Author: Staff Reporter

Despite economic challenges such as Brexit, the coronavirus pandemic, and ongoing trade disputes, the global economy is projected to experience significant growth over the next ten years. While these obstacles may create temporary headwinds, experts believe the world will still see steady economic progress. According to projections by the United Nations, the global population will reach 8.5 billion by 2030. Concurrently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that the global economy will grow at a rate of 3.2% in 2024 and 3.3% in 2025.

Global defence spending has also seen a considerable rise. According to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military expenditure increased by 6.8% in real terms, reaching $2,443 billion compared to the previous year. This uptick in defence spending occurred across major regions, including the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

As a result, the distribution of global power is expected to shift from a unipolar system dominated by the United States to a multipolar framework. In this new world order, power will be spread among multiple states, corporations, and non-state actors. This shift will be driven by emerging economies, technological advancements, and evolving geopolitical dynamics. Several key factors will determine which countries emerge as the new global superpowers, including economic growth, military strength, technological innovation, and political influence.

In his “Great Powers Index 2024,” renowned investor Ray Dalio outlined the countries most likely to dominate the global stage in the coming decade. His analysis is based on various metrics, including economic output, military power, trade capabilities, and per capita strength. Dalio’s report highlights that while the United States remains the world’s dominant superpower, other nations like China and India are positioning themselves as major players in global affairs.

Top 10 Countries Expected to Emerge as Global Superpowers

The United States and China are recognized as the two most powerful nations in the world, with the U.S. likely to maintain its position as the leading superpower over the next decade. The United States continues to exert dominance in global financial markets and technological innovation. The U.S. dollar is involved in 85% to 90% of all foreign currency exchange trades, makes up 59% of the world’s foreign exchange reserves, and represents 61% of global stock market capitalization.

China, which ranks second on the list, is rapidly increasing its military strength, boasting the largest naval fleet in the world. It is also a major trading partner for many countries, contributing to its rise as a global superpower. However, China faces significant challenges, including high levels of debt and external conflict risks, which may hinder its progress.

According to Dalio’s index, the top ten countries poised to become global superpowers over the next ten years are:

1. United States – With a total strength score of 0.89 and a per capita strength score of 0.71, the U.S. leads in terms of economic size, military power, and influence in global markets.
2. China – With a total strength of 0.80 and a per capita strength of 0.30, China’s growing military and economic influence put it in second place, though it faces internal and external challenges.
3. Eurozone – The Eurozone countries collectively rank third, with a total strength score of 0.56 and a per capita strength score of 0.43, driven by their economic size and integrated trade.
4. Germany – Germany ranks fourth with a total strength of 0.38 and a per capita strength of 0.54, benefiting from its strong industrial base and influence within the European Union.
5. Japan– Japan secures the fifth spot with a total strength score of 0.33 and a per capita strength of 0.40, supported by its technological innovation and economic stability.
6. South Korea – South Korea ranks sixth with a total strength of 0.32 and a per capita strength of 0.54, leveraging its advancements in technology and manufacturing.
7. India – India ranks seventh with a total strength of 0.30 and a per capita strength of 0.07, reflecting its growing economic output and potential for future growth.
8. United Kingdom– The U.K. ranks eighth with a total strength score of 0.29 and a per capita strength of 0.46, benefiting from its financial markets and military power.
9. France – France ranks ninth with a total strength of 0.27 and a per capita strength of 0.45, supported by its military capabilities and economic influence in Europe.
10. Russia – Russia rounds out the top ten with a total strength of 0.26 and a per capita strength of 0.28, despite facing significant economic challenges and political isolation.

India’s Path to Becoming a Superpower

India, ranked seventh on Dalio’s list, is expected to experience rapid economic growth over the next decade. The country is forecasted to achieve the fastest real GDP growth globally, positioning it as a key player in the future global order. India is in a highly advantageous phase in both its economic and financial cycles, with a relatively low debt burden and strong projected growth.

According to the report, India is set to grow at an average rate of 6.3% annually over the next ten years. This growth will be driven by several factors, including a modest expansion of the workforce, competitive labor costs, high rates of investment, and a favorable cultural environment that encourages economic development. As the country continues to grow, its influence on the global stage is expected to rise significantly.

S&P Global Market Intelligence predicts that India’s nominal GDP will nearly double, reaching over $7 trillion by the fiscal year 2030-31, up from $3.6 trillion in the fiscal year 2023-24. This growth would make India the third-largest economy in the world, increasing its share of global GDP from 3.6% to 4.5%. Additionally, India’s per capita income is projected to rise to the level of upper-middle-income countries, further enhancing its global standing.

In conclusion, the global power dynamic is undergoing a significant shift, with emerging economies like China and India set to challenge the traditional dominance of the United States. While the U.S. is likely to remain the leading global superpower for the next decade, other nations are rapidly gaining strength and influence, leading to a more multipolar world order. Economic growth, military capabilities, technological advancements, and political power will determine the future superpowers in this evolving global landscape.

The Israeli military launched a significant airstrike on Hezbollah’s headquarters in Beirut on Friday, triggering a series of powerful explosions that destroyed multiple high-rise buildings in the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital. This marked the largest attack on the city in over a year, and its repercussions are expected to push the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah closer to a full-scale war.

According to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, the attack resulted in the deaths of at least six people and injured 91 others. Rescue operations continued, and the number of casualties is expected to increase as emergency workers search through the rubble of six demolished apartment buildings.

Sources familiar with the situation, including a U.S. official, revealed that the target of the strike was Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah. However, it remains unclear whether Nasrallah was present at the site during the bombing. The Israeli military did not confirm who was being targeted, and Hezbollah has refrained from commenting on the reports.

After the blasts, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cut short his visit to the United States and immediately returned to Israel. He had earlier addressed the United Nations, where he vowed to intensify Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah. The prime minister’s speech signaled a bleak outlook for the possibility of an internationally mediated ceasefire.

News of the strikes broke while Netanyahu was briefing reporters following his U.N. address. His briefing was abruptly ended when a military aide informed him of the situation. Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, a spokesperson for the Israeli army, stated that the strikes targeted Hezbollah’s central headquarters, which, according to Hagari, was concealed underground beneath residential buildings.

The devastating explosions flattened several apartment towers in Haret Hreik, a densely populated Shiite district in the Dahiyeh suburbs of Beirut. The blasts sent plumes of black and orange smoke into the air, shaking buildings as far as 30 kilometers north of the capital. Footage from the scene showed rescue workers navigating through massive slabs of concrete and debris, with craters visible, one large enough to hold a toppled vehicle. As the chaos unfolded, numerous residents were seen fleeing the area, carrying whatever belongings they could salvage.

Though the Israeli military did not specify the type or number of bombs used, the sheer destruction led some experts to speculate that the attack involved 2,000-pound “Bunker Buster” bombs. Richard Weir, a crisis and weapons researcher with Human Rights Watch, noted that the explosions were consistent with this type of bomb, which is designed to penetrate deep into underground targets.

Following the initial strike, Israel launched a second round of attacks early Saturday morning, also targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut. The Israeli army issued warnings to residents of three buildings, urging them to evacuate before the bombs hit. Israel claimed these buildings were being used by Hezbollah to store weapons, including anti-ship missiles. Additional strikes were carried out in the Beqaa region of eastern Lebanon and the southern city of Tyre.

Over the past week, Israel has significantly ramped up its military campaign against Hezbollah, aiming to neutralize the group’s senior leadership. However, an attempt on Nasrallah’s life, successful or otherwise, would represent a major escalation in the conflict. The U.S. Department of Defense stated that it had no prior knowledge of the attack targeting Nasrallah.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has been in hiding for years, rarely making public appearances. His speeches are typically delivered via video from undisclosed locations. Although the site targeted on Friday evening was located in Hezbollah’s so-called “security quarters” in Haret Hreik, it had not been publicly identified as the group’s main headquarters.

Hours after the strikes, Hezbollah refrained from issuing any statements regarding the attack but instead claimed responsibility for launching rockets at the Israeli city of Safed. In a statement, Hezbollah declared that the rocket attacks were in “defense of Lebanon and its people” and as retaliation for Israel’s bombing of civilian areas. Israel confirmed that a house and a car in Safed were damaged by the rockets, with one 68-year-old woman suffering minor shrapnel injuries.

Israel’s recent military operations have taken a significant toll on Lebanon. The conflict has claimed the lives of more than 720 people, many of them civilians, including women and children, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry. In a particularly tragic incident, an Israeli airstrike on Friday morning in the border town of Chebaa killed nine members of a single family.

The United Nations reports that the fighting has displaced over 211,000 people within Lebanon, with 85,000 taking refuge in public schools and other makeshift shelters. The airstrikes have forced the closure of 20 primary health care centers and disrupted clean water access for nearly 300,000 people.

As Israeli forces move closer to Lebanon’s southern border, a ground invasion remains a possibility. Thousands of Israeli troops have been stationed near the border in preparation for potential ground operations aimed at pushing Hezbollah forces further away from Israeli territory. At the United Nations, Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s determination to “degrade Hezbollah” until its objectives are met, dampening any hope for a ceasefire.

The proposed U.S.-backed ceasefire, which sought to create a 21-day pause in hostilities to allow diplomatic negotiations, now seems increasingly unlikely. Hezbollah has not formally responded to the truce proposal, and Israeli officials appear committed to their military campaign. An Israeli security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted that the campaign against Hezbollah might not last as long as the ongoing war in Gaza, since the military’s goals in Lebanon are more limited. “The goal here is to push Hezbollah away from the border. It’s not as high a bar as Gaza,” the official said.

Hezbollah’s involvement in the current conflict began shortly after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which triggered an almost immediate exchange of fire between Hezbollah and the Israeli military. Since then, the two sides have traded rocket attacks on a near-daily basis, forcing tens of thousands of residents on both sides of the border to evacuate their homes.

Despite the intensified airstrikes, Hezbollah remains defiant. In Tyre, Lebanese civil defense workers recovered the bodies of two women from the wreckage of a building brought down by Israeli bombs. The victims were identified as 35-year-old Hiba Ataya and her mother, Sabah Olyan. “That’s Sabah, these are her clothes, my love,” a man cried out as the bodies were pulled from the rubble.

While Israel claims to have inflicted significant damage on Hezbollah’s military capabilities, the extent of the group’s remaining arsenal is unclear. Hezbollah is known to possess a vast stockpile of rockets and missiles, and their exact capabilities are difficult to assess.

In a show of defiance, Hezbollah supporters held a large funeral for three of the group’s members killed in earlier Israeli strikes, including the head of Hezbollah’s drone unit, Mohammed Surour. Thousands of mourners gathered in Beirut’s suburbs, chanting, “We will never accept humiliation,” as they marched behind the coffins. Addressing the crowd, Hussein Fadlallah, Hezbollah’s top official in Beirut, declared that the group would continue to fight until Israel ended its operations in Gaza. “We will not abandon the support of Palestine, Jerusalem, and oppressed Gaza,” Fadlallah said. “There is no place for neutrality in this battle.”

On September 22, 2024, world leaders agreed on a historic Pact for the Future that encompasses a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. This landmark agreement is the culmination of a long, inclusive process designed to reshape international cooperation for today’s challenges and future demands. It is one of the most comprehensive international agreements in recent history, addressing entirely new domains while resolving issues that have lingered for decades. The primary aim of the Pact is to ensure that global institutions remain effective in a rapidly changing world. As United Nations Secretary-General noted, “we cannot create a future fit for our grandchildren with a system built by our grandparents.”

The Pact reflects a collective commitment to upholding the principles of the United Nations and international law. World leaders presented a clear vision of an international framework that not only keeps its promises but is more representative of modern realities. It draws strength from the involvement of governments, civil society, and other key partners.

“The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations open the door to new opportunities and untapped possibilities,” the Secretary-General said during his remarks at the Summit of the Future. The President of the General Assembly highlighted that this Pact would “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order – for all peoples and nations.”

The agreement spans a wide range of critical global issues, including peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender equality, youth, future generations, and the reform of global governance. The Pact introduces several key deliverables:

Peace and Security

One of the Pact’s most significant provisions is the commitment to reforming the United Nations Security Council. This reform represents the most progressive step toward enhancing the Council’s effectiveness since the 1960s. A major focus of the reform is to correct Africa’s historical under-representation. Additionally, the Pact includes the first multilateral recommitment to nuclear disarmament in over a decade, emphasizing the goal of fully eliminating nuclear weapons.

In space-related issues, the Pact strengthens international frameworks governing outer space, with a commitment to preventing an arms race in space. It also stresses the need to ensure that all nations can benefit from safe and sustainable exploration of space. Furthermore, the agreement aims to prevent the weaponization of new technologies, including lethal autonomous weapons, and affirms that international laws of war must apply to these technologies.

Sustainable Development, Climate Change, and Financing

The Pact is structured to accelerate progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A pivotal aspect of this is the reform of international financial systems to better serve developing countries. This reform includes:

– Providing developing nations with greater influence in decision-making at international financial institutions.

– Mobilizing more resources from multilateral development banks to help these countries meet their developmental needs.

– Restructuring sovereign debt frameworks to allow developing nations to borrow sustainably while investing in their futures, with cooperation from key entities like the IMF, UN, and G20.

– Strengthening global financial safety nets to protect vulnerable populations from economic shocks, through coordinated action by the IMF and member states.

– Speeding up climate change action by delivering more financial resources for adaptation efforts and investments in renewable energy.

The Pact also emphasizes the importance of redefining how human progress is measured. Rather than solely relying on GDP, the Pact advocates for metrics that account for human and planetary well-being and sustainability. Another significant commitment is the introduction of a global minimum tax for high-net-worth individuals. Regarding climate change, the agreement reaffirms the need to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and transition energy systems away from fossil fuels to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Digital Cooperation

The annexed Global Digital Compact provides the first comprehensive global framework for digital cooperation and governance of artificial intelligence (AI). Central to this Compact is the idea that technology should be designed, used, and governed to benefit everyone. The Compact outlines commitments to:

– Connect all individuals, schools, and hospitals to the internet.

– Anchor digital cooperation in human rights and international law.

– Ensure that online spaces are safe for everyone, especially children, through the joint efforts of governments, tech companies, and social media platforms.

– Govern AI through a roadmap that includes the creation of an International Scientific Panel and a Global Policy Dialogue on AI.

– Increase openness in data access, with agreements on open-source data, models, and standards.

This agreement marks the first global commitment to data governance, placing it firmly on the United Nations agenda. Countries are expected to take concrete steps by 2030 to meet these commitments.

Youth and Future Generations

The Pact includes the first-ever Declaration on Future Generations, which proposes practical measures to incorporate future generations into current decision-making. One of the proposed measures includes appointing an envoy for future generations. Additionally, there is a clear pledge to create more opportunities for young people to have meaningful involvement in decisions that impact their lives, particularly on a global scale.

Human Rights and Gender Equality

The Pact underscores the importance of advancing human rights and gender equality. It emphasizes empowering women and protecting human rights defenders. Furthermore, it highlights the need for engagement from diverse stakeholders, such as local and regional governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector, to address global governance challenges.

Implementation and Follow-up Actions

The Pact also includes detailed provisions for follow-up actions to ensure that the commitments made during the Summit are implemented effectively. This ensures that the ambitious goals set forth in the Pact lead to tangible results.

Summit Process and Participation

The Summit of the Future, which resulted in the Pact for the Future, was deeply enriched by contributions from millions of voices and thousands of stakeholders worldwide. Over 4,000 participants, including heads of state and government, observers, intergovernmental organizations, and representatives from the United Nations system, civil society, and non-governmental organizations, took part in the Summit.

Preceding the formal Summit were the Action Days held from September 20-21, 2024. These events attracted over 7,000 individuals representing all sectors of society. During the Action Days, stakeholders made strong commitments to action and pledged $1.05 billion to promote digital inclusion.

In conclusion, the Pact for the Future represents a groundbreaking agreement that not only addresses today’s global challenges but also prepares the international community for the issues of tomorrow. It is a bold, comprehensive effort to reform international systems and institutions so they can better serve the needs of all nations and peoples.

Hezbollah launched several rocket attacks into northern Israel, escalating tensions a day after Israeli airstrikes on the militant group in Lebanon resulted in the deaths of nearly 500 people and left 1,600 others wounded. The airstrikes marked the deadliest day in Lebanon in almost two decades, contributing to growing concerns of a broader regional conflict.

In response to the escalating violence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the people of Lebanon, urging them to leave areas where Israel is conducting military operations. He emphasized that Israel’s conflict is not with the Lebanese people, but with Hezbollah, a militant group backed by Iran. Automated calls, text messages, and emergency broadcasts are being sent out to civilians, warning them to evacuate their homes and relocate to safer areas.

The ongoing exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah have escalated since the conflict in Gaza began, with both sides engaged in a series of retaliatory strikes. However, the past week has seen an increase in Israeli military actions against Hezbollah, leading to heightened fears that the situation could spiral into a broader regional war. The sustained attacks and mounting casualties have left residents of northern Israel and southern Lebanon in a state of fear, forcing many to flee their homes in search of safety.

The Israeli military, meanwhile, has announced that it is preparing for the “next phases” of its operations following the latest airstrikes. Israeli officials have not ruled out the possibility of launching a ground invasion as part of their strategy to neutralize Hezbollah’s military capabilities. In a statement, Hezbollah declared that a “battle without limits” was unfolding, signaling that the group is prepared for a prolonged and intense conflict with Israel.

The potential for the conflict to spread beyond Israel and Lebanon has drawn the attention of regional powers, particularly Iran, which provides support to Hezbollah. In the wake of the Israeli airstrikes, Iran issued a stern warning to Israel, cautioning that there would be “dangerous consequences” if the attacks continue. Iran’s involvement, coupled with Hezbollah’s declaration of an unlimited battle, adds to concerns that the hostilities could ignite a wider war in the region, potentially involving other nations and militant groups.

The violence between Israel and Hezbollah comes as the conflict in Gaza continues to rage on, further complicating an already volatile situation in the Middle East. The war in Gaza, which began several weeks ago, has claimed thousands of lives on both sides and has drawn widespread international condemnation. Despite calls for a ceasefire from the international community, both Israel and Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza, have continued their military campaigns, showing no signs of backing down.

The ongoing Gaza conflict has fueled tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, with the latter launching sporadic rocket attacks on northern Israel in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. In retaliation, Israel has carried out targeted airstrikes against Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon, including the deadly strike that occurred just a day before the latest rocket barrage. These actions have further strained the fragile peace along the Israel-Lebanon border and have sparked fears that the violence could escalate into a full-scale war.

Lebanese civilians, already reeling from the impact of Israel’s airstrikes, now face the additional threat of Hezbollah’s retaliatory actions against Israel. Many residents of southern Lebanon are living in a state of constant fear, unsure of when or where the next attack will occur. The Israeli military’s warning to Lebanese civilians to evacuate has added to the sense of urgency, as thousands of people are now fleeing their homes, hoping to escape the violence.

Netanyahu’s remarks, in which he emphasized that Israel is not at war with the Lebanese people but with Hezbollah, were intended to reassure civilians that Israel’s military actions are aimed at neutralizing the militant group and not targeting innocent civilians. However, the reality on the ground is that both Lebanese and Israeli civilians are being caught in the crossfire, with lives being lost and homes being destroyed on both sides of the border.

As the conflict intensifies, the possibility of a ground invasion by Israeli forces looms large. Israeli military officials have indicated that they are preparing for the next stages of their campaign, which may involve sending ground troops into southern Lebanon to combat Hezbollah fighters. Such an invasion would likely lead to a dramatic escalation in the conflict, drawing in more regional actors and increasing the likelihood of a wider war.

Hezbollah’s readiness for a “battle without limits” suggests that the group is not willing to back down, even in the face of Israel’s superior military capabilities. This determination to continue fighting, combined with Iran’s support and the growing number of casualties, makes the situation increasingly volatile. Iran’s warning to Israel about the “dangerous consequences” of continued airstrikes further underscores the risks of the conflict spreading beyond the current theater of operations.

The international community has expressed deep concern over the escalation of violence between Israel and Hezbollah, as well as the broader conflict in Gaza. Several countries have called for an immediate ceasefire and urged both sides to engage in dialogue to prevent further bloodshed. However, with both Israel and Hezbollah showing no signs of de-escalating, the prospect of a negotiated peace appears distant.

For now, the focus remains on the rapidly evolving military situation on the ground. Israel’s airstrikes, Hezbollah’s rocket attacks, and the looming threat of a ground invasion are all contributing to an increasingly dangerous and unstable environment in the Middle East. The risk of the conflict spilling over into neighboring countries, particularly Syria and Iraq, where both Hezbollah and Iran have a significant presence, is also growing.

As the world watches, the people of northern Israel and southern Lebanon are left to bear the brunt of the violence. Civilians on both sides are being forced to abandon their homes and seek refuge from the ongoing military operations. For many, the fear of what may come next is overwhelming, as the possibility of a broader regional war becomes more real with each passing day.

In the meantime, the Israeli military continues to carry out its operations, while Hezbollah shows no signs of letting up in its efforts to retaliate. The situation remains fluid, and the potential for further escalation looms large. With both sides digging in and preparing for a protracted conflict, the prospects for peace seem increasingly remote, and the risk of a wider regional war grows more imminent by the day.

World leaders have agreed on the Pact for the Future, a comprehensive global initiative that includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. This pact is the culmination of an inclusive and multi-year effort to reshape international cooperation in response to current realities and future challenges. Described as the most wide-ranging international agreement in recent years, it addresses both new and long-standing issues where consensus has been elusive for decades. The primary goal of the pact is to ensure that global institutions can effectively respond to the modern world, a world that has drastically evolved since these institutions were first established.

As United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized, “we cannot create a future fit for our grandchildren with a system built by our grandparents.” This statement highlights the need for international systems to evolve alongside global changes.

The pact represents a firm commitment from nations to uphold the United Nations, international law, and the global system. Leaders outlined a vision for a more inclusive, representative, and effective international system. This vision relies on collaboration among governments, civil society, and other key stakeholders to ensure the system meets its commitments.

“The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations open the door to new opportunities and untapped possibilities,” Guterres remarked at the Summit of the Future. Echoing this optimism, the President of the General Assembly said the pact would “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order – for all peoples and nations.”

Key Issues Addressed in the Pact

The Pact for the Future covers a wide range of pressing global issues, including peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender equality, youth, and the transformation of global governance.

Peace and Security

A notable highlight is the most progressive commitment to reforming the United Nations Security Council since the 1960s. These reforms aim to increase the council’s effectiveness and better reflect the contemporary global landscape. A key priority is addressing the historical under-representation of Africa within the council.

Another significant achievement is the first multilateral recommitment to nuclear disarmament in more than a decade. Nations have pledged to pursue the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

In the domain of outer space, countries agreed to strengthen international frameworks governing space activities. The pact includes a commitment to prevent an arms race in outer space and ensure that all countries can benefit from the peaceful and sustainable exploration of space.

Moreover, world leaders agreed on measures to prevent the weaponization and misuse of new technologies, including lethal autonomous weapons. They affirmed that the laws of war should apply to many of these emerging technologies.

Sustainable Development, Climate, and Financing

The pact aims to accelerate the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It also contains the most detailed agreement ever made at the United Nations on the need for reform of the international financial architecture to better serve developing countries.

Key financial reforms include granting developing nations a greater role in decision-making at international financial institutions. The pact also calls for mobilizing more resources from multilateral development banks to help developing countries meet their goals.

Another critical reform is a review of the sovereign debt architecture to ensure that developing countries can sustainably borrow to invest in their futures. This effort will involve collaboration between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations, the G20, and other global institutions. Additionally, the pact seeks to strengthen the global financial safety net to protect vulnerable populations during economic crises.

To address climate change, the pact outlines a commitment to increase financing for adaptation efforts and investments in renewable energy. Leaders reaffirmed the importance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and agreed to transition energy systems away from fossil fuels to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

The pact also introduces innovative ideas, such as the potential introduction of a global minimum level of taxation for high-net-worth individuals. This could play a pivotal role in financing future development needs.

Additionally, the pact seeks to go beyond traditional economic measures like GDP by developing new methods to assess human and planetary well-being, emphasizing sustainability.

Digital Cooperation

The Global Digital Compact, annexed to the Pact for the Future, represents the first global framework for digital cooperation and artificial intelligence (AI) governance.

A central tenet of the Compact is the commitment to design, use, and regulate technology in a way that benefits all. World leaders pledged to connect schools, hospitals, and all people to the internet. They also stressed the need to anchor digital cooperation in human rights and international law.

Another key aspect of the compact is the protection of children in the online space, with commitments from governments, technology companies, and social media platforms. The Compact also includes plans for a global policy dialogue on artificial intelligence, supported by an International Scientific Panel.

For the first time, the issue of data governance has been placed on the global agenda. Countries have committed to making data more accessible by adopting open-source data, models, and standards. These actions are expected to be fully implemented by 2030.

Youth and Future Generations

The Declaration on Future Generations, another critical component of the pact, outlines concrete steps to ensure that the needs of future generations are considered in current decision-making processes. A proposal to appoint an envoy for future generations has been included as part of this initiative.

The pact also includes a commitment to create more meaningful opportunities for young people to participate in global decision-making processes, particularly in shaping policies that will directly impact their lives.

Human Rights and Gender Equality

The pact reinforces the global commitment to human rights and gender equality. It includes provisions to protect human rights defenders, signaling a strong commitment to safeguarding those who advocate for fundamental rights.

Furthermore, the pact calls for greater engagement of diverse stakeholders in global governance. This includes local and regional governments, civil society organizations, the private sector, and other key partners.

Follow-Up and Implementation

The Pact for the Future and its annexes contain provisions to ensure that the commitments made are effectively implemented. These follow-up actions are intended to hold countries accountable for delivering on their promises.

Summit Process

The Summit of the Future and the development of the Pact for the Future were marked by extensive input from diverse stakeholders. Millions of voices and thousands of organizations from around the world contributed to the discussions.

The summit brought together over 4,000 participants, including heads of state, government officials, representatives from intergovernmental organizations, and civil society members. To broaden participation, the formal summit was preceded by Action Days on September 20-21, which attracted over 7,000 individuals from various sectors of society. During these Action Days, significant commitments were made, including pledges of $1.05 billion to advance digital inclusion globally.

With the adoption of the Pact for the Future, world leaders have set a new course for international cooperation, one that seeks to address both the challenges of today and the uncertainties of tomorrow. The pact’s broad scope and ambitious goals signal a renewed global effort to build a more just, inclusive, and sustainable world for future generations.

Israel is actively targeting Hezbollah strongholds across Lebanon, including strikes in Beirut that reportedly aim at high-ranking militants. Bombs are believed to be concealed in communication devices like walkie-talkies and pagers. In response, Hezbollah has launched rockets and drones into northern Israel, causing widespread damage to buildings and vehicles. Despite this violence, neither party is officially labeling the situation as a war.

Israeli officials insist that they are not seeking open warfare with Hezbollah, asserting that conflict can be averted if Hezbollah stops its attacks and withdraws from the border areas. Hezbollah has made similar statements, declaring it does not wish for war but will continue its assaults until there is a cease-fire in Gaza. These hostilities erupted after Hamas launched its attack on Israel on October 7. Since then, clashes between Israel and Hezbollah have escalated, reaching a peak on Monday when Israeli airstrikes reportedly killed over 490 people, making it Lebanon’s deadliest day since the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.

“If someone had told me or most analysts in summer 2023 that Hezbollah is striking Israeli bases in Israel, and Israel is striking southern Lebanon and parts of southern Beirut, I would have said, OK, that’s an all-out war,” said Andreas Krieg, a military analyst at King’s College London.

The reason this is not being labeled a war yet, according to Krieg, is the absence of ground forces. However, he warns that focusing on that criterion alone might be misleading.

Defining War:

The term “war” is traditionally understood as a state of “open and declared armed conflict between states or nations,” according to Merriam-Webster. Scholars often expand this definition to include large-scale violence involving insurgent or militant groups, as in the case of Hezbollah. However, no single definition can capture the wide variety of modern conflicts, which range from full-scale battles involving national armies to lower-level engagements with non-state actors.

While states sometimes formally declare war, such as Israel did against Hamas, they often avoid doing so in other conflicts. For instance, despite its ongoing invasion of Ukraine, Russia officially refers to its actions as a “special military operation.” Similarly, the United States has refrained from declaring war since World War II, despite its participation in the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan conflicts.

Why Is It Not Being Called a War?

Both Israel and Hezbollah are avoiding the term “war” because each hopes to achieve its objectives without triggering a larger, more devastating conflict. Neither side wishes to be held responsible for escalating the situation further.

“Though tensions are flaring, the situation in southern Lebanon is not that of a full-scale war as both Hezbollah and Israel hope to use limited means to pressure one another,” said Lina Khatib, a Middle East expert at Chatham House.

Hezbollah’s rocket and drone attacks seem intended to push Israel toward agreeing to a cease-fire with Hamas. By continuing its strikes, Hezbollah aims to maintain pressure without appearing submissive to Israeli demands. The militant group has stated that it will cease its attacks only if a cease-fire is reached in Gaza, but that outcome seems increasingly unlikely.

On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed his determination to end Hezbollah’s assaults, saying he will take whatever actions are necessary to allow displaced Israelis to return to their homes. According to Krieg, the Israeli strategy may be to pressure Hezbollah into a negotiated settlement or force it into overreacting, potentially igniting the very all-out war both sides are trying to avoid. “I think the Israelis are trying to either tell Hezbollah, you come to the negotiation table and we’ll settle this through diplomacy, or we’ll push you into a corner until you overreact,” Krieg explained.

What Would an All-Out War Entail?

In the past, analysts have generally believed that any future war between Israel and Hezbollah would closely resemble their 2006 conflict but on a much larger and more destructive scale. Israeli officials have repeatedly warned that in the event of such a war, their military response would be far more devastating. They have suggested that they would not only target Hezbollah but also inflict widespread damage on Lebanon’s critical infrastructure. This concept has been dubbed the “Dahiyeh Doctrine,” named after the southern Beirut district where Hezbollah’s headquarters are located and which was heavily bombed in 2006.

Hezbollah has been building up its arsenal for years and is thought to possess about 150,000 rockets and missiles, some capable of hitting deep into Israeli territory. This massive stockpile, along with Israel’s overwhelming military capabilities, has created a state of mutual deterrence. From 2006 until October of last year, the border between Israel and Lebanon remained mostly quiet, as both sides sought to avoid a catastrophic escalation. However, the current situation is increasingly volatile, and experts warn that the conflict could spiral into full-blown war at any moment.

“We’ve gone up a step, but we haven’t yet made it to the penthouse floor,” said Uzi Rabi, director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. He expressed concern that a ground invasion by Israel might eventually become unavoidable. “At the end, I don’t see there’s going to be any alternative to a ground operation.”

Will Ground Invasion Mark the Start of War?

Should Israel send ground troops into southern Lebanon, it would undoubtedly be seen as a major escalation by many. While a ground invasion might convince most observers that the conflict has crossed into full-scale war, the reality is more nuanced. Even in Gaza, where Israel officially declared war three weeks before its ground forces moved in, the lines have been blurry. Furthermore, Israeli ground operations have been ongoing in the West Bank for decades, yet these actions are not universally considered acts of war. Recent months have also seen Israeli airstrikes on militants in the region, with no formal declaration of war.

It’s possible that even a limited ground incursion into southern Lebanon could allow both sides to step back from the brink of all-out war. However, Lebanon would almost certainly view such a move as a clear violation of its sovereignty and a direct act of war. Lebanon has long accused Israel of infringing on its airspace and occupying disputed areas near the border.

Despite these concerns, it is worth noting that Israel and Lebanon have technically been at war since 1948, a fact that underscores the complex and long-standing tensions in the region. As this latest escalation unfolds, the risk of it transforming into a full-scale conflict remains ever-present, even as both sides seek to avoid that outcome.

In a decisive vote on Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution demanding that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian territories within a year. The resolution, which is a significant move in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was backed by 124 countries. Among the nations opposing the resolution were the United States, Israel, Hungary, Argentina, and others, with 14 countries voting against it. Additionally, 43 nations chose to abstain from the vote.

The resolution follows a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July, which declared Israel’s presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal. The court had urged Israel to end its decades-long occupation of these territories, which Palestinians claim for their future state. In its advisory opinion, the ICJ stated that Israel should withdraw from the occupied areas “as rapidly as possible.” The UN’s resolution now imposes a timeline, calling for an end to the occupation within 12 months.

Palestinian Ambassador to the UN, Riyad Mansour, hailed the vote as a critical moment in the Palestinian pursuit of sovereignty and justice. “This vote represents a turning point in our struggle for freedom and justice,” Mansour said, emphasizing the importance of the international community’s support in the Palestinian cause. The resolution was spearheaded by Palestine, which, though not a full UN member state, has been granted increased privileges, including the right to submit proposals to the General Assembly.

However, Israel’s representatives and allies expressed strong disapproval of the resolution. Danny Danon, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, criticized the decision, calling it “a shameful decision that backs the Palestinian Authority’s diplomatic terrorism.” Danon argued that the vote was biased against Israel and emboldened efforts to delegitimize the Israeli state.

While the ICJ’s advisory opinion and the General Assembly’s resolution carry symbolic weight, neither is legally binding. Nonetheless, these developments are expected to put additional diplomatic pressure on Israel, especially as world leaders prepare to meet in New York for the annual UN General Assembly next week. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are both expected to address the assembly on September 26.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) welcomed the resolution, echoing calls for Israel to comply with international law and withdraw from the occupied territories. Louis Charbonneau, HRW’s director at the UN, stated, “Israel should immediately heed the demand of an overwhelming majority of UN member states to abide by the World Court’s historic ruling on Israel’s decades-long occupation.”

Amnesty International also expressed support for the UN resolution, viewing it as a validation of longstanding demands from Palestinians and international human rights advocates. Agnes Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, commented on the significance of the resolution, saying, “This resolution vindicates long-standing calls from the Palestinian people and many countries around the world, by pursuing the implementation of the ICJ’s historic advisory opinion which confirmed Israel has a legal obligation to end its unlawful occupation of the OPT and its systemic discrimination against the occupied Palestinian population.”

The occupied territories have been a central issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 1967 Six-Day War. In that conflict, Israel captured the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights from neighboring Arab countries. Shortly after, Israel began establishing Jewish settlements in these territories, a move that has been internationally condemned and remains one of the most contentious issues in the conflict.

For Palestinians, the West Bank and Gaza are seen as integral parts of a future sovereign state, with East Jerusalem envisioned as their capital. Meanwhile, Israel regards Jerusalem as its undivided “eternal capital,” rejecting any division of the city. This fundamental disagreement over the status of Jerusalem remains one of the most difficult hurdles to overcome in peace negotiations.

Despite the strong international support for the resolution, Israel’s allies, most notably the United States, continue to stand firmly with the country. The U.S. has historically used its veto power in the UN Security Council to block resolutions it views as unfairly targeting Israel. In this case, though the resolution was passed by the General Assembly, where no nation has veto power, the U.S. cast one of the 14 votes against the measure, reinforcing its unwavering alliance with Israel.

As Israel prepares to face further diplomatic isolation over its occupation policies, the upcoming speeches by Netanyahu and Abbas at the UN could set the stage for the next chapter in the decades-long conflict. The international community will be closely watching to see whether the resolution and the ICJ’s advisory opinion will lead to tangible changes on the ground, or if Israel will continue its current policies in the face of increasing global pressure.

For many Palestinians, the UN resolution represents a rare victory in their pursuit of statehood and an end to the Israeli occupation. Mansour and other Palestinian leaders have long argued that the international community must play a central role in ensuring that Israel complies with international law and halts its expansion into Palestinian territories. The vote, they believe, sends a strong message that the world is not willing to tolerate the ongoing occupation any longer.

On the other hand, Israel views the resolution as yet another example of bias in international institutions. Israeli officials argue that the UN has historically been used as a platform to attack and delegitimize Israel while ignoring Palestinian violence and incitement. Danon’s remarks about “diplomatic terrorism” reflect a broader sentiment in Israeli political circles that the international community often overlooks the security concerns that drive Israel’s policies in the occupied territories.

The resolution’s passage, despite being non-binding, highlights the increasing frustration among many UN member states over the lack of progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Over the years, numerous peace initiatives, including the Oslo Accords and subsequent negotiations, have failed to produce a lasting solution. The UN’s latest move underscores the growing impatience with the status quo and the demand for concrete action to end the occupation.

In the coming months, the spotlight will be on Israel’s response to this renewed international pressure. Whether the Israeli government takes steps to reduce its presence in the occupied territories or continues with its current policies will be critical in determining the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Tuesday, a coordinated attack involving pagers used by Hezbollah members resulted in explosions across Lebanon and Syria, killing at least nine people, including an 8-year-old girl, and injuring several thousand more. The blasts occurred nearly simultaneously, and Hezbollah, along with the Lebanese government, quickly placed blame on Israel for what appeared to be a remote-controlled, high-tech strike.

An American official, speaking anonymously, confirmed that Israel had briefed the U.S. following the operation, in which small amounts of explosives hidden in the pagers were remotely detonated. However, the official was not authorized to discuss the details publicly. The Israeli military has declined to comment on the incident.

Among the injured was Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon. The explosions took place amidst growing tensions between Hezbollah, a group backed by Iran, and Israel. The two sides have exchanged fire across the Israel-Lebanon border since the beginning of the current conflict, sparked by the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7.

The pagers in question were reportedly acquired by Hezbollah after the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, had instructed its members in February to stop using cellphones due to concerns about Israeli intelligence tracking them. A Hezbollah representative, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the pagers were from a new brand, though they declined to specify how long they had been in use.

The Taiwanese company Gold Apollo disclosed on Wednesday that its brand had been used on the AR-924 pagers linked to Hezbollah, but emphasized that the devices were produced and sold by another company called BAC.

The explosions occurred around 3:30 p.m. local time on Tuesday, as people went about their daily activities—shopping, sitting in cafes, or driving through afternoon traffic. The pagers suddenly started to overheat and then explode, creating panic and leaving gruesome scenes in their wake.

While it is believed that most of the victims were Hezbollah members, it remains unclear whether non-members also possessed the affected pagers. The explosions took place mainly in Hezbollah-dominated areas, including a southern suburb of Beirut and the Beqaa region in eastern Lebanon, as well as Damascus, according to security officials. The Hezbollah official, who wished to remain anonymous, confirmed that the group is investigating the incident but declined to share more information.

These pager explosions occurred shortly after Israel’s internal security agency announced it had foiled a Hezbollah plot to assassinate a former senior Israeli security official using a remotely detonated explosive device.

The U.S. government has denied any prior knowledge of the incident. “At this point, we’re gathering information,” said State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller, emphasizing that the U.S. was not involved.

Experts suggest the operation was long in the making, possibly involving the infiltration of the supply chain for the pagers, which were rigged with explosives before being delivered to Lebanon. This hypothesis is supported by the widespread nature of the explosions, which targeted numerous people across different locations with small but deadly blasts.

A video circulating online shows one of the victims, a man shopping for groceries, as the pager at his hip suddenly detonates, sending him to the ground while bystanders flee. At hospitals, which were quickly overwhelmed, victims with missing limbs, severely damaged faces, and deep wounds in their torsos were rushed in. According to reporters from the Associated Press, a car door on a major Beirut road was found splattered with blood, while the vehicle’s windshield was shattered.

Lebanon’s Health Minister Firas Abiad provided an update on the toll during an interview with Qatar’s Al Jazeera network, confirming that at least nine people, including an 8-year-old girl, had been killed. The number of injured reached 2,750, with 200 of them in critical condition. Many of the injured suffered facial, hand, or abdominal wounds.

Among the dead were eight Hezbollah members, according to the group. A Hezbollah statement confirmed that at least two of its members were killed in the blasts, one of whom was the son of a Hezbollah member of parliament. Later in the day, the group announced that six more members had died, though it did not provide further details about the circumstances of their deaths.

In a statement, Hezbollah placed full blame for the attack on Israel. “We hold the Israeli enemy fully responsible for this criminal aggression that also targeted civilians,” the group said, vowing that Israel “will for sure get its just punishment.”

Iran’s state-run news agency IRNA reported that Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani, was wounded in the blasts, though his injuries were described as superficial.

This incident follows Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s previous warnings to members about the risks of carrying cellphones, which he claimed could be exploited by Israeli intelligence to track and target them.

Sean Moorhouse, a former British Army officer and an expert in explosive ordnance disposal, said that based on the video footage of the blasts, the explosive charge in the pagers appeared to be as small as a pencil eraser. He suggested that the devices were likely tampered with before being shipped to Lebanon, possibly by Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency.

Elijah J. Magnier, a Brussels-based senior political risk analyst, shared insights from Hezbollah members who had examined pagers that failed to detonate. According to them, the explosions may have been triggered by an error message sent to the devices, causing them to vibrate and prompting the users to press buttons. This action may have detonated the explosives hidden inside, ensuring that the user was present when the device went off.

Israel is no stranger to operations of this nature. Over the years, it has conducted deadly missions well beyond its borders, targeting key figures from groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Earlier this year, Israeli airstrikes in Beirut killed a senior Hamas official, Saleh Arouri, as well as a top Hezbollah commander. A separate explosion in Iran, also attributed to Israel, killed Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas.

Israel’s expertise in targeted operations is further demonstrated by its alleged involvement in the 2010 Stuxnet computer virus attack, which crippled Iran’s nuclear program, and its use of booby-trapped cellphones to eliminate Hamas militants in the past.

The pager bombings are expected to heighten Hezbollah’s concerns about the vulnerability of its security and communications systems, especially as Israel continues to threaten escalation in the ongoing conflict. Tensions have already resulted in near-daily clashes between Israel and Hezbollah, with hundreds killed in Lebanon and several dozen in Israel, as well as thousands displaced on both sides of the border.

Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the U.N.’s special coordinator for Lebanon, condemned the attack, describing it as “an extremely concerning escalation in what is an already unacceptably volatile context.”

On Tuesday, Israeli officials indicated that stopping Hezbollah’s attacks in the north to allow displaced residents to return home has become a key objective. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant suggested that the conflict’s focus may shift from Gaza to the northern border, warning that time for a diplomatic resolution with Hezbollah is running out.