Author: Yan

I am an Adjunct Professor, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. I am also a former Chief, Labour Market and Employment Policies Branch, ILO, Geneva. I was educated as an economist at Manchester, Western Ontario and Cambridge. I am one of the founding editors of the Journal of Asia Pacific Economy (Routledge, London and New York).
Uncategorized

The US military aggression in Venezuela and the abduction of Maduro: global reactions and Western ambivalence

On January 3, 2026, US President Trump announced via his social media account that a special operation ‘captured’ ( a euphemism for abducted) President Maduro of Venezuela and his wife and flew them over to the United States to face criminal charges for engaging in ‘narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the US’. The opening hearing took place on 5th January at a US Federal Court, with both Maduro and his wife defiantly claiming that they were kidnapped and not guilty, and that he remains the President of Venezuela. One can foresee a protracted legal battle ahead.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/03/world/americas/maduro-photo-trump.html

Trump was candid about his real intentions. The US administration would ‘run’ Venezuela until a viable and peaceful transfer of power to local authorities took place. Venezuela, which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, would become, proclaimed Trump, the beneficiary of US technical and engineering prowess as leading energy companies embark on fixing the country’s dilapidated oil infrastructure. Wishful thinking? Probably.

Note that Trump left the Maduro regime intact, with the Vice President now constitutionally mandated to become acting President in the absence of Maduro. Trump also dismissed the possibility of the Nobel Prize-winning Machado leading the transition process, while failing to mention González, the Presidential candidate. This begs the question. What transition?

How has the global community reacted to these stunning developments? One does not need to be a legal expert to realize that the US military aggression in Venezuela that led to the abduction of Maduro and his wife is a brazen violation of international law and the UN charter. It also left at least 40 Venezuelans dead, including significant damage to private property and infrastructure. Yet, European leaders – supposedly the champions of international law and a rules-based global order have, once again, generally failed to acknowledge that in an unambiguous fashion. They are petrified to upset Trump and sought refuge in mealy-mouthed statements and carefully crafted obfuscation. Here are some notable examples, starting with the UK, which claims to enjoy a ‘special relationship’ with the USA.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK will discuss the “evolving situation” in Venezuela with U.S. counterparts while noting Britain will “shed no tears” about the demise of Maduro’s “regime”. This interview with Starmer from the British TV channel ITV is riveting to watch.

The EU expressed concern at the developments and urged respect for international law, even as it noted that Maduro “lacks legitimacy.”

French President Emmanuel Macron called for 2004 presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia to lead a political transition. On the other hand, France said the U.S. operation undermined international law, and no solution to Venezuela’s crisis can be imposed externally.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Maduro had “led his country to ruin,” but called the U.S. action legally “complex.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was the only major European leader to side with the U.S., arguing its military action in Venezuela was “legitimate” and “defensive.”

What about Canada? Well…

Prime Minister Mark Carney said on X that, “Canada has not recognized Maduro’s illegitimate regime since the 2018 electoral fraud. The Canadian government welcomes the opportunity now available to the Venezuelan people to access freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity.”

He added, “True to its longstanding commitment to the rule of law, sovereignty, and human rights, Canada calls on all parties to respect international law. We support the sovereign right of the Venezuelan people to decide and build their own future in a peaceful and democratic society.”

And Australia?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has responded to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces. “The Australian government is monitoring the situation and will provide assistance to any Australians in Venezuela,” Mr Albanese said. “We urge all parties to support dialogue and diplomacy to secure regional stability and prevent escalation. “We continue to support international law.”

These mild and conditional utterances by Western leaders on what is clearly a breach of international law contrast sharply with what China and Russia had to say.

China delivered a strongly worded message to the United States on Monday (5th January) at an “emergency” meeting of the UN Security Council, calling on Washington to abide by international law, end its illusion that it is the world’s police force and court, and immediately release Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Russia’s United Nations ambassador Vasily Nebenzya denounced US actions in Venezuela and urged the immediate release of detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during a United Nations Security Council session in New York on Monday, January 5.

India, on the other hand, appeared to adopt the Western strategy of obfuscation. Thus:

India broke its silence on the US capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro with a carefully worded statement that expressed “deep concern” but conspicuously avoided naming Washington or condemning the military strikes that seized the Latin American leader.

What about Venezuela’s regional neighbours? As expected, regional divisions emerged and reflected the ideological proclivities of different countries.

Argentine President Javier Milei, Trump’s ideological soulmate, characterized (the USA) as supporting “democracy, the defense of life, freedom, and property.”

“On the other side,” …are those accomplices of a narco-terrorist and bloody dictatorship that has been a cancer for our region.”

Other right-wing leaders in South America similarly seized on Maduro’s ouster to declare their ideological affinity with Trump.

In Ecuador, conservative President Daniel Noboa issued a stern warning for all followers of Hugo Chávez, Maduro’s mentor and the founder of the Bolivarian revolution: “Your structure will completely collapse across the entire continent.”

In Chile, where a presidential election last month marked by fears over Venezuelan immigration brought down the leftist government, far-right President-elect José Antonio Kast hailed the U.S. raid as “great news for the region.”

Left-wing presidents in Latin America — including Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, Chile’s Gabriel Boric, and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro — expressed grave concerns over what they saw as U.S. bullying.

Lula said the raid set “an extremely dangerous precedent.” Sheinbaum warned it “jeopardizes regional stability.” Boric said it “violated an essential pillar of international law.” Petro called it “aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America.”

In sum, global reaction to Maduro’s abduction by the US has been quite diverse, but one is struck by the muted response of Europe and other leaders from the West. They will face a stern test if Trump follows through on his threat to invade Greenland and forcibly take it away from Denmark. Certainly, the Danish intelligence service, traditionally a close American ally within the framework of NATO, is so worried that it has officially designated the United States as a ‘security risk’.  

Uncategorized

Stranger in My Own Paradise

By

Aunul Islam, PhD (Imperial College, UK)

Synopsis:

This is a deeply personal narrative yet layered with history. What stands out is how the narrative intertwines individual memory with collective national trauma. The author moves between moments of hope (1971, independence) and disillusionment (1975, the assassination of Bangabandhu, and later political upheavals), showing how “paradise” shifts from a homeland to a fragile state of mind.

In Bangladesh, memory serves both as a unifying force and a source of division

Paradise. For me, it was never a distant dream—it was home. The land where rivers meandered through green fields, where the air carried the scent of liberation and hope. In 1972, at sixteen, I left that paradise behind, boarding a plane to the United Kingdom with a heart full of ambition and a mind still echoing the cries of victory from a bloody war of independence. Bangladesh was free, and I believed its future would be bright.

Image 1: A huge crowd celebrates the Bangladesh Liberation War

Three years later, I returned. The contrast with Britain was stark, yet I felt no dissonance. My country was poor, scarred by war, but it was mine until 15 August 1975, when paradise bled again. The Father of the Nation—our beacon of freedom—was brutally murdered along with his family in a military coup. What shattered me was not only the violence but the silence that followed. A nation that had fought so fiercely for liberty now stood mute, whether paralysed by shock or poisoned by betrayal. My dream of returning home after my education crumbled that day.

Image 2: The dark night of Bangabandhu’s assassination: how it unfolded…bdnews24.com, 15 August 2021

I tried again in 1979, hoping time would heal. But the spirit of the liberation war was fading, replaced by whispers of corruption and compromise. In 1985, I returned to settle, married, clinging to the hope that roots could still grow. Yet the soil felt strange beneath my feet. By 1988, I went back to my newly adopted paradise—the UK—carrying the ache of a homeland slipping away.

From 1995 to 2006, I made another attempt. I walked the streets of my childhood, searching for the rhythm I once knew. But the society had changed beyond recognition. The ideals we fought for were eroding; the language of freedom was drowned in the noise of greed and power. I was a stranger among my own people.

And then came the final blow. From 2006 to 2025, I watched from afar as history was rewritten. In 2024, another political upheaval erased the very memory of our liberation struggle—the foundation of our identity. The dream that had carried me across oceans was gone. My paradise was not just lost; it was betrayed.

Image 3: Celebrating the July uprising…but where is the nation heading?

Image 4: Bangabandhu Sheik Mujib’s home is destroyed as a crowd watches with a combination of fear and fascination

What does it mean to lose paradise? For me, it is not the loss of land or flag, but the slow death of ideals—the erosion of truth, justice, and memory. I fought for a country that promised freedom, dignity, and hope. Today, that promise lies buried beneath the weight of power and silence. Paradise, I have learned, is not a place. It is a state of mind—a fragile vision we carry within us. And when that vision dies, even home becomes foreign.

I am a migrant twice over—once by choice, and now by necessity. My adopted land gave me shelter, but my heart still wanders the streets of a homeland that exists only in memory. I am, and will remain, a stranger in my own paradise.

Uncategorized

Mamdani wears the ‘bad Muslim’ badge as a badge of honour and scores a famous electoral victory

Zohran Mamdani prevailed over Andrew Cuomo in the mayoral election of New York City (NYC) held on November 4. Cuomo, a former governor of New York state and, more importantly, a scion of the Democratic Party establishment, was easily beaten by someone who was virtually unknown a year ago. A third Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, became a rather distant third.

Young, energetic, and infused with a great deal of personal charm and charisma, Mamdani demonstrated an exceptionally high degree of oratorical skills.  He has an uncanny ability to connect with a diverse constituency.

Mandani’s election victory is as improbable as it is memorable. He is indeed destined for the history books. At 34, he is the youngest NYC mayor in over a century and the first one since 1969 to get over a million votes. Cuomo, despite being disgraced by allegations of multiple instances of sexual misconduct, decided to run for the mayoral election as a Democratic nominee, only to find that it was the unknown Mamdani who ousted him in the primaries. Cuomo, driven by pure ambition and a sense of entitlement, decided to run as an independent only to be defeated, yet again, by a seemingly upstart politician.

Mamdani is also the first-ever Muslim mayor of the largest city in the United States. He was born in Uganda to parents with Indian heritage. His mother, Mira Nair, is a globally well-known filmmaker. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a distinguished political scientist and anthropologist who teaches at Columbia University in his capacity as a Professorial Chair.

Mira Nair

Mahmood Mamdani

Mamdani used his religious identity like a badge of honour that reflects both his political acumen and a deep commitment to fighting Islamophobia that has become rampant in US and Western political discourse. In doing so, Zohran Mamdani seems to have been inspired by one of his father’s provocative scholarly contributions, where the author makes a distinction between ‘bad’ Muslims and ‘good Muslims’.

‘Bad Muslims’ are seen as inherently anti-American and antisemitic. They are both despised and feared as ‘Jihadists’ who reject Western hegemony. They are prepared to fight an interminable war, through acts of terrorism, against both Israel and its Western allies. ‘Good Muslims’, on the other hand, are supposed to be secular and westernised and fully prepared to accept Western hegemony. They lead quiescent lives as law-abiding citizens in both the Western and Muslim worlds. They seek to remain, as Zohran Mamdani put it, ‘in the shadows.’

In the official ‘war on terror’ that was launched by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, the underlying premise is that good Muslims need to be separated from bad Muslims through a combination of coercion and co-option. This is how anti-Americanism and antisemitism can be durably defanged. Hence, the rise of ‘Homeland Security’ (with a current budget of US$411 billion +) and a high surveillance society primarily targeting Muslims in the US-led West. Islamophobia became the norm rather than the exception.

Zohran Mamdani is certainly secular and ‘Westernised’ in the sense that he was largely educated in the United States. Still, he is prepared to step out of ‘the shadows’ by embracing the anti-establishment ethos of the ‘bad Muslim’. He openly supports the Palestinian cause and decries the genocide committed in Gaza by Israel. He uses this narrative to reinforce his ‘Democratic Socialist’ credentials where he seeks to improve the living conditions of ordinary New Yorkers through concrete measures, such as affordable rental accommodation, free public transport and universal childcare financed by modestly increased taxation of the top 1 percent of affluent New Yorkers and raising the corporate tax rate to match the rate prevailing in the neighbouring state of New Jersey.

Timorous centrist politicians in the Democratic Party must have regarded Zohran Mamdani as a misguided novice who faced certain political oblivion in a city that had the largest number of Jews outside Israel and the largest number of billionaires (more than 120) in the world in a single city. They would have chortled with derision. How could he spout anti-Israeli rhetoric, seek to tax the rich, and demonstrate his Muslim credentials?

It seems that Zohran Mamdani had the last laugh against his detractors. He read the mood of the electorate much better than his Democratic fellow travellers. More than 30 per cent of Jewish New Yorkers voted for Mamdani – no mean feat for someone painted as a Jew-hating politician. As he observed in his victory speech:

“I am Muslim. I am a democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologise for any of this.”

Of course, Zohran Mamdani has a long journey ahead. His powerful political opponents, including President Trump, will not quietly accept the electoral verdict. After all, multiple billionaires poured more than US$40 million into Andrew Cuomo’s campaign coffers. The pro-Israeli lobby will not wither away. Anti-Mamdani forces will be relentless in discrediting and vilifying a politician who is both a ‘socialist’ and a ‘bad Muslim’. Will they prevail? Only time will tell.

Uncategorized

Revisiting Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde and Frankenstein: A metaphor for the duality and destructiveness of modern power structures

By Aunul Islam

 Aunul Islam, read for his PhD at Imperial College, London. He graduated from the University of Manchester. He is a Quality Assurance Specialist in Higher Education and a Technology Consultant. He is an ex-civil servant of the UK government. A keen gardener, he finds solace through nature in this dysfunctional world order.

As I watch Israel’s destruction of Gaza, my mind casts back to two novels/films. I recall the famous Gothic novella by Robert Louis Stevenson, where he creates the dual character of Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde. To me, they represent the civilised duality: benevolent in rhetoric, destructive in action.

Figure 1: Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde.

Stevenson presents Hyde as a harmful member of society: “torture and deform the sufferer”. Another central character in Stevenson’s novel, a loyal lawyer called Utterson, seeks to explain the illness that he believes his friend Jekyll is afflicted by. The use of the personifying verb ‘torture’ highlights the painful effect that the secret ‘illness’ is having upon Jekyll.

I also recall the iconic novel by Mary Shelley, in which an ambitious young doctor, Victor Frankenstein, engages in an unorthodox scientific experiment and ends up creating a monstrous creature called Frankenstein. To me, Frankenstein symbolises the unleashed violence conducted through state and military machinery that now acts beyond moral control.

Figure 2: Frankenstein

Some famous quotes from Frankenstein include the creature’s declaration, “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend,” and Victor Frankenstein’s advice about dangerous knowledge: “If the study which you apply yourself to has the tendency to weaken your affections… then that study is unlawful”. Other notable quotes are the creature’s powerful statement, “Beware; for I am fearless, and therefore powerful,” and his plea for companionship: “I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe”. 

Imagine a world where Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde co-exist with Frankenstein. The world will be confronted with more toxicity than a nuclear aftermath.

Are we not witnessing this in the present times? Unfortunately, we are. A novel/story book can be read and forgotten, but if this story unfolded as being the truth, the so-called civilised and democratic world led by the United States portrays the part of Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde and Frankenstein, symbolising Israel, would be the character unleashing genocide in Gaza.

In both novels, the writer could control the endgame. But if the creator of Frankenstein is Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde, with a bipolar, untreatable disorder – even with the greater imagination of the writer of Frankenstein, he wouldn’t be able to end the story in a manner that we wish was the case. When Dr. Jekyll creates a Frankenstein, he is unable to control the monster, and thus, we are now witnessing this in Gaza.

If I were to rewrite the novel, I would pray to the creator to grant me divine intervention. Such a call for divine intervention is not just a literary flourish—it’s a cry for moral clarity in a world that feels increasingly chaotic. If rewriting the novels is impossible, reimagining our collective conscience is the next best thing.

Uncategorized

‘From one nobel laureate to another’: the embarrassing naivete of Yunus

Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and currently Chief Adviser of the Bangladesh Interim Government, could not contain his proclivity for both publicity and magnanimity when he learned that a Venezuelan politician, Ms. Maria Corina Machado, had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2025. Bangladesh’s leading English language daily, the Daily Star, reported that Yunus was effusive in his praise of Machado. The congratulatory message that he sent reads as follows.

“I extend my hearty congratulations to María Corina Machado on receiving the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her courageous fight for democracy in her beloved Venezuela,” he said in a congratulatory message.

Machado has faced oppression with steadfast resolve, never wavering in her commitment to a freer and more just future for her country and her people, the message read.

As the Nobel Committee rightly stated: “Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended — with words, with courage, and with determination.”

She has dared to imagine a better world and worked tirelessly to make it so, the message added.

There is, unfortunately, a contentious and even dark side to Machado, the apparently fearless fighter for democracy in Venezuela. She happens to be a pro-Zionist, pro-Trump, far-right politician who is happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with notorious Islamophobic racists, such as Marie le Pen of France and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands. This prompted CAIR – a leading Muslim organization – to issue the following proclamation.

“We strongly disagree with the Nobel Prize committee’s decision to award this year’s peace prize to Maria Corina Machado, a supporter of Israel’s racist Likud Party who earlier this year delivered remarks at a conference of European fascists, including Geert Wilders and Marie Le Pen, which openly called for a new Reconquista, referencing the ethnic cleansing of Spanish Muslims and Jews in the 1500s.

“We call on Ms. Machado to renounce her support for the Likud Party and anti-Muslim fascism in Europe. If she refuses to do so, the Nobel Prize committee should reconsider its decision, which has undermined its own reputation. An anti-Muslim bigot and supporter of European fascism would have no place being mentioned alongside the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other worthy winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.”

“The Nobel Peace Prize committee should instead recognize an honoree who has shown moral consistency by bravely pursuing justice for all people, such as one of the students, journalists, activists, medical professionals who have risked their careers and even their lives to oppose the crime of our time: the genocide in Gaza.”

In her own region of Latin America, the reaction to her winning the award was mixed. As AA reports:

“The Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado on Friday drew mixed reactions in Latin America, with some leaders offering praise, strong condemnation by others, Mexico choosing to remain silent.

The announcement of the award had some pointing to her past rhetoric and actions, which were characterized as violent or supportive of foreign intervention.”

Machado’s Trumpian loyalty became evident when she dedicated her award to “the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause.” At a time when there was feverish speculation and intense lobbying for Trump to get the 2025 Nobel Prize for his ostensible role as global peace maker, Machado – the seemingly surprise winner of 2025 – made sure that Trump noted her subservience.

Given the controversy surrounding Machado, why did Yunus decide to issue such fulsome praise for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner? What was his bevy of advisers doing? Alas, this represents embarrassing naivete on the part of Yunus and dereliction of duty on the part of his advisers. Yunus, given his age, is well past his prime and does not seem to engage in due diligence before making public proclamations on global issues. Sadly, someone who heads the government of a Muslim majority country ends up supporting an anti-Muslim racist. Yunus could have simply kept quiet, just as the President of Mexico did.