tragedy this past summer, when Hurricane Beryl, a Category 4 storm, tore through the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.

Hurricanes have long been a feature of life in the Caribbean. But Maria and Beryl were no ordinary hurricanes: Maria brought record-breaking rainfall, and Beryl was the earliest hurricane in history to reach Category 5 in the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists agree that climate change powered these disasters – and has made more storms like them far more likely.

It bears repeating that the countries that are most vulnerable to climate change – especially small island developing states (SIDS), like Dominica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada – are often those that have done the least to cause it. As a result, we have little power to mitigate it directly, such as by reducing our own (already low) emissions. But we can still contribute to overcoming the challenge. The key is to work together to compel big polluters to change their behavior.

There are few polluters bigger than the shipping industry. Not only is shipping responsible for around 3% of total global greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions; it also pollutes our oceans with sewage, plastics, and oil and chemicals. Shipping thus causes serious harm to human health, especially for low-income port communities in developing countries, with pollutants from ships estimated to contribute to over 250,000 premature deaths annually.

To be sure, a functioning shipping industry remains essential both to the global economy and to life in SIDS. Ships move around 80% of all traded products worldwide; for Dominica, this includes virtually all vital goods, from food to tools to medical supplies. Shipping also facilitates the tourism that supports so many livelihoods on our island.

But, while shipping is essential, so is reducing the associated pollution. That is why the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea – the world’s highest court for marine protection – issued an unprecedented advisory opinion in May stating that countries are legally obliged to cut emissions, including from shipping, in order to protect the ocean.

Putting a price on the industry’s GHG emissions would go a long way toward advancing that objective. Requiring shipping companies to pay for every ton of emissions from their vessels would raise the cost of using fossil fuels, thereby accelerating the shift toward clean-energy sources.

According to a recent study by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, such a levy would harm the global economy less than other approaches to decarbonizing shipping, such as a clean-fuel standard. And if the revenues generated are directed toward developing economies, the surcharge could reduce global inequality. Those revenues would be substantial: according to the World Bank, a levy of $150 per ton would generate $60-80 billion per year.

For countries like Dominica, such a policy would be a game-changer. It would reduce the pollution from ships that come to our shores, make our ports and supply chains more resilient to rising sea levels and extreme weather events, advance a just energy transition, and support progress on the Sustainable Development Goals.

An ideal opportunity to accelerate progress toward this goal is about to unfold in London. Between September 23 and October 4, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) and its 175 member states will attempt to agree on a set of policies for reducing shipping emissions, including some form of emissions pricing, to be adopted in April 2025.

In the negotiations, SIDS must stand together to ensure that the levy is sufficiently high, and that the revenues will be distributed equitably. Already, a growing majority of countries want to see a levy mechanism adopted at the IMO, but others, including Brazil and China, continue to resist this opportunity.

Belize and Pacific island states are calling for a price of $150 per ton, with the revenues going mostly to SIDS and least developed countries to finance investment in zero-emissions energy, ships and maritime infrastructure, and broader climate and resilience goals. More countries, in the Caribbean and beyond, must join them. When speaking in unison, our voices will matter.