Baltic Envoys Reinforce Relations in P.E.I.

 By Henry Srebrnik, Charlottetown Guardian

The ambassadors of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania visited Prince Edward Island Oct. 2 to promote Baltic relations with the province. There were meetings with government representatives and the business community on matters of trade. Margus Rava of Estonia, Kaspars Ozolins of Latvia, and Egidijus Meilunas of Lithuania also met with faculty and students at UPEI.

Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine the three countries have been on the frontlines of Europe’s confrontation with Russia. On Sept. 19, three Russian MiG-31 jets flew above Estonia before escorted back to their own side. There have also been drone incursions above their skies.

Canada is very involved in the region. Prime Minister Mark Carney visited Latvia in August. In Riga, he met with the Prime Minister of Latvia, Evika Silina, and announced Canada’s renewal of Operation REASSURANCE for another three years. It remains the Canadian Armed Forces’ largest overseas mission, with approximately 2,000 troops and 400 vehicles of all types currently deployed to defend NATO territory.

Lithuanian ambassador Meilunas called his country and Canada “like-minded nations” and noted that after the First World War Canada recognized the new state. Ottawa never acknowledged Lithuania’s absorption by force into the Soviet Union after 1945 and therefore when it regained its independence Canada was among the first to respond.

Latvia’s Ozolins, too, mentioned that his country continued to exist de jure in the eyes of Canada. “We were captive nations behind not just an iron curtain,” like the east European Soviet satellite states, but, having been incorporated into the Soviet Union itself, “behind an iron wall,” he explained.

Given their past, all three countries spend heavily on defence. Latvia devotes almost five per cent of its GDP for protection, Lithuania will be increasing theirs to almost six per cent, and Estonia is raising its defence budget to 5.4 per cent. But of course, as small countries, they rely mainly on their membership in the European Union and NATO for security against potential Russian aggression. “We need our NATO allies,” Ambassador Rava of Estonia emphasized. Meilunas agreed and also hoped that Ukraine would be allowed to join NATO.

Estonia and Latvia have significant ethnic Russian minorities due to their former status as Soviet republics, but they played down any potential pro-Russian sentiment among them in the current tension between NATO and Moscow, even in cities like Narva, largely Russian populated, on the Estonian border with Russia.

Ozolins stated that of his country’s Russian population, who make up about a quarter of the country, he estimated that no more than some 10 per cent favour Russia, and pro-Russian parties have no seats in parliament. “They are European Russians,” he remarked, and “Putin has given up trying to influence them.” Estonia, too, has seen its Russian population – some 21 per cent -- become more integrated over time. Lithuania has a very small Russian population.

The three Baltic ambassadors emphasized that as their three countries serve as the first line of defence against any potential Russian advances in Europe, they provide an invaluable service for the rest of NATO.

 

The Clash of Civilizations Continues, Like it or Not

 By Henry Srebrnik, Jewish Post, Winnipeg

I’m not being faux humble when I say I consider Niall Ferguson more erudite and better read than I am. He has taught at Oxford and New York University. As for impact? He reaches millions of people. Me? Probably thousands – I hope.

But in a Sept. 11, 2025, article, “Osama bin Laden’s Posthumous Victory,” published in the Free Press of New York, on the anniversary of 9/11, Ferguson admitted that it took him almost 25 years to finally agree that the late Harvard professor Samuel Huntington’s seminal 1993 masterpiece “The Clash of Civilizations” was indeed the correct way to understand our modern world. Huntington later expanded his thesis in a 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. 

I, on the other hand, already agreed with this view — in fact, this was the case even before I read Huntington. I guess it comes down to perspective and “lived experience,” which can trump even sheer intelligence.

Ferguson writes: “Over the past 24 years, I have valiantly tried to see 9/11 differently — not as a civilizational clash between Islam and ‘the West’ but as something that fit better into my own secular frame of reference. Raised an atheist, trained as an economic historian, I felt obliged to look behind what I took to be the facade of religious zealotry.” He goes on: “On reflection, I see that I was overthinking the event. Or perhaps under-thinking it.”

What did Huntington posit, in a nutshell? He suggested that “the fundamental source of conflict” in the world after the Cold War would be “cultural,” and “the principal conflicts of global politics” would be “between nations and groups of different civilizations.” He provided a number of these civilizations: Western, by which he meant Western European Christian and its settler offshoots; East Asian Confucian; Japanese; Islamic; Hindu; Slavic-Orthodox; Latin American; and African. (Some of these categories were admittedly rather vague.) 

Some countries, he contended, had severe internal cultural divisions within them, leading to civil conflict. Lebanon, Sri Lanka, and Yugoslavia, which all dissolved in civil wars, were obvious examples. But Huntington in particular predicted that the “centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam” would become “more virulent,” since Islam and Western civilization were, in his view, fundamentally incompatible.

Huntington didn’t, for whatever reason, divide Islam into Sunni and Shia branches, considering this is an internal quarrel, unlike his separation of the Christian divisions (Catholic-Protestant, Slavic-Orthodox, and a syncretic Latin American). The “African” civilizational category encompassed everything south of the Islamic north African, east African, and Sahel regions of the continent, and seemed to reflect its myriad indigenous religions. And yes, in his conception, Israel stood alone. In his perspective, Israel was not just a country in dispute but the frontline of a centuries-old religious war. 

There were several adjustments over the years, as a reader will notice when looking at the various world maps illustrating his theory on the internet. 

Huntington also foresaw a “Confucian-Islamic military connection” that would culminate in a conflict between “The West and the Rest.” I however see any such alliance as pure pragmatism and one that wouldn’t last, were the “West” to be defeated. There are no cultural affinities between the Muslim world, on the one hand, and the east and southeast Asian Confucian and Buddhist civilizations on the other. They too would eventually come into conflict. 

Amongst the younger generation of “proto-woke Ivy League professors,” Huntington was widely mocked for his “essentialism,” Ferguson notes. But consider, with Huntington’s argument in mind, all that has happened since September 9, 2001.

The Hamas attack on Israel two years ago was essentially an Israeli 9/11. At the same time, Western civilization today is much more divided than it was 24 years ago. The public response to the Gaza War has illuminated these. Whereas older people generally remain more pro-Israeli than pro-Palestinian, younger ones have swung the other way. 

According to an August 6 study by the Brookings Institute, support for Israel in the United States continues to deteriorate, especially among young people. Among Democrats, there has been an increase of 62 per cent to 71 percent with an unfavourable view of Israel in the 18- to 49-year-old demographic. Only nine per cent of those aged 18 to 34 approve of Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Even young Republicans aged 18-49 have shifted from 35 per cent having an unfavourable view of Israel to 50 per cent unfavourable.

In Britain, the Campaign Against Antisemitism surveyed British adults’ attitudes towards Jews. The findings show that antisemitism has risen to the highest levels on record since they began these. Once again, the swing towards antisemitism is more pronounced amongst the young: 45 per cent of the British public believes that Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews, and 60 per cent of young people believe this. Only 31 per cent of young voters agree that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, while 26 per cent of the British public believes that Israel can get away with anything because its supporters control the media. As well, 19 per cent of young people believe that the Hamas attack on Israel was justified.

Huntington, and now Ferguson, would tell you this: the “West” is now unsure of itself and is in ideological disarray. If 9/11 didn’t convince you of that, maybe 10/7 will.

 

Nepal’s Leaders Ousted by Groundswell of Protests

 By Henry Srebrnik, Fredericton Daily Gleaner

Rarely does the Himalayan nation of Nepal make international headlines. It’s often been seen as an idyllic Shangri-La, and the site of the world’s tallest mountain.  But seemingly out of nowhere, young people -- dubbed the “Gen Z” generation -- brought down the entire government of Nepal in just 48 hours.

With at least 72 people killed, the protests, which began on Sept. 8, were the deadliest unrest in the country in decades, and forced Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist, UML), to quit. Official buildings, residences of political leaders and luxury hotels such as the Hilton, which opened in July 2024, were torched, vandalised and looted.

Demonstrators set parliament, the prime minister’s office and other government buildings ablaze. The damage could parallel the toll of the 2015 earthquake, which took almost 9,000 lives, and the financial losses could amount to almost thirty billion dollars.

Nepal’s new interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki has pledged to fight corruption, create jobs and raise living standards. Parliamentary elections will be held March 5.

“The protests reflect the aspirations of the young generation, a growing level of popular awareness and dissatisfaction over the rising corruption,” she said. A former Supreme Court chief justice, Karki is the only woman to have held that post and is also the first woman to lead Nepal.

Of course this didn’t come out of “nowhere.” Such things never do. The protests represented “a wholesale rejection of Nepal’s current political class for decades of poor governance and exploitation of state resources,” stated Ashish Pradhan, a senior adviser at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group.

Growing discontent among ordinary Nepalis has been escalating for nearly two decades due to political manoeuvering at their expense. Embezzlement and nepotism scandals in which leading figures of the government were involved finally caught up with them. The recent ban on social media may have been the tipping point that brought down the government.

Nepal became a republic in 2008, after a Maoist-led civil war that killed more than 17,000 people. But the promised stability never materialised. Nepal’s GDP per capita remained under $1,500, making it the second-poorest country in South Asia, behind only Afghanistan.

After decades of bloody struggle, the establishment of democracy in Nepal in 2008 marked a historic milestone. At a time when Communist parties globally were experiencing setbacks, the seizure of state power in Nepal under Communist leadership ignited renewed hope for the left.

However, in recent years, Nepal’s three major political parties -- the Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), and the Maoist Centre -- have engaged in a game of musical chairs for power. In 17 years, Nepal has had 14 governments, and no leader has completed a full five-year term.

Human rights organisations have accused the government of using force against peaceful demonstrators. Furthermore, the government’s failure to safeguard the rights of minority ethnic groups and Dalit Hindu communities became increasingly apparent.

In the 2022 mayoral election in Kathmandu, the triumph of independent candidate Balen Shah triggered an important change in Nepal’s political landscape. For an extended period, Communist parties had maintained a strong grip on the politics of both the capital and the country. Many believed that their influential role in local elections would persist. However, Shah’s victory challenged this assumption, acting as an early warning signal to Nepal’s Communist leadership.

Shah emerged as a symbol of protest and change. The results demonstrated that voters elected him as a means of rejecting the existing political system altogether. The faith in leftist politics, which had been evident during the 2008 fall of the monarchy, began to wane.

Economic inequality has continued to rise, with an increasing gap between urban and rural areas. In the 2022–23 fiscal year, the poverty rate for those living below the cost-of-living threshold was 18.34 per cent in urban areas, compared to 24.66 per cent in rural areas.

According to World Bank data, 20 per cent of Nepal’s population lives below the poverty line. The income of the richest 10 per cent of the country is more than three times that of the poorest 40 per cent. The urban elite have monopolised most of the wealth and benefits, leaving rural populations neglected. The agricultural sector has fallen into crisis, leading to a decline in productivity.

Many young people have sought to migrate due to a lack of domestic employment opportunities. Although remittances from migrant workers have kept the economy afloat to some extent, they have not succeeded in reducing internal economic inequality. Little wonder those still in the country rose up against this government.

Apart from internal conflicts, Nepal’s foreign policy has also attracted controversy. Governments have repeatedly struggled to manage relations with India and navigate the growing influence of China. Governments have at times capitulated to Chinese influence and, at other times, succumbed to Indian pressure, thereby limiting Nepal’s capacity for independent decision-making. Oli had a decidedly pro-China bent, but Karki reached out to Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India before anyone else.

 The promise of reform that began after the end of the monarchy has devolved into a pattern of unpredictability, intra-party conflicts and widespread dissatisfaction. This failure has eroded the credibility of political leaders.