NATO: DONALD TRUMP GOT IT WRONG, BEIJING IS DOING IT RIGHT

 

When Donald Trump says America’s allies are “nothing” without the United States, he points to a real imbalance but reaches the wrong conclusion. The US does maintain a vast military presence across NATO countries. That presence gives Washington unmatched command, logistics, intelligence, and reach. Without the US, NATO would clearly be weaker.

But American power in Europe exists by consent, not entitlement. US bases sit on allied soil because partners provide geography, access, and political legitimacy. These bases allow the US to operate far beyond Europe, into the Middle East, Africa, and the Arctic. Without allies, America would be more isolated, more stretched, and less effective.

Now imagine those same bases are no longer given to the US, but to Russia or China. US power would shrink fast. Forward command centres disappear. Intelligence reach weakens. Power projection slows and becomes costlier. Influence retreats behind oceans.

The reality, then, is not “everything versus nothing,” but asymmetrical interdependence. NATO allies rely heavily on US capabilities, while the US relies on NATO to sustain its global reach. Confusing imbalance with insignificance may sound strong, but it misunderstands how power actually works.

Perhaps Trump can learn some strategy from a Malay peribahasa:

“Bulat air kerana pembetung, bulat manusia kerana muafakat.”

Water takes its shape because of its channel. People gain strength because of consensus.

Trump can also learn from The Art of War, the Chinese classic on strategy that Beijing is quietly practicing today. Sun Tzu taught that real power is not brute force, but positioning. The strongest power is the one others still choose to support.

Lose that consent, and power fades faster than any battlefield defeat.

Peace, anas

PLIGHT OF BATU FERRINGHI - SUNDAY STAR TODAY Pg 3

 

Thank you, The STAR for highlighting this. Penang State Government and Zairil Khir Johari ... so what next?

Read here - https://www.thestar.com.my/.../did-we-do-enough-to-save-them

Peace, anas

MARK CARNEY AND THE SILENCE THAT MATTERS

Many leaders and commentators across the Global South and outside the Atlantic core have welcomed Mark Carney’s Davos speech with enthusiasm. I remain cautious and prefer a deeper reading of what was actually said - and, just as importantly, what was not.

Carney’s framing is fundamentally Western-centric. His concern is the preservation, repair, and future stability of the West and the Atlantic order. The language of values, rules, and responsibility is directed inward - towards Western economies, Western institutions, and Western legitimacy.

He speaks of the need for “middle powers” to step up. But who exactly are these middle powers? Are they limited to comfortable Western or Western-aligned states such as Canada, Australia, or parts of Europe? Or do they genuinely include countries like Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey - states that sit outside the Atlantic core, pursue strategic autonomy, and do not always align neatly with Western preferences?

And what about Iran? Strip away decades of sanctions and containment, and Iran is clearly a civilisational state with population size, human capital, energy resources, and regional influence - more than capable of becoming a prosperous and powerful middle power. The same applies to Venezuela. Their exclusion is not due to lack of potential or agency, but political choice - largely Western political choice.

This raises a deeper issue. Absent from the speech is any meaningful engagement with the lived realities of the Global South. There is no acknowledgement of Palestine. No reckoning with the double standards applied to Israel versus Russia. No reflection on how the so-called rules-based order operates selectively, depending on who violates it and who is protected.

This silence matters. When moral language avoids the most obvious inconsistencies of power, it becomes managerial rather than ethical - focused on system maintenance, not justice. What is presented as universal concern is, in practice, a conversation about Western cohesion and credibility, not global fairness.

That does not make the speech irrelevant. But it does make it partial. And partial truths, especially when delivered in the language of universality, deserve careful scrutiny - not uncritical applause.

Many in the West are already suggesting that Mark Carney’s speech will be remembered as an important moment in history. The question is: whose history?

Is it a myopic Western history, increasingly detached from lived global realities - or real history, shaped by suffering, restraint, and moral courage?

Jesus once said that the world does not belong to the powerful, but to the meek. If that insight still holds, then history will not be written by those who speak most confidently about order, but by those who refuse to normalise injustice.

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” - Matthew 5:5

“And, indeed, after having set it down in the Psalms, We gave this reminder: ‘My righteous servants shall inherit the earth.” - Qur’an 21:105

Peace, anas

MARK CARNEY - WELCOME TO OUR WORLD

Mark Carney’s words may sound profound in Davos. For many of us, they are not new.

Outside the Atlantic core, what he described has been clear for decades.

Sovereignty was respected conditionally. International law applied selectively. Interventions justified retrospectively.

Economic coercion replaced colonial rule. And global institutions reflected power more than fairness.

This is not ideology. It is lived experience.

So yes, welcome to the conclusion many of us reached a long time ago.

You are a little late. But better late than never.

Perhaps once this reality is experienced firsthand, empathy will come more naturally.

And perhaps then, we can move beyond speeches and assumptions - towards genuine limits on power, equal application of rules, and international politics, policies, and institutions that are not only stable, but just.

As Jesus reminded us:

“Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the plank in your own?”

(Matthew 7:3–5)

Peace, anas

AKMAL SALEH

 

Like him or hate him, Akmal Saleh is playing a longer game than most - and that, in politics, often counts as intelligence.

He understands a hard political truth: today’s critics frequently become tomorrow’s partners once the numbers align.

History shows this repeatedly. Parties that denounce him now will work with him later if power demands it - as they always do.

Most political actors prioritise access to power above all else. Principles, outrage, and moral posturing often sit far out on the periphery, invoked loudly in opposition and quietly abandoned in negotiation rooms.

Akmal also appears to see something many prefer not to say out loud: that PAS and Malay unity will shape political power more deeply over the next few election cycles. Not as a passing mood, but as a structural force- demographic, cultural, and organisational. This is not about slogans; it is about numbers, ground machinery, and voter discipline.

Seen through this lens, much of the hostility directed at him functions less as conviction and more as sandiwara - political theatre meant to signal virtue, mobilise bases, and keep options open. The rhetoric is sharp, but the doors are never fully closed.

Akmal seems comfortable with this reality. He absorbs the noise, counts the numbers, and waits.
And when he reaches a position where he can dispense power, narratives will adjust accordingly.

Even DAP - like others before - will find language to justify cooperation. It may be framed as racial balance, political representation, national unity, or checks and balances.

The vocabulary will change, the principles will be reinterpreted, and the past rhetoric will quietly fade.

Because in the end, ideology explains behaviour - but power explains alliances.

Peace, anas

MONKEYS URINATE AND DEFECATE INTO TOURISTS’ CHAR KOAY TEOW

 

Dear Penang State Government,

While having lunch earlier at the temporary food stalls at TPS Pantai Mas, Batu Ferringhi, I was approached by one of the hawker stall owners and asked to sign a petition regarding their concerns and hopes for better facilities.

I thought it would be more constructive to write this note instead, both to acknowledge what has been done well, and to share a few observations that may help improve the experience for locals, hawkers, and tourists alike.

FIRST, CREDIT WHERE IT IS DUE

Firstly, kudos to the quick response in rebuilding and relocating the tourist stalls after the fire. Providing food stalls and simple toy vendors for children near the beach was a good and necessary move. It helped restore activity to the area and gave families a reason to return.

I fully understand that this structure is temporary, and expectations should be set accordingly.

That said, there are a few areas worth reviewing.

1. DESIGN, CLEANLINESS, AND SAFETY

Because the structure is temporary, it is understandable that the design was not deeply thought through. However, the current seating areas, especially those outside as shown in the pictures, are not very clean and are visually unappealing.

More worryingly, some time ago, while a group of tourists were having lunch, a group of macaques climbed onto the uncovered areas above and urinated and defecated directly into their food. Surely this is not the kind of memory we want visitors to take home from Penang.

We would much rather tourists remember Penang for its hospitality, warmth, and food, not incidents like these. This is something we should feel deeply concerned about.

2. HAWKERS AND HUMAN CONNECTION

I eat there often. The food is good, the hawkers are friendly, and they engage well with both locals and foreigners. They are, in many ways, face to face Malaysian ambassadors on the ground. Their human warmth is very Malaysian and is something worth encouraging and protecting.

3. LAYOUT AND FLOW OF THE SPACE

The design and placement of the structure could benefit from rethinking.

Previously, before the fire, the stalls were positioned more thoughtfully. Now, they are pushed forward without proper parking space or pedestrian flow. Perhaps it would make sense to return closer to the original concept with some improvements:

• Push kitchens to the extreme left and right

• Allow seating to be more central

• Create a clear and pleasant walkway leading towards the beach – decorate it well

• Use transparent roofing to create better ambience and natural lighting

This would improve both movement and atmosphere.

4. LOSS OF A FAMILY FRIENDLY PUBLIC SPACE

Since the fire, the area once occupied by the stalls has been fenced off and left vacant. This was previously a place where ordinary Malaysians, especially B40 families, brought their children to enjoy Batu Ferringhi affordably.

It was one of the few places where families of all races could gather, enjoy free parking, walk to the beach, shower, and eat together. Today, that space is no longer active, and the loss is felt.

5. BALANCE BETWEEN PREMIUM AND PUBLIC SPACES

While it is good to encourage higher end developments like the Ferringhi Bay, we must be careful not to forget ordinary Malaysians, especially those who need affordable and welcoming spaces.

I used to see crowds of families from all backgrounds enjoying weekends here. Today, that atmosphere is much reduced.

6. PARKING ISSUES

Parking has become very difficult. As shown in the pictures, when I was leaving the area, an incoming car had to reverse directly onto the main road, creating unsafe and congested conditions.

Frankly, the current parking arrangement is problematic and deserves urgent attention.

WE CAN DO BETTER

This note is written in the spirit of care, not criticism. I love Penang, and I love Batu Ferringhi. It is multicultural Malaysia by the sea.

Last but not least, Batu Ferringhi is not just a tourist destination. It is part of Penang’s social fabric. With small but thoughtful improvements, this space can once again be welcoming, safe, and dignified for hawkers, families, and visitors alike.

Thank you for listening.

Peace,

Anas

AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY PROBLEM - Adults Bully, Children Learn

 

Children do not learn bullying from textbooks.
They learn it from watching adults with power.

In schools, we know this instinctively. A child who sees intimidation rewarded will imitate it. A child who sees force replace dialogue will copy that behaviour. Bullying, at its core, is learned conduct.

That is why bullying among young Americans being more acute is not surprising.

America itself has normalised bullying on the world stage.

From sanctions that strangle societies, to regime-change bravado, to public humiliation of weaker states, U.S. foreign policy has often relied less on quiet authority and more on coercion by dominance. Power is not merely exercised - it is performed.

The recent Venezuelan episode only sharpens this pattern. The reported kidnapping and public mistreatment of President Maduro’s wife - symbolised by images of her swollen, blackened eye - speaks louder than any official press release. One image can explain what a thousand policy statements cannot: this is power without restraint.

When the strongest nation behaves this way, it should not be shocked when its children absorb the same lesson.

Silent Power: America Has Done Better Before

The United States has several strong historical examples of presidents using silent power - restraint, legitimacy, quiet authority - instead of force. Two of the clearest, widely respected cases are comparable in moral weight to Eisenhower and the Suez Crisis.

History shows that America once understood silent power. During the Suez Crisis of 1956, when Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal, President Eisenhower refused to back them or look away. Using financial pressure, diplomatic authority, and one firm phone call, he forced all three allies to withdraw - without invasion, missiles, or bravado. A few years later, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy again chose restraint under immense pressure, imposing a naval quarantine, opening back-channel diplomacy with Moscow, and allowing a face-saving exit for the Soviet Union. Nuclear war was avoided not through dominance, but through self-control and legitimacy.

A truly powerful nation does not need to intimidate. Force is not strength; it is the last refuge of insecurity. Bullies, whether in schools or geopolitics, often act not from confidence but from inner uncertainty - fear of losing relevance, control, or status.

America should ask itself an uncomfortable question: Has greatness been replaced by bravado? Has insecurity crept in where moral confidence once stood?

Today, loudness has replaced leadership.

America can do better. It must choose better teachers - restraint over aggression, dignity over domination, moral authority over raw force. It must also be clear about what it should not learn. America must not learn from Israel’s current example, where prolonged use of overwhelming force and dehumanising rhetoric has produced a society in which large majorities openly justify genocide and the killing of innocent civilians. This is what happens when adults model cruelty, impunity, and moral exceptionalism instead of restraint and accountability.

America is a great nation with fundamentally good people, and it should not want its children to grow up accepting genocide as normal or violence against innocents as defensible. America is better than this and it deserves better.

Because when adults stop bullying, children eventually do too.

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”
(Matthew 5:5)            

Peace, anas