Category: World

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.

In a significant move to revive the stalled UN Security Council reform process, the United States has called for text-based negotiations to push forward changes, including the expansion of permanent membership. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, reaffirmed Washington’s support for a permanent seat for India on the Security Council and urged for structured discussions to achieve reform.

“The United States supports engaging in text-based negotiations on Council reform,” Thomas-Greenfield announced on Thursday. “It’s actually a big deal. It means we’re ready to work with other countries to negotiate language, prepare amendments, and ready this resolution for a vote in the General Assembly, and ultimately amend the UN Charter.” Her statement is seen as a step forward for many nations advocating for Council reform, a process that has seen little progress for over a decade.

The call for reform has long been championed by nations such as India, Japan, and Germany, who seek permanent seats on the Council. The U.S. has backed this demand, but efforts to negotiate have been hampered by opposition from a small group of countries. These countries have resisted the adoption of a negotiating text, which would serve as a foundation for talks on Council reform. The discussions on this issue, which have taken place under the banner of the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN), have largely been stuck in a cycle of inaction since they began in 2009.

A senior U.S. administration official, in an earlier briefing, expressed optimism that Thomas-Greenfield’s announcement would provide fresh momentum to the process. “We hope to jump-start this process in several ways by calling for text-based negotiations at the earliest possible opportunities,” the official said, indicating that the U.S. is eager to see a resolution put to vote in the General Assembly.

The core of Thomas-Greenfield’s speech at the Council on Foreign Relations centered on the need for two permanent seats for African nations on the Security Council. She emphasized that Africa, home to 1.5 billion people across 55 nations, should have a stronger voice in the UN’s primary peacekeeping body, given that nearly half of the Council’s peacekeeping operations are located on the continent. “It’s what our African partners seek, and we believe it’s what is just,” she said.

Currently, Africa has three non-permanent seats on the Security Council, which rotate among African nations every two years. However, these temporary seats, according to Thomas-Greenfield, do not allow African countries to fully contribute their knowledge and perspectives to the Council’s work. “The problem is, these elected seats don’t enable African countries to deliver the full benefit of their knowledge and voices to the work of the Council,” she noted.

African nations have long called for two permanent seats in addition to the current rotating ones, and their demand has gained prominence as the UN approaches its 80th anniversary next year. As the world looks back on the founding of the United Nations, created after World War II, many have argued that the current structures do not reflect the modern global landscape. In 1965, minor changes were made to the Council, but the UN today, with 193 member states, bears little resemblance to the organization that emerged in the post-war world. Thomas-Greenfield acknowledged this discrepancy, saying, “The world is asking big questions about the United Nations. Whether this institution is representative and legitimate. Whether it’s built to meet the challenges of the day, as well as the challenges of the future.”

“And in particular, Member States are looking at the Security Council,” she added, noting that reforming the Council is at the forefront of these discussions. The push for change is not just coming from Africa and Asia, as Washington has also proposed giving a non-permanent seat to landlocked developing countries. Additionally, the U.S. supports a permanent seat for Latin America and the Caribbean, though Thomas-Greenfield stopped short of endorsing Brazil, which has long sought a permanent seat.

The U.S. administration is cautious about the question of veto power. The senior official who briefed reporters clarified that Washington opposes extending veto rights to any new permanent members. This stance aligns with broader concerns about the veto’s role in hampering the effectiveness of the Security Council. The current five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—each hold veto power, which has often led to gridlock on crucial issues.

The resistance to reform is most notably led by the 12-member Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, spearheaded by Italy and supported by countries like Pakistan. This group opposes the expansion of permanent membership and insists that there should be consensus before any negotiations on the reform text can proceed. This stance has effectively created a Catch-22 situation: without a negotiating text, consensus is impossible, yet UfC demands consensus before allowing a text to be adopted.

India, Japan, Germany, and several other countries have long advocated for the adoption of a negotiating text to advance discussions. The U.S. decision to support text-based negotiations offers a much-needed boost to their efforts. However, the UfC’s insistence on consensus continues to act as a major roadblock, leaving the reform process in a deadlock.

As the UN gears up for its 80th anniversary, the call for reform has reached a critical juncture. Member states are increasingly vocal about the need for a Security Council that reflects the realities of the 21st century, not the mid-20th century. The U.S.’s endorsement of India, Japan, and Germany’s bids for permanent seats, along with the push for African representation, indicates that momentum for change is building.

But for all the rhetoric, the path to actual reform remains fraught with challenges. The Security Council, designed to maintain peace and stability in a post-war world, now finds itself at a crossroads. Nations like India and Brazil, along with African countries, are pushing for a seat at the table, while other states remain reluctant to share power.

As Thomas-Greenfield put it, the questions about the United Nations and its future are big and pressing. And the answers may well determine the shape of global governance for decades to come.

NEW YORK, Sep 13 2024 (IPS) – A cascade of crises endangers our world. Wars conducted without rules, governance devoid of democratic principles, surge in discrimination against women and excluded groups, accelerating climate change, greed-induced environmental degradation and unconscionable economic deprivation in an age of excess are threatening to roll back decades of human progress made by the international community.

This September’s UN Summit of the Future presents a rare opportunity to address these challenges through greater participation in UN decision making. World leaders are convening later this month in New York to agree a Pact for the Future, expected to lay the blueprint for international cooperation in the 21st century.

But civil society’s efforts to ensure an outcome document fit for today’s needs are coming up against diplomatic posturing between powerful states intent on preserving the status quo.

State-centric decisions

The world has changed dramatically since the UN was established in 1945, when a large swathe of humanity was still under colonial yoke. Since then, significant strides have been made to advance democratic governance around the world. Yet decision-making processes at the UN remain stubbornly state-centric, privileging a handful of powerful states that control decisions and key appointments.

Civil society has presented the Pact of the Future’s co-facilitators, the governments of Germany and Namibia, with several innovative proposals to enable meaningful participation and people-centred decision-making at the UN. Proposals include a parliamentary assembly representative of the world’s peoples, a world citizen’s initiative to enable people to bring issues of transnational importance to the UN and the appointment of a civil society or people’s envoy to drive the UN’s outreach to communities around the world. However, these forward-looking proposals have found no traction in various drafts of the Pact, which is being criticised for lacking ambition and specificity.

It’s no surprise that diplomatic negotiations on the Pact between country representatives are being bogged down by arguments over language. As a result of diplomatic wrangling, the draft’s provisions are mostly generic and repetitive.

This is unfortunate, as civil society representatives have spent considerable time and energy over the course of the past year in engaging with Summit of the Future processes. Despite tight deadlines, civil society organisations came together at short notice to submit comprehensive recommendations on the Pact’s successive drafts. Hundreds of civil society delegates participated at considerable expense in the much-anticipated Civil Society Conference in Nairobi, designed to gather inputs to feed into the Summit outcomes.

Overall, the gains made so far have been few. These include broad commitments to reform the UN Security Council and international financial institutions. A significantly positive aspect of the Pact’s draft is a commitment to strengthen the UN’s human rights pillar; many of us in civil society rely on this to raise concerns about egregious violations. However, deep-seated tensions among member states in New York have led to the regrettable removal of references to human rights defenders, who play a crucial role in protecting and promoting human rights. This is evident in the recent Revision 3 draft of the Pact released on 27 August.

Strengthening human rights

Tellingly, the human rights pillar receives roughly five per cent of the UN’s regular budget, forcing any new initiatives to rely on underfunded voluntary contributions. This needs to change. The human rights pillar needs to be strengthened. Doing so would help make each of the three UN’s pillars – the others being peace and security and sustainable development – more strongly connected and mutually reinforcing.

To strengthen the human rights pillar, we outline five priority areas for action.

First, substantial resources should be allocated to the UN’s independent thematic and country-focused human rights experts, who enhance civil society’s impact but are forced to get by on shoestring budgets. Due to limited funding from the UN, the experts are compelled to rely on voluntary contributions to support their vital activities.

Second, an accessible and transparently managed pooled fund should be created to enable better participation by civil society in UN meetings. Many smaller civil society organisations, particularly from the global south, find it extremely challenging to cover the costs of participation in key UN arenas.

Third, accountability measures should be strengthened to ensure follow-up in cases of reprisals against people for engaging with UN human rights mechanisms. The UN’s latest reprisals report shows that reprisals have taken place against over 150 individuals in more than 30 states. This needs to be addressed immediately.

Fourth, the UN’s investigative capacities in relation to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide should be strengthened to ensure justice for victims. The need for this has been made tragically clear by the resurgence of authoritarian rule and military dictatorships around the world, coupled with egregious rights violations in conflicts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen and others.

Finally, the human rights pillar can be supported by ensuring implementation of the UN’s guidance note on civic space. This urges the protection of civil society personnel and human rights defenders from intimidation and reprisals, the facilitation of meaningful and safe participation in governance processes and the promotion of laws and policies to support these goals.

The role human rights defenders and civil society activists play in ensuring peaceful resolution of conflicts, addressing gender-based violence and promoting economic justice – among many other vital issues – is crucial. In calling to strengthen the human rights pillar, the Pact’s pen holders recognise the importance of human rights approaches. They must extend this recognition to include people’s and civil society participation. Failing to do so will result in a missed opportunity to create a transformative UN 2.0 that places people and rights at the centre.

Jesselina Rana is UN advisor at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. Mandeep Tiwana is chief of evidence and engagement at CIVICUS plus representative to the UN in New York.

Source Credit: IPC

A terror plot aimed at Pope Francis during his visit to Indonesia was recently thwarted by local authorities. The visit marked the start of the Pope’s 12-day tour of the Asia Pacific region, which includes stops in Papua New Guinea, East Timor, and Singapore. The 87-year-old leader of the Catholic Church, who has been using a wheelchair due to health issues in recent years, began his journey in Jakarta, Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country.

The plot, allegedly orchestrated by ISIS sympathizers, involved a group of individuals who were arrested on September 2 and 3 after law enforcement was tipped off by concerned citizens. The police conducted raids and discovered weapons, including bows, arrows, a drone, and ISIS-related propaganda materials. Local media, including The Straits Times, reported that these materials were found in one of the suspects’ homes. The group was reportedly infuriated by Pope Francis’ visit to a mosque in Jakarta, a move that they perceived as provocative.

During the Pope’s visit, Indonesian television stations were asked to refrain from broadcasting the Islamic call to prayer, instead focusing on his visit. This decision further enraged the suspects, described by authorities as extremists. The individuals arrested in connection with the plot have been identified only by their initials: HFP, LB, DF, FA, HS, ER, and RS. It remains unclear whether all the suspects were working together or if they acted independently.

Colonel Aswin Siregar, a spokesperson for Indonesia’s counterterrorism unit known as Densus 88, confirmed that the suspects had aired their threats on social media. “We have a mechanism to monitor and filter,” he explained, emphasizing that the authorities were able to act quickly thanks to a tip-off from members of the public. “Densus 88 has taken legal action against seven individuals who made threats in the form of propaganda or terror threats via social media in response to the Pope’s arrival,” Siregar said. The group had also made threats to set fire to locations connected to the Pope’s visit.

Pope Francis, speaking at Jakarta’s presidential palace earlier in the week, condemned religious extremism and called for dialogue between different faiths. “There are times when faith can be manipulated to foment divisions and increase hatred,” he stated. The Pope urged for mutual respect and the elimination of prejudices through open discussions, reinforcing the importance of interfaith dialogue in a country that has the world’s largest Muslim population.

Indonesia has a long history of grappling with terrorism. The country witnessed some of the deadliest terrorist attacks in the early 2000s, including the 2002 bombings in Bali, which claimed the lives of 202 people, and the 2009 attacks on luxury hotels in Jakarta. Islamic extremism, which has plagued Indonesia for decades, has also resurfaced globally, making headlines with threats and attacks in various regions. One recent example includes Taylor Swift having to cancel her performances in Vienna, Austria, following terror threats. Europe was also shocked by a knife attack in Solingen, Germany, adding to growing concerns about a resurgence of ISIS-related violence.

The fear of an ISIS comeback is not limited to Indonesia or Europe. Former CIA chief Michael Morell recently warned that Western countries, particularly the United States and the UK, may face a resurgence of terrorism similar to the events leading up to 9/11. Morell, who was in the White House with President George Bush on the day of the attacks and stood by President Barack Obama when Osama Bin Laden was killed, believes the current global atmosphere resembles the pre-9/11 era.

When asked if he feared another large-scale attack like 9/11, Morell stated unequivocally, “Yes. Absolutely. 100 per cent.” He explained that in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the sense of urgency in the White House and the CIA was palpable, with a collective determination to prevent another tragedy of that magnitude. “We need to do everything we can to protect America,” he said, suggesting that the world needs to regain that same focus and commitment to countering terrorism.

Morell also expressed concern that the UK might be at a higher risk of terror attacks than the U.S. He warned, “The threat to Europe and to your readers is even higher than it is in the U.S.” Morell pointed to previous terror incidents in Western Europe and Russia as examples of the growing danger. Referring to the Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow earlier this year, he highlighted that extremists have already made attempts to carry out large-scale attacks in these regions, raising the risk level for European nations.

As religious and political tensions continue to simmer in many parts of the world, authorities remain vigilant, especially with high-profile figures like Pope Francis traveling to regions with a history of extremist activity. The foiled terror plot in Indonesia serves as a stark reminder of the persistent threat posed by ISIS and other radical groups. Despite the best efforts of law enforcement agencies, the potential for further attacks looms large, especially as extremist ideologies find new platforms and recruits through social media and online propaganda.

Pope Francis’ visit to Indonesia and other parts of the Asia Pacific is seen as an important gesture of goodwill and interfaith outreach. By visiting mosques and engaging in dialogue with leaders of different faiths, he aims to foster mutual understanding and respect. However, as the recent events in Indonesia illustrate, the path to peace and tolerance is fraught with challenges, particularly from those who seek to exploit religious differences for violent ends.

With ongoing efforts by counterterrorism units like Densus 88 and heightened awareness among the public, the threat of terrorism in Indonesia may be mitigated, but it remains a critical concern. The swift actions of Indonesian authorities, based on the vigilance of everyday citizens, likely prevented what could have been a devastating attack during the Pope’s visit. As global terror networks like ISIS continue to evolve and adapt, the international community must remain steadfast in its efforts to counter their influence and prevent further violence.

Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, a 20-year-old Pakistani national residing in Canada, also known as Shahzeb Jadoon, was apprehended on September 4 in Canada. This arrest was the result of a complaint filed in the Southern District of New York. Khan faces charges of attempting to provide material support and resources to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO).

According to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, “The defendant is alleged to have planned a terrorist attack in New York City around October 7th of this year with the stated goal of slaughtering, in the name of ISIS, as many Jewish people as possible.” Garland praised the FBI’s investigative efforts and the prompt action of Canadian law enforcement, stating, “As I said to Canada’s Minister of Public Safety yesterday, we are deeply grateful to our Canadian partners for their critical law enforcement actions in this matter.” He emphasized the importance of protecting Jewish communities and asserted that the Justice Department will continue to collaborate with both domestic and international partners to counter the threats posed by ISIS and other terrorist groups.

FBI Director Christopher Wray commented on the situation, stating, “The defendant was allegedly determined to kill Jewish people here in the United States, nearly one year after Hamas’ horrific attack on Israel.” He praised the FBI’s investigation, saying, “This investigation was led by the FBI, and I am proud of the terrific work by the FBI team and our partners to disrupt Khan’s plan.” Wray reaffirmed the FBI’s commitment to addressing terrorism, noting, “Fighting terrorism remains the FBI’s top priority.”

The complaint details Khan’s activities, alleging that he planned to travel from Canada to New York City to execute a mass shooting in support of ISIS at a Jewish center in Brooklyn. In November 2023, Khan began expressing his support for ISIS on social media and through encrypted messaging apps. He distributed ISIS propaganda and engaged in discussions with undercover law enforcement officers (UCs), confirming his intention to form “a real offline cell” of ISIS supporters. Khan discussed plans for a “coordinated assault” in a U.S. city using AR-style rifles to target Jewish communities.

Khan’s conversations with the UCs revealed his plans to obtain AR-style assault rifles, ammunition, and other materials for the attack. He identified specific locations in the city for the attacks and detailed his plans to cross the border from Canada into the U.S. Khan suggested that “Oct 7th and oct 11th are the best days for targeting the jews” because of potential protests and Yom Kippur.

On or around August 20, Khan shifted his target from an unspecified U.S. city to New York City. He initially proposed several neighborhoods but eventually focused on Location-1, a Jewish center in Brooklyn. Khan planned the attack around October 7, 2024, marking the anniversary of the Hamas attacks in Israel. He asserted that New York City was an ideal target due to its large Jewish population, claiming, “New york is perfect to target jews” and “even if we dont attack a[n] Event[,] we could rack up easily a lot of jews.” Khan expressed his intention to “slaughter them” and provided a photograph of the targeted area inside Location-1.

Khan continued to press the UCs for AR-style rifles, ammunition, and other equipment, including “some good hunting [knives] so we can slit their throats.” He reiterated his support for ISIS and discussed logistical details, such as identifying rental properties near Location-1 and paying a smuggler to assist him in crossing the border. Khan noted that if successful, the attack would be “the largest Attack on US soil since 9/11.”

On September 4, as planned, Khan attempted to approach the U.S.-Canada border using three different vehicles. He was intercepted near Ormstown, Canada, approximately 12 miles from the border.

Khan faces a charge of attempting to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. A federal district court judge will determine his sentence based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

The investigation involves the FBI’s New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles Field Offices. The Justice Department has expressed gratitude to Canadian law enforcement for their assistance. The Department of Justice’s Criminal Division Office of International Affairs is seeking Khan’s extradition from Canada.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kaylan E. Lasky and David J. Robles from the Southern District of New York, along with Trial Attorney Kevin C. Nunnally of the Justice Department’s National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.

It is important to note that a complaint is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Michel Barnier, the former European Union Brexit negotiator, has been named the new prime minister of France after a prolonged period of political deadlock. The appointment comes after weeks of negotiations, as French President Emmanuel Macron sought a candidate who could navigate the challenges of a divided parliament.

Barnier, who led the negotiations for Britain’s exit from the European Union between 2016 and 2019, now faces the complex task of forming a new government. His appointment comes as President Macron continues to grapple with a minority government, attempting to balance the demands of both the left and right factions in the French National Assembly.

Macron’s search for a compromise candidate has been a delicate one, with the president facing resistance from powerful political factions. The left-wing alliance in parliament and the far-right National Rally (RN) party have posed significant obstacles. Barnier, 73, is seen as a candidate who could appeal to both sides. He is considered more acceptable to Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, as well as the moderate faction of the Socialist Party, a key part of the left-wing New Popular Front.

Despite this, Barnier’s appointment has not been without criticism. Jean-Luc Melenchon, the leader of the far-left France Unbowed party, was quick to denounce the decision. He described the new government as “practically a government of Macron along with Marine Le Pen.” Melenchon also called for protests in response to what he perceives as a government too aligned with the right. His opposition highlights the difficulties Barnier may face in achieving unity within the fractured political landscape.

Jordan Bardella, chairman of the National Rally, adopted a more measured tone but made it clear that Barnier’s policies will be closely scrutinized. “We will judge his general policy speech, his budgetary decisions, and his actions on the evidence. We reserve all political means of action if this is not the case in the coming weeks,” Bardella said. The National Rally’s stance underscores the tension Barnier will face as he tries to implement policies in a sharply divided parliament.

One of Barnier’s immediate challenges will be managing France’s legislative agenda, particularly in pushing forward the 2025 budget. The French parliament remains hung, with no single party holding a majority, making the passage of legislation a daunting task. The left-wing New Popular Front, a coalition of anti-capitalists, greens, and communists, won the largest share of seats in the snap elections that concluded on July 7, further complicating Barnier’s path forward.

President Macron’s centrist Renaissance bloc finished second in the elections, followed by the populist National Rally in third place. Macron’s refusal to appoint a prime minister from the leftist New Popular Front during his search for a new leader reflects his preference for a candidate who aligns more closely with his centrist vision.

Barnier’s reputation as a tough and experienced negotiator is well established, especially following his role in Britain’s departure from the EU. His appointment has already raised concerns among pro-Brexit groups in the UK, many of whom view Barnier as a staunch pro-European with a history of advocating for EU interests.

Throughout his political career, Barnier has been a moderate politician with a strong commitment to European unity. However, in recent years, he has adopted a tougher stance on several issues, most notably immigration. Barnier has expressed concerns about what he sees as an out-of-control immigration system in France, a viewpoint that may resonate with right-leaning voters.

While Barnier’s political views are generally aligned with those of President Macron, his recent shift toward tougher rhetoric on issues like immigration may indicate a willingness to cater to more conservative elements within the French political spectrum. For Macron, it was essential to find a prime minister who would not seek to reverse key reforms, particularly the controversial pension reforms that were implemented during his presidency.

One of the significant uncertainties surrounding Barnier’s appointment is how he will approach Macron’s political agenda. It remains to be seen whether Barnier will fully embrace the president’s priorities or seek to introduce his own legislative initiatives. Regardless of the direction he chooses, Barnier will need to negotiate extensively with other political parties to pass legislation, given the fractured state of the French parliament.

The Élysée Palace acknowledged the challenges facing the new government in a statement released following Barnier’s appointment. “This nomination comes after an unprecedented cycle of consultations, and in view of his constitutional duty, the president made sure that the prime minister and its government will have the most stable conditions possible,” the palace stated. The statement reflects the broader concerns about political stability in France, with the government facing the ongoing threat of gridlock.

Barnier’s ability to unite the various factions in the French National Assembly and push forward meaningful reforms will be closely watched in the coming months. His experience as a negotiator will undoubtedly be tested in his new role, as he confronts the complexities of French domestic politics, with left-wing opposition and right-wing scrutiny standing in his way.

The appointment of Barnier also raises questions about the future direction of Macron’s government. As a veteran politician with decades of experience, Barnier is well-versed in the art of political compromise. However, whether he can bridge the deep ideological divides in France’s parliament and effectively govern remains an open question.

In the days ahead, Barnier is expected to present his vision for the future of France in a general policy speech. This address will likely set the tone for his government and provide insights into his approach to key issues, including economic reforms and immigration. It will also offer clues about how closely Barnier intends to adhere to Macron’s political platform or whether he will introduce new proposals.

The coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether Barnier can navigate the political challenges before him. His ability to work with opposition parties and secure support for his policies will be critical in shaping the future of Macron’s presidency. For now, Barnier’s appointment signals a new phase in French politics, with a seasoned negotiator at the helm during a time of significant uncertainty and division.

Nearly 40,000 people died alone in their homes in Japan during the first six months of 2024, according to a report by the National Police Agency (NPA). The report revealed that out of these deaths, around 4,000 individuals were discovered more than a month after their death, and tragically, 130 bodies went unnoticed for a year before being found.

Japan, currently home to the world’s oldest population according to United Nations data, is grappling with the growing issue of elderly individuals living and dying alone. The NPA’s report aims to shed light on this critical issue and draw attention to the increasing number of aging citizens who live in isolation.

Data from the first half of 2024 indicates that 37,227 people living alone were found dead in their homes, with those aged 65 and over making up more than 70% of the total. While an estimated 40% of these individuals were found within a day of their death, the report highlights the concerning statistic that nearly 3,939 bodies were only discovered more than a month after death. Furthermore, 130 people had remained unnoticed in their homes for at least a year.

The report details that the largest group within the dataset were those aged 85 and above, accounting for 7,498 of the bodies found. This was followed by individuals aged 75-79, who accounted for 5,920 deaths, and those aged 70-74, who made up 5,635 of the deceased.

Japanese public broadcaster NHK reported that the police agency will present its findings to a government task force investigating unattended deaths. This highlights the increasing urgency with which Japanese authorities are addressing the issue of elderly isolation and loneliness.

Earlier this year, the Japanese National Institute of Population and Social Security Research projected that the number of elderly citizens (aged 65 and above) living alone will reach 10.8 million by the year 2050. This represents a significant increase from current figures and is reflective of broader demographic trends within the country. Additionally, the overall number of single-person households is expected to hit 23.3 million by 2050, underlining the scale of the challenge Japan faces in managing its aging population.

In response to these demographic shifts, the Japanese government introduced a bill in April aimed at tackling the country’s longstanding problem of loneliness and social isolation, which is partly attributed to its aging population. This legislative effort marks a renewed attempt by the government to address the social and health challenges associated with an increasingly elderly society.

Japan has been trying for years to counter the effects of its aging and shrinking population. However, the rapid demographic shift is proving difficult to manage. Last year, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida issued a stark warning, stating that Japan is on the brink of no longer being able to function as a society due to its declining birth rate. This demographic crisis poses a significant threat to the country’s social and economic stability, and has prompted calls for urgent action to mitigate its impact.

Japan is not alone in facing these challenges. Some neighboring countries are also grappling with similar demographic issues. In 2022, China’s population declined for the first time since 1961, a milestone that has raised concerns about the long-term implications for the world’s second-largest economy. Similarly, South Korea has repeatedly recorded the lowest fertility rate in the world, raising alarms about the future sustainability of its own population.

The situation in Japan, China, and South Korea reflects a broader trend in East Asia, where aging populations and low birth rates are creating a range of social, economic, and political challenges. These countries are now faced with the daunting task of finding ways to support their elderly populations while ensuring sustainable economic growth and social cohesion.

In Japan, the growing number of elderly individuals dying alone underscores the need for comprehensive policies that address both the social and economic dimensions of aging. This includes improving social services, increasing support for elderly individuals living alone, and promoting community engagement to reduce isolation and loneliness.

The Japanese government’s recent efforts to address the issue of loneliness and isolation are a step in the right direction. However, more needs to be done to address the underlying causes of these problems and to ensure that Japan’s aging population is supported and cared for in their later years.

Ultimately, the challenge of an aging population is not just a demographic issue, but a complex social and economic problem that requires a multifaceted approach. Japan, like many of its neighbors, will need to continue to innovate and adapt its policies and practices to meet the needs of its changing population and to ensure a stable and prosperous future for all its citizens.

Russia issued a stark warning to Western nations, cautioning against allowing Ukraine to launch deep strikes into Russian territory using Western-supplied missiles. The Russian government asserted that such actions were akin to “playing with fire” and emphasized that a potential World War Three would not be limited to Europe alone.

Ukraine recently launched an attack on Russia’s western Kursk region on August 6, marking the most significant foreign assault on Russian soil since World War Two. In response, President Vladimir Putin vowed that Russia would deliver an appropriate counteraction to this incursion.

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister and a close ally of Putin for over two decades, criticized the West for allegedly attempting to escalate the conflict in Ukraine. Lavrov accused Western countries of “asking for trouble” by contemplating lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s use of foreign-supplied weapons. “We are now confirming once again that playing with fire – and they are like small children playing with matches – is a very dangerous thing for grown-up uncles and aunts who are entrusted with nuclear weapons in one or another Western country,” Lavrov stated to reporters in Moscow.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, President Putin has consistently highlighted the dangers of a broader conflict involving the world’s most powerful nuclear states. Despite these warnings, Putin has also clarified that Russia does not seek a direct confrontation with NATO, the military alliance led by the United States.

Lavrov further accused the United States of having a misguided perception regarding the potential consequences of a Third World War, saying, “Americans unequivocally associate conversations about Third World War as something that, God forbid, if it happens, will affect Europe exclusively.” He also noted that Russia was “clarifying” its nuclear doctrine in light of recent developments.

Russia’s nuclear policy, as outlined in its 2020 doctrine, describes specific scenarios in which the president might consider deploying nuclear weapons. These situations include responding to an attack involving nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, or even conventional weapons, if such an attack threatens the very existence of the Russian state.

In the wake of the Kursk attack, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy dismissed the Kremlin’s threats of retaliation as mere bluffs. Zelenskyy argued that, due to the restrictions imposed by Ukraine’s allies, his country was unable to fully utilize its available weaponry to strike certain Russian military targets. He called on Western allies to be more assertive in their decisions on how to assist Kyiv in its ongoing conflict with Russia.

Meanwhile, Russia has reported that Western military equipment, including British tanks and American rocket systems, has been used by Ukraine in the Kursk region. Ukraine has confirmed that it employed U.S.-supplied HIMARS missiles to target bridges in Kursk. However, the United States stated that it had not been informed in advance of Ukraine’s plans for the unexpected assault on Kursk, and it denied any direct involvement in the operation.

Despite these denials, Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service, expressed skepticism about Western claims of non-involvement. “We do not believe Western assertions that they had nothing to do with the Kursk attack,” Naryshkin stated. Echoing this sentiment, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov declared that the involvement of the United States in the conflict was “an obvious fact.”

In addition, reports from The New York Times revealed that the United States and Britain provided Ukraine with satellite imagery and other intelligence about the Kursk region following the Ukrainian attack. The intelligence was reportedly aimed at helping Ukraine monitor Russian military movements more effectively.

As tensions continue to rise, the international community watches closely, concerned about the potential for a broader conflict. The West’s continued military support for Ukraine and Russia’s heightened warnings underscore the fragile and volatile nature of the current geopolitical landscape.

Early Sunday, the Israeli military announced it had conducted preemptive strikes against Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon. The strikes were based on intelligence suggesting that the militant group was preparing an attack. In a video posted on X, Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari justified the strikes as an act of “self-defense” to “remove these threats.”

Hezbollah responded by launching rockets and drones into Israel on Sunday. The group stated that the action was in retaliation for the killing of one of its senior commanders in July. Israel’s military reported that Hezbollah fired “over 150 projectiles” toward Israel.

The escalation of violence comes at a time when Egypt is hosting a new round of cease-fire negotiations between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group. These talks aim to broker a cease-fire in Gaza after nearly 11 months of conflict, which started with a surprise attack on Israel on October 7. Delegations from Israel and international mediators, including the U.S., were in Cairo for discussions scheduled to resume on Sunday.

In a statement during his weekly cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized that the strikes against Hezbollah were not “the end of the story,” according to the Times of Israel. Netanyahu added that the operation was “another step on the path to changing the situation in the north and returning our residents safely to their homes.” He also addressed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, indicating that Israel’s actions were a clear signal of its intent to secure its northern region.

Iran has been a significant supporter of both Hezbollah and Hamas, providing them with financial resources and weaponry. In a public address, Nasrallah explained that Hezbollah had delayed its retaliatory attack against Israel due to recent Israeli and U.S. military activity in the region, as reported by The Guardian. He specified that Hezbollah’s target was an Israeli military intelligence base near Tel Aviv, rather than civilian infrastructure, and stated that their attack commenced half an hour after Israel’s preemptive strikes.

The Lebanese health ministry reported that three people were killed in the strikes in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Israel’s military confirmed that an Israeli soldier aboard a Navy vessel was killed and two others were injured during the Hezbollah attack, according to the Times of Israel. In retaliation, the Israeli military stated it had targeted more than 40 Hezbollah positions and destroyed “thousands of Hezbollah rocket launcher barrels aimed for immediate fire toward northern and central Israel.”

Hezbollah and Iran had issued threats to attack Israel following the deaths of key figures last month: Hezbollah official Fuad Shukr in Beirut and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Despite the rising tensions, officials in Israel, Lebanon, and other involved nations appeared cautious about letting Sunday’s hostilities escalate into a broader conflict.

Nasrallah mentioned that Hezbollah would “assess the impact of today’s operation” and hinted that further actions might follow if the group’s leadership deemed the initial attack insufficient. This ongoing threat underscores the volatile nature of the situation.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant had a discussion with U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin about the critical need to avoid regional escalation and to collaborate on ensuring Israel’s defense and maintaining regional stability. In a separate statement, Austin expressed support for Israel’s right to self-defense and announced that two U.S. carrier strike groups would remain in the region in light of the renewed tensions.

The situation remains highly fluid, with both sides showing a readiness to engage further if necessary. The presence of U.S. military assets in the region reflects the seriousness with which Washington views the escalating conflict and its potential for broader regional implications. As of now, diplomatic efforts, particularly those being conducted in Cairo, will be crucial in determining whether this latest round of violence escalates or subsides.

A senior member of the Janata Dal (United), a significant ally in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, has joined leaders from the Opposition parties—Congress, Samajwadi Party (SP), and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)—in calling for the Indian government to halt the supply of arms and ammunition to Israel. The call comes amid escalating tensions following Israel’s invasion of Gaza after the deadly attacks by the Palestinian militant group Hamas in October last year. These leaders, including several parliamentarians, issued a joint statement condemning what they described as “ongoing Zionist aggression and the heinous genocide of the Palestinian people by Israel.” They argued that India “cannot be complicit” in these actions.

The statement was released after a lunch meeting in New Delhi with Mohammed Makram Balawi, the Secretary General of the League of Parliamentarians for Al Quds. During the meeting, Balawi discussed in detail Israel’s alleged violations of international law. The meeting was co-organized by K C Tyagi, JD(U) General Secretary, and Javed Ali Khan, a Rajya Sabha MP from SP. Other signatories to the statement included SP Lok Sabha MP Mohibullah Nadvi, former MP and Rashtrawadi Samaj Party’s ex-president Mohammed Adeeb, AAP MP Sanjay Singh, AAP MLA Pankaj Pushkar, Congress spokesperson Meem Afzal, and former Lok Sabha MP Kunwar Danish Ali from the Congress.

The joint statement declared, “We, the undersigned, unequivocally condemn the ongoing Zionist aggression and the heinous genocide of the Palestinian people by Israel. This brutal assault is not only an affront to humanity but also a gross violation of international law and the principles of justice and peace.” The leaders urged the Indian government to stop supplying arms and ammunition to Israel, emphasizing, “As a nation that has always championed the cause of justice and human rights, India cannot be complicit in this genocide.”

The signatories invoked the legacies of Mahatma Gandhi and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to highlight India’s historical support for Palestine. They noted that India was the first non-Arab country to recognize Palestine in 1988 and has consistently supported the Palestinian people’s right to “self-determination, sovereignty, and liberation.” The statement added, “We stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine and call upon the Government of India and the international community to act swiftly to implement the UNSC resolutions and to end this aggression and ensure peace and justice for the victims of the ongoing genocide in Palestine.”

Since the conflict began in October last year, India has maintained a balanced position. While condemning Hamas, India has also urged Israel to respect international humanitarian law. In October, India abstained from voting in the UN General Assembly on the Israel-Hamas war. Amid the Opposition’s criticism of the government, the BJP has maintained that India’s stance on the Israel-Palestine issue has been “steadfast and consistent.” The party has also warned that those who choose to “side with terror” do so at their own risk.

Commenting on JD(U)’s stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, K C Tyagi told The Indian Express, “Since the time of the Janata Party, we have been in support of Palestine. The Indian government, including that of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, has also supported the Palestinian cause. We want the killing of elderly, women, and children to stop in Gaza and also want UN resolutions regarding Israel and Palestine to be respected.”

The participation of two Congress leaders in the joint statement comes against the backdrop of Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra’s sustained criticism of the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. This is noteworthy given the Congress party’s historically “measured stance” on the issue.

In a statement released in July, Priyanka framed the conflict as a struggle between “barbarism and civilization.” She wrote on X (formerly Twitter), “It is no longer enough to speak up for the civilians, mothers, fathers, doctors, nurses, aid workers, journalists, teachers, writers, poets, senior citizens, and the thousands of innocent children who are being wiped out day after day by the horrific genocide taking place in Gaza.” She continued, “It is the moral responsibility of every right-thinking individual, including all those Israeli citizens who do not believe in hatred and violence, and every government in the world to condemn the Israeli government’s genocidal actions and force them to stop. Their actions are unacceptable in a world that professes civility and morality. Instead, we are subjected to the image of the Israeli Prime Minister being given a standing ovation in the US Congress.”

Last October, Priyanka also accused Israel of violating international laws. She remarked, “There is no international law that has not been trampled upon. There is no such limit which has not been crossed. There is no such rule which has not been flouted… When will humanity wake up? After losing how many lives. After sacrificing how many children. Does the consciousness of being human remain? Did it ever exist? Even after the killing of 7,000 people in Gaza, the cycle of bloodshed and violence has not stopped. Out of these 7,000 people, 3,000 were innocent children.”

The joint statement and calls for a halt to arms supplies to Israel reflect the growing tension within the NDA and signal potential discord between the BJP and its allies. The involvement of senior leaders from JD(U), a key ally, adds a significant dimension to the ongoing political debate over India’s foreign policy stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The government’s response to these demands will be closely watched, especially given the historical context of India’s support for Palestinian rights and its diplomatic ties with Israel.

For decades, nuclear power plants have enjoyed protection from attacks even in wartime, as stipulated by the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. This protocol mandates that nuclear facilities should not be targeted, even in pursuit of strategic military advantages. However, this long-held taboo was breached recently, setting a perilous precedent as Moscow and Kyiv disregard the sanctity of nuclear exclusion zones.

Last week, the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant exemplified this dangerous shift. Reports emerged that Russian troops had set tire fires beneath one of the plant’s cooling towers in response to Ukraine’s incursion into its territory. This incident underscores President Vladimir Putin’s readiness to use nuclear threats as a means of provocation.

Legally, nuclear power plants are always classified as civilian infrastructure. Endangering these facilities can lead to widespread blackouts, compromise essential services like hospitals, and increase dependence on environmentally harmful fossil fuels. As tensions rise with a potential conflict between Israel and Iran, there is an urgent need to ensure that the Ukraine conflict does not set a precedent for endangering nuclear energy as a strategic pawn.

Calls have been made for new legal and political frameworks to safeguard nuclear power stations during wartime. However, there is concern that new legislation could weaken the existing Geneva Conventions and complicate legal adherence, potentially allowing rogue states to selectively follow regulations.

Historically, the protection of nuclear facilities was universally accepted as fundamental. The legal frameworks of major powers like Russia, Israel, and the United States acknowledge these facilities as protected zones. Yet, on March 4, 2022, when Russian forces attacked the Zaporizhzhia plant, they not only provoked international outrage but also violated their own national policies.

Following this, Russia assaulted the decommissioned Chernobyl nuclear plant and its sarcophagus. By March 9, Chernobyl had lost external power due to the fighting and had to rely on backup power sources. Although the site has since returned to Ukrainian control, Zaporizhzhia remains under Russian occupation.

What can be done to address this situation? Shutting down nuclear energy production entirely is neither realistic nor sensible. Presently, nuclear reactors supply 50 percent of Ukraine’s domestic energy, with four being of Russian design and located within Russian-occupied areas.

Nuclear power stations are designed to endure terrorist attacks and aircraft strikes, but they are not equipped for the repeated accidental strikes and environmental damages that can occur during prolonged conflicts. If Russia fails to maintain Zaporizhzhia properly, there is a significant risk that accidents or counterattacks could release hazardous isotopes such as Iodine, Caesium, and Strontium into both Russia and Ukraine.

Russia’s reckless behavior poses a threat to the safety and security of Eastern Europe. Putin’s actions against Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure represent an unprecedented breach of international humanitarian law, a law that has traditionally been respected even among adversarial states. For instance, in 1988, India and Pakistan, despite their historical tensions, agreed to exclude nuclear installations from attack to prevent the catastrophic risks associated with targeting such facilities.

In response to the seizure of Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine has called for sanctions against Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation. However, such measures could harm the broader European energy infrastructure. The European Union relies on Russian fuel for fourteen of its nuclear reactors, and the global nuclear industry is not yet equipped to address this shortfall.

The end of Europe’s reliance on Russian nuclear resources could send a strong message that exploiting nuclear power plants during warfare carries severe consequences. Nevertheless, sanctions are currently impractical without a viable alternative.

There is a glimmer of hope in the form of diversifying Europe’s nuclear fuel sources. Efforts are underway to develop nuclear fuel conversion, enrichment, and fabrication capabilities outside of Russia. This transition is already underway, with European power stations forging new long-term contracts with non-Russian suppliers. The shift away from Russian dependency is opening new economic opportunities in the sector, exemplified by collaborations between companies like Westinghouse and Enusa to produce fuel for Russian-designed reactors, effectively reducing Moscow’s influence.

Ultimately, Europe’s move away from Russian nuclear resources should signal that exploiting nuclear facilities during conflicts will have significant repercussions. It is imperative for the international community to act decisively and restore the long-standing safeguards around nuclear energy infrastructure in conflict zones. Both Moscow and Kyiv must cease their attacks that endanger nuclear infrastructure and commit to upholding the principles that have historically prevented disaster.

A recent study has found that Americans continue to have the shortest life expectancy among English-speaking countries. The research, published in the BMJ Open journal, highlights that people in the United States are more likely to die at younger ages due to accidental deaths, homicides, and chronic diseases.

In contrast, Australians enjoy the longest life expectancy of any English-speaking nation, despite living in a country known for its dangerous wildlife, including sharks, spiders, and snakes. On average, Australian women live nearly four years longer than their American counterparts, while Australian men outlive American men by about five years.

The study also found that the United States lags behind other English-speaking nations such as Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand in terms of life expectancy. The researchers suggest that these findings should serve as motivation for Americans to set and achieve better health goals.

“Yes, we’re doing badly, but this study shows what can we aim for,” said Jessica Ho, a senior researcher and associate professor of sociology and demography at Penn State. “We know these gains in life expectancy are actually achievable because other large countries have already done it.”

The researchers analyzed data from the World Health Organization and the international Human Mortality Database, comparing life expectancy across English-speaking nations. The data revealed that the United States has consistently ranked last in life expectancy among these countries since the early 1990s.

Currently, American women have an average life expectancy of 81.5 years, while men have a life expectancy of 76.5 years. Meanwhile, the Irish have seen the largest improvements in life expectancy, with men’s lifespans increasing by about eight years and women’s by more than 6.5 years.

The study also pointed out that life expectancy within the United States varies significantly depending on the state in which a person lives. States like California and Hawaii have some of the highest life expectancies in the country, with women living 83 to 84 years and men living 77.5 to 78.4 years on average.

On the other hand, states in the American South have some of the lowest life expectancies observed among all the nations in the study, with women living an average of 72.6 to 80 years and men living an average of 69.3 to 74.4 years.

“One of the main drivers of why American longevity is so much shorter than in other high-income countries is our younger people die at higher rates from largely preventable causes of death, like drug overdose, car accidents and homicide,” said Ho.

She also noted that middle-aged Americans, particularly those aged 45 to 64, have higher death rates from drugs, alcohol, and chronic illnesses such as heart disease. “Some of the latter could be related to sedentary lifestyle, high rates of obesity, unhealthy diet, stress and a history of smoking,” Ho explained. “It’s likely that these patterns of unhealthy behaviors put Americans at a disadvantage in terms of their health and vitality.”

Australia’s success in achieving the highest life expectancy among English-speaking nations is attributed to several factors. Ho pointed out that despite being a large country where many people use cars for transportation and own firearms, Australia has implemented policies like gun control laws that have significantly reduced gun deaths and homicides. This, in turn, has helped Australia attain a high ranking in life expectancy.

“What the study shows is that a peer country like Australia far outperforms the U.S. and was able to get its young adult mortality under control,” Ho said. “It has really low levels of gun deaths and homicides, lower levels of drug and alcohol use and better performance on chronic diseases, the latter of which points to lifestyle factors, health behaviors and health care performance.”

In conclusion, Ho emphasized that Australia serves as a model for the United States, demonstrating how Americans can improve their life expectancy and reduce geographic inequality in health outcomes. “Australia is a model for how Americans can do better and achieve not only a higher life expectancy but also lower geographic inequality in life expectancy,” she said.

This study sheds light on the disparities in life expectancy between the United States and other English-speaking nations, offering insights into how public health strategies and policies could be improved to enhance the longevity and well-being of Americans.

The United States is on high alert, anticipating possible significant attacks by Iran or its proxies in the Middle East as soon as this week, according to John Kirby, the White House national security spokesperson. Kirby announced this heightened state of readiness on Monday, emphasizing the seriousness of the potential threat.

The U.S. has ramped up its military presence in the region, aligning with Israel’s concerns about a possible retaliatory strike orchestrated by Iran. This increased vigilance comes in the wake of accusations from both Iran and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, who blame Israel for the assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran last month.

Kirby elaborated on the shared concerns between the U.S. and Israel, stating, “We share the same concerns and expectations that our Israeli counterparts have with respect to potential timing here. Could be this week.” This statement underscores the urgency of the situation, suggesting that an attack could be imminent. He further stressed the need for preparedness, noting, “We have to be prepared for what could be a significant set of attacks.”

Israel has been on edge since last month when a missile strike claimed the lives of 12 young people in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. In retaliation, Israel launched an operation that resulted in the death of a senior Hezbollah commander in Beirut. The situation escalated further the following day when Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, was assassinated in Tehran. This assassination has led to Iranian vows of retaliation against Israel, adding to the already volatile situation in the region.

Kirby expressed the U.S.’s stance on the situation, saying, “We obviously don’t want to see Israel have to defend itself against another onslaught, like they did in April. But, if that’s what comes at them, we will continue to help them defend themselves.” This statement highlights the U.S.’s commitment to supporting Israel in the face of potential aggression.

In a related move, the Pentagon announced on Sunday that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had ordered the deployment of a guided missile submarine to the Middle East. Additionally, the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group has been directed to accelerate its deployment to the region. These actions are part of a broader strategy to deter potential attacks and to reinforce the U.S. military presence in the area.

However, a U.S. official disclosed to Reuters that the Lincoln carrier strike group is currently near the South China Sea, and it would likely take over a week to reach the Middle East. This timeline suggests that while preparations are underway, the full deployment of U.S. forces to the region will take some time.

The anticipation of a widening conflict in the Middle East has already had an impact on global markets. On Monday, oil prices surged by more than 3%, marking the fifth consecutive session of rising prices. This increase is driven by concerns that an escalation in Middle Eastern tensions could disrupt global crude supplies, leading to tighter market conditions.

Meanwhile, Israeli forces continue their operations near the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis. These military activities are ongoing despite international efforts to broker a ceasefire and prevent the conflict from expanding into a larger regional war involving Iran and its allied groups.

The situation remains fluid, with diplomatic efforts aimed at de-escalating tensions running parallel to military preparations. The U.S. and its allies are closely monitoring developments, aware that any misstep could lead to a broader conflict that could have far-reaching consequences not only in the Middle East but also globally.

As the week progresses, the world watches with bated breath, aware that the region is on the brink of a potentially devastating conflict. The U.S.’s increased military posture and its close coordination with Israel signal a readiness to respond to any threat, but the hope remains that diplomacy will prevail and avert a new wave of violence in the region.

In a bid to address the ongoing violence against Hindus and other minority groups in Bangladesh, interim leader Muhammad Yunus has scheduled a crucial meeting with Hindu students and community representatives on Monday. The interim government indicated that the dialogue would center on resolving the current crisis and ensuring the safety and security of the Hindu population.

Reports indicate that minority communities in Bangladesh have experienced at least 205 incidents of violence across 52 districts since the fall of the Sheikh Hasina-led government on August 5. “The attacks on religious minorities in some places have been noted with grave concern,” the interim government stated on Sunday. This marked the administration’s first official communication since the new cabinet members were sworn in.

In light of the escalating situation, minority groups have been vocally demanding the introduction of a minority protection law to secure their rights. A group of Hindu students has compiled an eight-point list of demands, which they plan to present to Yunus during the meeting.

Among their demands are the establishment of a fast-track tribunal for swift prosecution of cases involving attacks on Hindus, the urgent passing of a minority protection law, upgrading the Hindu Religious Welfare Trust to a foundation, modernizing the Pali Education Board, declaring a five-day holiday during the Sharadiya Durga Puja, and creating a Ministry of Minority Affairs.

Muhammad Yunus has previously condemned the violence against minority communities, labeling the attacks as “heinous.” He has also called on the youth to actively protect Hindu, Christian, and Buddhist families.

Social Security, established in 1935, has become a vital safety net for Americans approaching retirement and their families. It’s a program that has integrated deeply into the lives of millions and is viewed as essential. Despite its importance, members of Congress and the Senate are hesitant to alter it, even though projections suggest its funding might be depleted by 2037.

To provide some context, approximately $1.5 trillion in Social Security benefits will be distributed monthly to around 68 million Americans and over 67 million beneficiaries in 2024, operating under a budget of $14.2 billion. The complexity of the Social Security Administration’s Program Operations Manual System, which spans over 20,000 pages, underscores its status as a sensitive topic in American politics.

As Americans grapple with economic challenges, including inflation, many are exploring strategies to protect their wealth. From considering investments in tangible assets to securing life insurance without extensive medical tests, individuals are seeking ways to secure their financial futures. Additionally, financial moves that can quickly elevate one’s net worth are becoming increasingly popular.

In the realm of Social Security reform, there is a divide between political parties. Some Republicans are proposing an increase in the full retirement age from 67 to 70, while Democrats are advocating for higher contributions from the wealthy to support the program. Given these differing perspectives, it might be helpful to examine how retirement systems in other countries operate.

United Kingdom: National Insurance System

The UK’s National Insurance system, which functions similarly to social security, was introduced in 1912 and is managed by the Department for Work and Pensions. As of 2021, it oversaw an expenditure of 220 billion pounds (approximately $280 billion USD), making it the largest government program in the UK.

Both employers and employees contribute a minimum of 8% of salaries to this system, which is notably lower than the 12.4% contribution rate in the U.S. Currently, the state pension age in the UK is 66, but it is set to rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028, with the possibility of reaching 68 in the coming years, depending on parliamentary decisions.

For those eligible to receive the full pension, the UK’s State Pension provides 221.20 pounds per week, which translates to over $1,125 USD monthly. In contrast, if someone in the U.S. were to retire at 70 in 2024, the maximum monthly benefit would be $4,873 USD, significantly higher than in the UK.

India: Employees’ Provident Fund

In India, the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) manages the Employees’ Provident Fund, where both employers and employees contribute 12% of the employee’s salary. However, navigating the system can be challenging, as evidenced by the 427 questions listed on its FAQ page, which would take more than 35 hours to read through if one spent 5 minutes on each answer.

India’s Employees’ Provident Fund covers only a small segment of the organized workforce, specifically those in a direct and regular employer-employee relationship. This means that out of a labor force of 400 million, only about 35 million people are covered for old-age income protection, according to Dezan Shira and Associates.

For those eligible, benefits can be accessed as early as age 50, with full pension available at 58. In 2023, it was reported that employees receive around 38% of their last salary as a pension.

Canada: Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan

Canada’s retirement system involves contributions of 11.9% of a salary, divided equally between employer and employee. The country supports retirees through two primary programs: Old Age Security (OAS) and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).

OAS is a monthly payment available to those 65 and older, with the amount based on the number of years lived in Canada after turning 18. For those aged 65 to 74, the maximum monthly OAS payment is $718.33 CAD, and it increases to $790.16 CAD for those 75 and older, which is approximately $518 and $570 USD, respectively.

The CPP provides a taxable monthly benefit that replaces part of an individual’s income upon retirement and continues for life. While the standard retirement age for CPP is 65, individuals can start receiving it as early as 60 or as late as 70. In 2024, the maximum monthly amount for those starting their CPP pension at 65 is $1,364.60 CAD, though the average monthly payment as of April was $816.52 CAD, equivalent to $984 and $589 USD, respectively. This is still lower than the maximum benefit available in the U.S.

Potential Reforms in the U.S.

One potential solution for the United States, inspired by international trends, is to raise the retirement age. Denmark, for instance, plans to increase its retirement age from 66 to 68 by 2030 and to 69 by 2035. Similarly, Germany will raise its retirement age to 67 by 2031.

However, there is no straightforward solution to the looming issue of a depleting Social Security fund. Any resolution is likely to be contentious, with options including benefit cuts or reduced spending, which could lead to a decline in the quality of retirement life. Alternatively, increasing taxes on higher income brackets might also be an unpopular choice. What is clear, though, is that inaction over the next decade could jeopardize the security of those nearing retirement.

In a devastating escalation of violence, at least 93 Palestinians were killed in an Israeli airstrike targeting a school and mosque in Gaza that was sheltering displaced civilians, as reported by local authorities.

According to the Gaza Civil Defense, the strike occurred during dawn prayers at the Al-Tabi’in compound, located in the Al-Daraj neighborhood of eastern Gaza City, overnight into Saturday. Israel confirmed it had carried out the strike, asserting that Hamas operatives were using the location as a base.

“We recovered at least 90 people who had been killed,” stated Mahmoud Basal, spokesperson for Gaza Civil Defense, in an interview with CNN. He further described the horrific scene, saying, “many of them are torn apart, many are still unidentified.”

Videos viewed by CNN depict the aftermath of the strike, showing numerous bodies scattered across the site. Eyewitnesses reported that there was no prior warning before the attack took place.

Fares Afana, director of ambulance and emergency services in northern Gaza, emphasized the civilian nature of the casualties. “All of these people who were targeted were civilians, unarmed children, the elderly, men, and women,” he said.

A bereaved man who lost several family members in the strike expressed his anguish, saying, “These were innocent people praying… where is the entire world?”

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed that the compound was targeted by its air force, stating that the strike precisely targeted “Hamas terrorists operating within a Hamas command and control center embedded” in the building.

The IDF also claimed that various measures were taken to minimize civilian casualties, including the use of precise munitions, aerial surveillance, and intelligence gathering. However, when CNN requested evidence to support the IDF’s assertion that the site housed a Hamas command and control center, the military stated that it had intelligence indicating that around 20 Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters were operating from the building. The IDF also disputed the death toll reported by Gazan authorities, though CNN was unable to independently verify these figures.

This incident marks the fifth time since last Sunday that the Israeli military has struck a school in Gaza, according to previous reports by CNN. The UN Human Rights Office expressed its alarm over the “unfolding pattern” of strikes on educational institutions in Gaza. In a statement issued on August 5th, the office noted that “such attacks are escalating.”

The ongoing Israeli military campaign in Gaza has resulted in the deaths of nearly 40,000 Palestinians and injuries to over 90,000, as reported by Gaza’s Ministry of Health. As of early July, nearly 2 million people in Gaza had been displaced—almost the entire population of the enclave—according to United Nations data.

The Israeli military offensive began on October 7th, following an attack by the militant group Hamas on southern Israel, which led to the deaths of at least 1,200 people and the abduction of over 250 others, according to Israeli authorities.

Mahmoud Basal mentioned that many of the deceased have yet to be identified, and many of those who were transferred to hospitals are in critical condition. “There are still large quantities of body parts and torn bodies inside Al-Ahli hospital,” he said, adding that families are struggling to identify their loved ones.

One woman, known as Um Ahmed, described the horrific scene to CNN, saying she was unable to find her husband after the strike. “I went to look for my husband and I didn’t see anybody, they were all in pieces,” she recounted.

Um Ahmed further explained that the mosque was filled with young people who were “all in pieces and dismembered” after the strike.

Another man who came to inspect the school after hearing about the strike during his morning prayer said, “The bodies here are not identifiable… they are all dismembered body parts.”

The Palestinian Authority condemned the strike and also held the United States accountable, calling it “part of a pattern of daily atrocities committed by Israeli occupation forces.”

The strike has drawn widespread international condemnation. Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories, accused Israel of “genociding the Palestinians one neighborhood at the time, one hospital at the time, one school at the time, one refugee camp at the time, one ‘safe zone’ at the time.”

Saturday’s attack is part of a series of lethal strikes by Israel over the past week.

Last weekend, airstrikes on several school buildings sheltering displaced Palestinians resulted in the deaths of at least 47 people, including many children, and left dozens more injured.

Videos obtained by CNN from the site of last Sunday’s strike—also claimed by the IDF to have targeted Hamas infrastructure—show widespread destruction and lifeless bodies scattered in a schoolyard. The footage also captures medics and rescue workers transporting injured children to ambulances.

Palestinian officials informed CNN that Israel did not issue any warnings to civilians before the airstrikes took place.

As of 2022, over 24 million Asian Americans resided in the United States, representing 7% of the total population, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. This group is noted for being the fastest-growing major racial or ethnic demographic in the country.

Asian Americans have roots in more than 20 nations across East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Indian subcontinent. However, a significant majority—77%—trace their ancestry to just six countries: China, India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Vietnam.

More than half of Asian Americans (54%) are immigrants, while the remaining 46% are born in the United States. Geographically, California is home to the largest number of Asian Americans, with more than 7 million, followed by New York and Texas, each with about 2 million.

In 2022, the median income for Asian American households was $100,000. This figure indicates that half of these households earned more and half earned less. The economic status of Asian American groups in the U.S. varies widely, making them one of the most economically diverse racial or ethnic groups.

Between 2022 and 2023, Pew Research Center conducted surveys involving over 7,000 Asian adults in the U.S. The surveys explored their identities, perspectives on the U.S. and their ancestral homelands, political and religious affiliations, and more. Here are some key insights from the findings.

Identity

Asian Americans identify themselves in various ways. When asked about their primary identity, some respondents mentioned their ethnic origins, such as “Chinese” or “Filipino,” while others used regional identities like “South Asian,” or the broader pan-ethnic term “Asian.” Some identified simply as “American,” and others combined their ethnic or racial identity with the term American, such as “Asian American” or “Vietnamese American.”

About 26% of Asian adults in the U.S. most frequently use their ethnicity alone to describe themselves, while a similar 25% combine their ethnicity with “American.” Another 16% often describe themselves as “Asian American,” 12% as “Asian,” and 10% simply as “American.” A small percentage (6%) identify with a regional Asian label like “South Asian.”

Knowledge of Asian American History

Around 24% of Asian American adults consider themselves extremely or very informed about the history of Asians in the U.S. Half of the respondents feel somewhat informed, while 24% feel they know little or nothing at all about it.

Among those who are at least somewhat informed, most have learned about U.S. Asian history through informal means—82% from the internet, 75% from media, and 63% from family and friends. Fewer respondents acquired this knowledge through formal education, with 37% learning in college or university and 33% during their K-12 schooling.

Views of the U.S. and Ancestral Homelands

A significant majority of Asian Americans (78%) have a favorable view of the U.S., surpassing their favorable opinions of any other places included in the survey. Japan holds the second-highest favorable rating at 68%, while only 20% of Asian American adults view China favorably.

Among the six largest Asian origin groups in the U.S., most hold positive views of their ancestral homelands, with the exception of Chinese Americans. Only 41% of Chinese adults in the U.S. have a favorable opinion of China.

While many in these large origin groups have favorable opinions of their ancestral homelands, most say they would not consider moving there. Overall, about 72% of Asian Americans would not move to their ancestral homeland, with U.S.-born Asian Americans being more likely to say this than immigrants (84% vs. 68%).

Achieving the American Dream

A substantial portion of Asian Americans believe they are either on their way to achieving the American dream (45%) or have already achieved it (26%). However, about 27% feel that the American dream is out of reach for them, with this sentiment being even more pronounced among Asian Americans living in poverty (47%).

Politics

Asian Americans tend to lean towards the Democratic Party. About 62% of Asian registered voters in the U.S. identify with or lean towards the Democratic Party, while about 34% align with or lean towards the Republican Party.

Most of the six largest Asian origin groups in the U.S. show a preference for the Democratic Party, with Vietnamese Americans being the exception. Among Vietnamese registered voters, 51% are Republicans or lean towards the GOP, while 42% identify with or lean towards the Democratic Party.

In 2022, there were approximately 14 million Asian Americans eligible to vote, comprising 5% of the total eligible voter population in the U.S. Pew Research Center estimates that this number will rise to around 15 million by November, marking Asian Americans as the fastest-growing racial or ethnic group within the U.S. electorate since 2020. Eligible voters are defined as those who are at least 18 years old and U.S. citizens either by birth or naturalization.

Religion

Reflecting trends seen in the broader American population, an increasing share of Asian Americans are not affiliated with any religion, while a declining percentage identify as Christian.

About 32% of Asian adults in the U.S. are religiously unaffiliated, an increase from 26% in 2012. Conversely, 34% of Asian adults are Christian, down from 42% in 2012.

Despite this decline, Christianity remains the largest religious group among Asian Americans. Smaller percentages identify as Buddhist (11%), Hindu (11%), Muslim (6%), or another faith (4%).

Religious affiliation varies significantly among Asian Americans based on their origin. For instance, more than half of Japanese Americans (47%) are religiously unaffiliated, while around three-quarters of Filipino Americans (74%) identify as Christian.

Days after Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina stepped down, Nobel laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus is set to lead an interim government in Bangladesh, according to Army Chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman. The swearing-in ceremony for the new administration is scheduled for Thursday, General Waker announced during a press conference on Wednesday.

General Waker informed the press that the interim government, headed by Professor Yunus, is expected to take its oath at 8:00 pm on Thursday, August 8, as reported by PTI. The advisory council supporting this interim government is anticipated to consist of 15 members.

Muhammad Yunus, the 84-year-old economist renowned for his work with the Grameen Bank, was appointed as the head of the interim government by President Mohammed Shahabuddin on Tuesday. This decision came just a day after Sheikh Hasina resigned and left the country following intense and violent protests against her administration, which were sparked by a contentious job quota system.

Yunus, who gained international recognition for his contributions to microfinance, now faces the task of stabilizing the country during a tumultuous political period. The sudden shift in leadership has left many in Bangladesh and beyond watching closely to see how the interim government will navigate the country’s challenges.

The departure of Sheikh Hasina, who had been in power for over a decade, marks a significant moment in Bangladesh’s political history. Her resignation followed a wave of deadly protests that erupted across the nation, driven by public anger over a job quota system that many felt was deeply unfair.

The job quota system, which allocated a certain percentage of government jobs to specific groups, had been a point of contention for years. Critics argued that it perpetuated inequality and discrimination, while supporters believed it was necessary to ensure representation for marginalized communities. The protests against the system escalated into widespread demonstrations calling for Hasina’s resignation, ultimately leading to her departure from office.

In the wake of these events, the interim government led by Professor Yunus is expected to play a crucial role in guiding the nation towards stability. Yunus, who is often referred to as the “Banker to the Poor” for his pioneering work in microcredit, brings a reputation for integrity and a commitment to social justice to his new role.

The advisory council, expected to include 15 members, will likely be composed of individuals with diverse backgrounds and expertise, reflecting the need for broad-based support and inclusive governance during this transitional period. The council’s composition will be closely watched, as it will provide insight into the direction the interim government intends to take.

Yunus’s appointment has been met with mixed reactions. While some see his leadership as a positive step towards restoring confidence in the government, others are skeptical about the ability of an interim administration to address the deep-rooted issues facing the country.

The international community is also keeping a close eye on developments in Bangladesh. The country’s stability is of regional and global significance, given its strategic location and economic potential. The transition to an interim government comes at a critical time, as Bangladesh grapples with economic challenges, social unrest, and geopolitical pressures.

Yunus’s track record as an economist and social entrepreneur will be tested in his new role. His ability to build consensus and implement reforms will be key to the interim government’s success. The swearing-in of the new government on Thursday will mark the beginning of what is likely to be a complex and challenging period for Bangladesh.

As the nation waits for the new administration to take charge, there is a sense of cautious optimism mixed with uncertainty. The interim government’s ability to manage the transition and address the underlying causes of the recent unrest will determine the country’s trajectory in the coming months.

General Waker’s announcement has set the stage for a significant moment in Bangladesh’s history. The eyes of the world will be on Dhaka as Professor Yunus and his advisory council take the oath of office and begin the difficult work of steering the country through this period of change. The path ahead is fraught with challenges, but there is hope that with Yunus at the helm, Bangladesh can emerge from this crisis stronger and more united.

In the meantime, the people of Bangladesh are watching closely, hoping that the interim government will be able to deliver the stability and reforms that the country so desperately needs. The task ahead is daunting, but with Professor Yunus’s leadership, there is a renewed sense of possibility for the future. The coming days and weeks will be critical in shaping the direction of Bangladesh’s political landscape and determining the legacy of this transitional government.

Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has reportedly stepped down from her position after enduring weeks of intense protests concerning job quota reforms. This significant development was confirmed by Bangladesh High Commission officials speaking to Reuters in Delhi.

On the evening of the resignation, around 6 pm, Hasina and her sister, Sheikh Rehana, arrived at the Hindon Indian Air Force Base located in Ghaziabad. Their arrival in India marks a dramatic turn in the political situation.

According to the Daily Star, Hasina departed Dhaka on Monday seeking “a safer place” amidst the escalating unrest. This move came as protests over job quota reforms reached a peak, causing significant disruption and concern.

A source close to Hasina revealed to AFP that she had intended to deliver a speech but was unable to do so due to the tumultuous circumstances. The exact nature and content of this speech remain undisclosed, but its planned delivery highlights the gravity of the situation faced by the Prime Minister.

The Daily Star also reported a critical incident occurring around 3 pm when protesters breached Gono Bhaban, the official residence of the Prime Minister. This breach signifies the heightened level of unrest and the challenge to Hasina’s authority in the face of public dissent.

Violence erupted on Monday, particularly in the Jatrabari and Dhaka Medical College areas, leading to at least six fatalities. These clashes between the police and protesters reflect the severe tensions and the intensity of the conflict over the job quota reforms.

The resignation of Sheikh Hasina, following these dramatic events, underscores the profound impact of the ongoing protests and the widespread demand for change in the job quota system.

India, with its vast population of approximately 1.43 billion people, leads the world in emigration rates. Between 1990 and 2020, around 78.26 million Indians emigrated from the country, as per United Nations data. According to the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as of May 2024, the global Indian diaspora numbers approximately 35.42 million, comprising 15.85 million non-resident Indians (NRIs) and 19.57 million people of Indian origin (PIOs).

Overseas Indians have a significant impact on their home country’s economy, contributing approximately 3.5% to India’s GDP through remittances. In 2023, India received about $120 billion in remittances, nearly double the amount received by Mexico, which was $66 billion. This marked an increase of over 7.5% from the previous year, driven by high demand for both skilled and unskilled Indian workers in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) was the largest source of remittances, contributing nearly 18% of the total inflow, followed by the United States. The UAE, known for its favorable working conditions and zero income tax, is particularly attractive to Indian workers, most of whom belong to the working class and send a portion of their earnings back home.

Indians have made remarkable contributions in various sectors globally, including science, food, and business. Indian-origin executives head 24 Fortune 500 companies, according to *The Times of India*. In the U.S. alone, these executives employ over 2.7 million Americans and generate more than $1 trillion in revenue. Additionally, Indian-Americans have made a significant mark in the startup ecosystem, co-founding 72 of the 648 U.S. unicorns, which are valued at approximately $195 billion and provide jobs to more than 55,000 people. The presence of Indian-Americans is also strongly felt in small businesses across the U.S., with over 60% of all hotels being owned by Indians.

In terms of tax contributions, Indian-Americans play a vital role in supporting the U.S. economy, accounting for an estimated 5%-6% of all income taxes, which translates to approximately $250-$300 billion in revenue. The Indian diaspora has also been instrumental in driving research, innovation, and academic advancements in the U.S. The percentage of U.S. patents held by Indian-Americans increased from 2% in 1975 to nearly 10% in 2019.

One prominent example of an Indian leading a global company is Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG). Pichai, originally from India, joined Google in 2004, where he spearheaded the development of Google Toolbar and later Google Chrome, which went on to become the world’s most widely used internet browser. By 2014, Pichai was leading product and engineering efforts for all of Google’s products and platforms, overseeing significant advancements in various applications. Under his leadership, Google has made substantial investments in emerging technologies such as machine learning, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI). Google Cloud and YouTube have grown significantly, becoming leaders in their respective sectors. As of 2024, Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) ranks as the third-largest cloud service provider, trailing only Microsoft and Amazon in market share.

Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) recently released its earnings report for the second quarter of 2024, surpassing earnings-per-share (EPS) expectations by $0.05, reporting $1.89 per share. The company’s revenue was approximately $84.74 billion, exceeding projections by $445.49 million. This represented a 13.6% increase in revenue year-over-year, driven primarily by substantial growth in Google Cloud, which generated $10.35 billion in Q2, marking an almost 30% increase from the previous year and surpassing the $10 billion mark for the first time. Google’s Search platform continues to be its largest revenue source, bringing in approximately $48.51 billion, up by 13.8% year-over-year. AI has become a critical factor in Alphabet’s success, enhancing performance across Search, YouTube ads, Google Services, and other segments.

Sundar Pichai commented on the Q2 2024 earnings, highlighting key achievements: “In Q2, Cloud reached some major milestones. Quarterly revenues crossed the $10 billion mark for the first time, at the same time pass the $1 billion mark in quarterly operating profit. Year-to-date, our AI infrastructure, and generative AI solutions for Cloud customers have already generated billions in revenues and are being used by more than 2 million developers. As I spoke about last quarter, we are uniquely well-positioned for the AI opportunity ahead.”

He also discussed the importance of Alphabet’s AI advancements, stating, “Our AI product advances come from our long-standing foundation of research leadership, as well as our global network of infrastructure. In Q2, we announced our first data center and cloud region in Malaysia, and expansion projects in Iowa, Virginia, and Ohio. Our TPUs are a key bet here, too. Trillium is the sixth generation of our custom AI accelerator, and it’s our best performing and most energy efficient TPU to-date. It achieves a near 5 times increase in peak compute performance per chip and a 67% more energy efficient compared to TPU v5e. And the latest Nvidia Blackwell platform, will be coming to Google Cloud in early 2025.”

Considering Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG)’s overall performance and growth, the company is well-positioned to capitalize on AI development. It is projected to earn $7.65 per share in 2024, representing an increase of nearly 31% year-over-year. As of August 3, Alphabet’s stock is trading at a discount of approximately 14.77% compared to its 5-year average. The stock has an average price target of $205, indicating a potential upside of 22% from current levels, with 78% of 64 analysts giving it a ‘Buy’ rating.

With Sundar Pichai guiding Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) to new heights, it is also essential to consider the broader context of the Indian diaspora. Below is a detailed look at the 20 countries with the highest Indian populations globally.

Using data from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India as of May 2024, here is a list of the top 20 countries with the largest Indian populations, ranked by the number of overseas Indians residing in each country:

1. United States: With a population of 5,409,062 Indians, the United States tops the list. Indian-Americans have made substantial contributions to various sectors, including technology, business, and academia. Notably, Sundar Pichai of Alphabet and Satya Nadella of Microsoft are among the most prominent Indian-origin leaders in the U.S.

2. United Arab Emirates: The UAE has a substantial Indian population of 3,568,848, drawn by the country’s favorable working conditions and zero income tax.

3. Malaysia: Malaysia has an Indian population of 2,914,127, with a significant number of Tamil Indians.

4. Canada: Canada is home to 2,875,954 Indians, with a large Punjabi community that has also made inroads into Canadian politics.

5. Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia hosts 2,463,509 Indians, attracted by job opportunities in the kingdom’s growing economy.

6. Myanmar: Myanmar has 2,002,660 Indians, with a mix of NRIs and individuals of Indian origin.

7. United Kingdom: The U.K. has 1,864,318 Indians, forming one of the largest Indian communities in Europe.

8. South Africa: With 1,700,000 Indians, South Africa has a significant Indian diaspora, primarily of South Indian origin.

9. Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka’s Indian population stands at 1,607,500, mostly of South Indian descent.

10. Kuwait: Kuwait has 995,528 Indians, encompassing a mix of unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled workers.

11. Australia: Australia is home to 976,000 Indians, involved in various sectors of the economy.

12. Mauritius: Mauritius has an Indian population of 894,848, with deep historical ties dating back to the 1700s.

13. Qatar: Qatar has 836,784 Indians, primarily non-resident workers.

14. Nepal: Nepal’s Indian population is 700,004, benefiting from the open border between the two countries.

15. Oman: Oman has 686,635 Indians, comprising various levels of skilled workers.

16. Singapore: Singapore hosts 650,000 Indians, with a vibrant cultural presence, including the famous Little India district.

17. Trinidad & Tobago: Trinidad & Tobago has 549,545 Indians, who are mainly engaged in the food industry.

18. Bahrain: Bahrain’s Indian population is 327,807, with many employed in the construction sector.

19. Guyana: Guyana is home to 321,500 Indians, descendants of laborers brought to replace African workers on plantations.

20. Fiji: Fiji’s Indian population stands at 316,081, with many tracing their roots to laborers brought in for plantation work.

These countries reflect the global presence of the Indian diaspora, which continues to contribute significantly to the economies and cultures of their host countries.

On Wednesday, Hamas’ highest-ranking political leader was killed in a pre-dawn airstrike in Tehran, according to both Iranian and Hamas officials, who have accused Israel of orchestrating the assassination. This act has heightened fears of an expanded regional conflict. Iran’s supreme leader has vowed retaliation against Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by stating that Israel would “exact a very heavy price from any aggression against us on any front,” though he did not specifically address the assassination. “There are challenging days ahead,” Netanyahu remarked.

This strike follows Israel’s pledge to target Ismail Haniyeh and other senior Hamas figures in response to the group’s October 7 attack on southern Israel, which ignited the current Gaza conflict. The timing of the assassination was particularly provocative, occurring shortly after Haniyeh’s participation in the inauguration of Iran’s new president in Tehran, and just hours after Israel targeted a top Hezbollah commander in Beirut.

The assassination is seen as highly dangerous due to the intricate and volatile nature of the regional conflicts. The risk of provoking a direct confrontation between Iran and Israel is significant if Iran decides to retaliate. In response, the U.S. and other countries are working to prevent a larger, more destructive conflict.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a statement on his official website, described the act as a “duty” to avenge, asserting that Israel had “prepared a harsh punishment for itself” by killing “a dear guest in our home.”

Earlier this year, tensions between Israel and Iran were heightened when Israel struck Iran’s embassy in Damascus in April, leading to Iranian retaliation and an unprecedented series of attacks on each other’s territory. International efforts managed to contain the escalation at that time.

The assassination of Haniyeh might also disrupt ongoing cease-fire and hostage negotiations in Gaza, which had shown some progress, according to U.S. mediators. Additionally, it could further inflame tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, especially after a recent rocket attack in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights that resulted in the deaths of 12 young people.

On Tuesday evening, Israel conducted a rare strike in Beirut, claiming to have killed a senior Hezbollah commander linked to the rocket attack. Hezbollah confirmed the death of Fouad Shukur, who was in the building hit by the strike. Lebanese Health Ministry reports indicate that the strike also resulted in the deaths of three women and two children.

White House national security spokesperson John Kirby stated there was “no sign that an escalation is imminent” and that a cease-fire agreement for Gaza remained a possibility. He noted that the U.S. had not independently verified the events in Tehran and questioned whether Israel had informed the U.S. of the operation in advance.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, when asked about the assassination, confirmed, “This is something we were not aware of or involved in.” He refrained from speculating on its impact on cease-fire efforts in an interview with Channel News Asia.

The U.N. Security Council convened an emergency meeting to address the strikes, with both Iran and Israel urging condemnation of the other. However, the council failed to issue a unified statement. Members expressed concern over the precarious situation, urged restraint, and called for diplomatic solutions while also highlighting longstanding conflicts.

Khalil al-Hayya, a prominent Hamas figure close to Haniyeh, assured journalists in Iran that Haniyeh’s successor would adhere to the same vision for negotiations and maintain the policy of resistance against Israel.

Hamas is expected to convene its consultative body soon, likely after Haniyeh’s funeral in Qatar, to appoint a successor. A statement from Hamas indicated that a funeral service would be held in Tehran on Thursday, with Muslim funeral prayers on Friday in Doha, followed by burial in Lusail, Qatar’s second largest city.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin expressed hope for a diplomatic resolution concerning the Israeli-Lebanese border, stating, “I don’t think that war is inevitable. I think there’s always room and opportunity for diplomacy, and I’d like to see parties pursue those opportunities.”

Yet, the diplomatic community remains concerned. A Western diplomat, who wished to remain anonymous, described the strikes in Beirut and Tehran as having “almost killed” hopes for a Gaza cease-fire and potentially driving the Middle East toward a “devastating regional war.”

Israel typically avoids commenting on assassinations by its Mossad intelligence agency or strikes on foreign soil. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, in a statement, indicated that while Israel does not seek war after the strike on the Hezbollah commander, “we are preparing for all possibilities.” The statement made no reference to the Haniyeh assassination, and a summary of his call with Austin provided by the U.S. did not include it.

The killing of Haniyeh abroad highlights Israel’s struggle to eliminate Hamas’ top leadership within Gaza, who are believed to have been chiefly responsible for planning the October 7 attack. Haniyeh had been living in exile in Qatar since leaving Gaza in 2019. Although Israel has targeted Hamas figures in Lebanon and Syria, striking Haniyeh in Iran presents far greater sensitivity. Israel is suspected of conducting a long-term assassination campaign against Iranian nuclear scientists, including the 2020 killing of top Iranian military nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

During his final hours in Iran, Haniyeh was seen attending the inauguration ceremony of Iran’s new President Masoud Pezeshkian, appearing cheerful and engaging with leaders from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. Iranian media captured images of him and Pezeshkian embracing. Haniyeh had also met with Khamenei before the strike that ultimately took his life. Iranian officials reported that one of his bodyguards was killed in the attack, which Hamas later confirmed was executed using a missile.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has warned of a “harsh and painful response” from Iran and its regional allies. An influential Iranian parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy planned an emergency meeting to address the strike.

Hamas’ military wing stated that Haniyeh’s assassination “takes the battle to new dimensions and will have major repercussions on the entire region.”

Netanyahu has declared that Israel will persist with its severe campaign in Gaza until Hamas is defeated, asserting that “everything” achieved in recent months was due to resisting domestic and international pressure to end the war. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, Israel’s bombardments and offensives have resulted in over 39,300 Palestinian deaths and more than 90,900 injuries, without distinguishing between civilians and combatants.

Despite the ongoing bombardment, Hamas continues to operate and fire rockets into Israel, although it remains uncertain whether it can intensify its attacks in response to Haniyeh’s death. Iran might also escalate its support for attacks through its network of allies, including Hezbollah, Hamas, Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Hezbollah’s continued exchanges of fire with Israel across the Israeli-Lebanese border reflect ongoing support for Hamas and a simmering conflict that threatens to spiral into full-scale war.

Israel has targeted Hezbollah sites in Lebanon following a rocket strike that killed 12 children and young adults playing football in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The Israeli air force attributes the attack to the Iran-backed militant group, which Hezbollah denies. Early Sunday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) conducted airstrikes on seven Hezbollah positions “deep inside Lebanese territory,” but casualty details remain unknown.

This incident heightens tensions, risking a full-scale war between Israel and Hezbollah. Both have engaged in periodic skirmishes since October 7, when Hamas attacked Israel, sparking Israel’s military response in Gaza.

The deadly strike on Majdal Shams’ football field marks the most significant loss of life along Israel’s northern border since October. Post-Hamas attack, Hezbollah’s solidarity with Palestinians led to increased hostilities, including rocket fire at Israeli targets.

Israel’s foreign ministry identified 10 of the 12 children killed in Saturday’s strike, aged 10 to 16, with the 11th victim named but not aged, and the 12th unidentified. Verified footage shows crowds and stretchers rushing to ambulances at the scene.

Majdal Shams, one of four Druze towns in the Golan Heights, hosts about 25,000 members of this Arabic-speaking religious and ethnic group. Thousands gathered on Sunday for the victims’ funerals.

Hezbollah’s spokesman, Mohamad Afif, refuted involvement in the Golan Heights strike. Nonetheless, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged retaliation, asserting the group would “pay a heavy price.” The Israeli Air Force (IAF) claimed it targeted “terror assets” including weapon stores and militant infrastructure overnight. Prior to these reports, Hezbollah had admitted responsibility for four other attacks, one near Mount Hermon, close to the football pitch.

IDF spokesman Daniel Hagari, visiting the airstrike site, accused Hezbollah of “lying and denying responsibility,” asserting the rocket was an Iranian-made Falaq-1, “owned exclusively by Hezbollah.” He stated, “Our intelligence is clear. Hezbollah is responsible for the murder of innocent children.”

Sheikh Mowafaq Tarif, the Druze community leader, called the attack a “horrific massacre” crossing “every possible red line.” Iran, through spokesperson Nasser Kanani, warned Israel against further military “adventures” in Lebanon, citing potential “unforeseen consequences.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu, visiting the United States, returned early due to the strike. His plane landed in Israel on Sunday. International leaders condemned the attack, urging restraint but differing on the perpetrator. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “Every indication is that indeed the rocket was from Hezbollah,” supporting Israel’s self-defense while opposing broader conflict.

Lebanon’s government, in a rare statement, condemned violence against civilians, urging an immediate ceasefire. The statement called civilian targeting a “flagrant violation of international law.” Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bouhabib expressed doubt about Hezbollah’s involvement, suggesting the group usually targets military rather than civilian sites, but acknowledged potential errors from either side. “We are talking with Hezbollah because the victims are Druze, and the Druze community here [in Lebanon] cares about them a lot. We are asking Hezbollah not to retaliate at this present time,” Bouhabib added.

A United Nations statement emphasized the necessity for “maximum restraint” from all parties, warning that wider conflict could “engulf the entire region in a catastrophe beyond belief.”

In Majdal Shams, where bloodstains remained on the football pitch, locals conveyed sorrow and concern. Ugarit Abu Assad, 26, from nearby Buqata, expressed fears of escalation, saying, “I’m afraid of the consequences of all-out war,” fearing widespread casualties.

The Druze, a religious and ethnic minority, primarily reside in northern Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. In Israel, Druze citizens enjoy full rights, making up about 1.5% of the population. Those in the Golan Heights were offered Israeli citizenship after its annexation from Syria in 1981, though acceptance was not universal. Golan Druze can work and study in Israel, but only citizens can vote. Druze males, Israel’s largest non-Jewish IDF contingent, must serve in the military.

Most of the international community does not recognize Israel’s Golan Heights annexation.

Approximately 90 Palestinians were reported killed in an Israeli airstrike on a displacement camp in southern Gaza, purportedly targeting Hamas’ military chief, Mohammed Deif. The strike caused extensive devastation in Al-Mawasi, a supposed safe zone for Palestinians escaping conflict elsewhere. “I cannot describe to you the magnitude of the tragedy,” lamented a resident to CNN, as bodies lay in the streets amidst destroyed tents.

Israeli officials claimed the strike aimed at Deif and Rafe Salama, head of the Khan Younis brigade. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a press conference, acknowledged uncertainty over the success of the operation but approved it upon assurance from Shin Bet that no hostages were present.

The aftermath depicted scenes of destruction, with at least 90 reported dead and 300 injured, half of whom were women and children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Efforts to rescue trapped individuals underscored the chaotic aftermath, overwhelming local hospitals like Kuwait and Nasser with casualties.

Eye-witnesses recounted harrowing moments of the strike. A young boy named Hammoud described how his bathroom was obliterated, his brother killed, and his sister hospitalized. Aida Hamdi recalled fleeing amidst missile strikes, lamenting the loss of those around her.

Hamas refuted Israel’s claims, denouncing the incident as a “horrific massacre” and dismissing assertions of targeting its leaders as baseless propaganda.

The use of US-manufactured munitions, notably the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), was confirmed in the airstrike, highlighting international involvement in the conflict. Analysis by CNN identified remnants of these munitions, reflecting broader implications of foreign support in regional hostilities.

Israeli authorities, in collaboration with intelligence agencies, deliberated extensively before authorizing the strike, weighing strategic implications on ongoing ceasefire negotiations and hostage release efforts.

Mohammed Deif, a shadowy figure within Hamas, has evaded previous assassination attempts, including one in 2014 that claimed his family members’ lives. His elusive persona, known for orchestrating past attacks aimed at derailing peace initiatives, continues to embody the persistent threat posed by Hamas to Israeli security.

The timing of the airstrike, amidst delicate ceasefire negotiations, underscores its potential impact on diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the conflict and securing the release of hostages. Netanyahu’s firm stance on ceasefire terms, despite opposition from Hamas, reflects Israeli resolve in pursuing national security objectives.

Protests erupted across Israel, demanding immediate action to secure the release of hostages and affirming public sentiment on the urgency of resolving the crisis. In Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, demonstrators voiced solidarity with affected families and called for swift government intervention to negotiate the hostages’ safe return.

Andrey Kozlov, a former hostage, shared his harrowing experience, emphasizing the urgency of securing all hostages’ release. His impassioned plea resonated with protesters, urging Netanyahu to prioritize humanitarian considerations in diplomatic negotiations.

The Hostage and Missing Families Forum echoed these sentiments, urging swift action to finalize negotiations and reunite hostages with their families. Netanyahu faced mounting pressure to prioritize humanitarian concerns and expedite negotiations toward a conclusive resolution.

The global population is expected to continue growing steadily, projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and potentially peaking at nearly 10.4 billion in the mid-2080s, according to the United Nations. This forecasted increase represents a rise of almost 2 billion people within the next 30 years.

In 2023, India, with an estimated population of 1.4286 billion, slightly surpassed China to become the world’s most populous country, as noted in the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report. Experts attribute this growth to “population momentum” from previous decades and predict that India’s population will likely begin to decline around 2050. This trend is also expected to apply to the global population, which currently stands slightly above 8 billion.

Recognizing the importance of understanding population dynamics, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) observes World Population Day annually on July 11th. In 2024, the theme will be “Investing in data collection is important to understanding problems, tailoring solutions, and driving progress.”

While India and China are the most populous countries, each with over 1 billion people, there are countries with significantly smaller populations. For example, Vatican City is the least populated country globally due to various factors including its limited land area, geographical isolation, resource constraints, cultural preservation efforts, political status, and historical factors.

The world’s top 10 least-populated countries as of 2024 are:

1. Vatican City

With a population of just 764, Vatican City is the smallest internationally recognized independent state. This is due to its tiny land area of just 49 hectares, strict citizenship requirements that limit new residents, and its unique status as the spiritual and administrative center of the Catholic Church rather than a typical country.

2. Tokelau

A group of three remote atolls in the South Pacific, Tokelau’s isolated location and limited land area of just 26 square kilometers naturally constrain its population, which numbers around 1,915 people. The lack of airports and accessibility only by boat from Samoa further contribute to Tokelau’s small population.

3. Niue

This self-governing island country, in free association with New Zealand, has a tiny land area of just 260 square kilometers. Its remote Pacific location and lack of major economic opportunities limit population growth, with the country home to about 1,935 people.

4. Falkland Islands

As a British Overseas Territory in the South Atlantic, the Falkland Islands’ isolated position and harsh sub-Antarctic climate make it an unattractive destination for large-scale settlement. With a population closer to 3,500, the islands’ economy is heavily dependent on fishing and tourism.

5. Montserrat

This Caribbean island nation has a small population of an estimated 4,372 people, largely due to a devastating volcanic eruption in the 1990s that destroyed much of the island and forced many residents to flee. The country’s limited land area and ongoing volcanic activity continue to constrain population growth.

6. Saint Pierre and Miquelon

This French territorial collectivity in the North Atlantic has a population of around 5,815 people. Its remote location off the coast of Canada and lack of economic opportunities beyond fishing and tourism contribute to its small population size.

7. Saint Barthélemy

As a French overseas collectivity in the Caribbean, Saint Barthélemy’s tiny land area of just 25 square kilometers and focus on luxury tourism rather than large-scale industry or agriculture limit its population, which stands approximately at 11,019.

8. Wallis and Futuna

This French overseas territory in the South Pacific consists of three small volcanic islands with a total land area of just 142 square kilometers. Its remote location and lack of major economic activities result in a population closer to 11,439 people.

9. Tuvalu

This Pacific island nation, comprising nine small atolls, has a population of merely 11,478 people. Its tiny land area of 26 square kilometers and isolation from major trade routes and economic centers contribute to its status as one of the least populated countries in the world.

10. Nauru

As the world’s smallest republic, Nauru’s total land area of just 21 square kilometers and its remote location in Micronesia limits its population to roughly 12,884 people. The country’s economic challenges and lack of natural resources also hinder population growth.

Understanding population dynamics is essential for planning and resource allocation. Smaller populations face unique challenges and opportunities, often influenced by geographical, economic, and political factors. As the world’s population continues to grow, the experiences of both the most and least populated countries provide valuable insights into global demographic trends and their implications.

On Sunday night, there was a sense of joy as French voters successfully kept the far right out of power. However, by Monday morning, the mood had shifted to uncertainty due to a hung parliament, fragile alliances, and the prospect of turbulent years ahead.

President Emmanuel Macron called for France’s snap parliamentary election to “clarify” the political situation. Yet, the shock second-round results left the political landscape more muddled than it had been in decades.

The left-wing New Popular Front (NFP) coalition’s surge foiled Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) party, but French politics is now more disordered than it was before the vote.

A Shock Victory, But Not Decisive

After leading the first round of voting last Sunday, the RN was closer to power than ever before, nearly forming France’s first far-right government since the collaborationist Vichy regime of World War II. However, after a week of political bargaining, where over 200 left-wing and centrist candidates withdrew to avoid splitting the vote, the NFP – a coalition of various parties from the extreme left to the more moderate – emerged with the most seats in the second round.

The NFP won 182 seats in the National Assembly, making it the largest group in the 577-seat parliament. Macron’s centrist Ensemble alliance, trailing in a distant third in the first round, mounted a strong recovery to win 163 seats. Despite leading the first round, the RN and its allies secured 143 seats.

This does not mean the NFP “won” the election outright. Although it has the most seats, it fell short of the 289 seats needed for an absolute majority, resulting in a hung parliament. This outcome is more a victory for the “cordon sanitaire,” the principle that mainstream parties must unite to prevent the extreme right from taking office.

The Far Right: Kept at Bay, Yet Potent

The RN had anticipated a celebratory night with supporters expecting their long-taboo brand of anti-immigrant politics to gain the most seats in the French parliament. However, as results came in, the RN fell to third place. Jordan Bardella, the 28-year-old leader chosen by Le Pen to refresh the party’s image and purge it of its racist and antisemitic roots, was visibly frustrated. He criticized the “dangerous electoral deals” between the NFP and Ensemble that had “deprived the French people” of an RN-led government.

“By deciding to deliberately paralyze our institutions, Emmanuel Macron has now pushed the country towards uncertainty and instability,” Bardella said, calling the NFP an “alliance of dishonor.”

Despite the setback, the RN’s success should not be underestimated. In 2017, the RN won just eight seats. By 2022, it surged to 89 seats. In Sunday’s vote, it won 125, making it the largest individual party. This unity suggests the RN will remain a significant force in the next parliament, while the leftist coalition’s solidity remains untested.

Will the Left Remain United?

A month ago, the NFP did not exist. Now, it is the largest bloc in the French parliament and could potentially provide France with its next prime minister. The NFP chose its name to resurrect the original Popular Front that blocked the far right from gaining power in 1936, and Sunday’s results suggest it has done so again.

However, the longevity of this broad and potentially fractious coalition is uncertain. The hastily assembled NFP includes several parties: the far-left France Unbowed party, the Socialists, the green Ecologists, the center-left Place Publique, and others.

This diverse group does not speak with one voice. Each party celebrated the results at their own campaign events rather than together. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the populist France Unbowed leader, and Raphael Glucksmann, the more moderate leader of Place Publique, are barely on speaking terms.

Disagreements over economic and foreign policies could cause conflicts, as the NFP’s expansive spending plans – including raising the minimum wage, capping the price of certain foods and energy, and scrapping Macron’s pension reforms – clash with the European Union’s restrictive fiscal rules and France’s need to manage its ballooning deficit.

A Better Night for Macron Than Expected, But He Emerges Weakened

Macron once remarked that his thoughts are “too complex” for journalists. His decision to call a snap election three years earlier than necessary, with his party trailing in the polls, confused many political analysts, his closest allies, and French voters.

He announced the vote minutes after his party was trounced by the RN in last month’s European Parliament elections. Although European results do not directly affect domestic politics, Macron felt he could not ignore the voters’ message and wanted to clarify the political situation.

However, Sunday’s results suggest he achieved the opposite. Éduoard Philippe, France’s former prime minister and an ally of Macron, commented that what was “intended as a clarification has instead led to great vagueness.” Although Macron’s party recovered from the first round, it lost about 100 seats compared to the 2022 election.

Where Does France Go From Here?

Macron’s first decision is to appoint a new prime minister. He has delayed this process by declining Gabriel Attal’s resignation and asking him to remain in office for now.

Typically, the French president appoints a prime minister from the largest bloc in parliament. However, it is unclear which party within the NFP this will be. Mélenchon’s party won the most seats within the NFP, but Macron’s allies have repeatedly refused to work with France Unbowed, equating it to the RN in terms of extremism and unfitness to govern.

To reach a majority needed to pass laws, the NFP will likely have to form alliances with Ensemble, creating a coalition of coalitions that span a wide ideological spectrum. Finding common ground will be challenging, potentially leading to legislative gridlock. Without a clear majority, a minority government faces the risk of no-confidence votes soon, which could result in multiple governments succeeding each other.

One possible solution is a “technocratic” government, where Macron appoints ministers with no party affiliation to manage day-to-day affairs. However, these can seem undemocratic and may fuel populism. Italy’s experience, following the premiership of technocrat Mario Draghi and the subsequent election of its most far-right government since Benito Mussolini, serves as a cautionary tale. While France has avoided a far-right government for now, the RN threat remains significant.

The Conservative Party had long been likened to the dominant force of Manchester City in politics, a winning machine so entrenched that its key figures could scarcely recall anything else. However, their streak, which had ushered in Tory prime ministers through four consecutive elections, has now abruptly ended. The aftermath has left many Tories, whether victorious or defeated, almost speechless and grappling to come to terms with the outcome. As one insider put it, they were simply “not coherent.”

A critical analysis of their strategies and leadership missteps, and the path forward, has commenced in earnest. In conversations with Conservative figures, recurring themes emerge. While some believe Labour’s policies weren’t markedly different from their own, they acknowledge that voter perception of “competence” became decisive. The party has witnessed a rapid turnover of five leaders, and thus prime ministers, in under a decade. The seismic impact of events like Brexit, Covid-19, and multiple leadership contests has fractured the party into ideological factions. Internal conflicts often took precedence over confronting external challenges, resulting in unresolved divisions.

The Conservative Party weathered scandals in quick succession, ranging from lockdown breaches to allegations of misconduct, compounded by fiscal decisions that led to interest rate hikes. An election betting controversy added to their woes. When asked during the campaign about the party’s conduct issues, former Chief Whip Sir Mark Spencer pointed out that other parties also faced suspensions for misconduct, though he conceded that these incidents had become too frequent.

The call for change resonated strongly in Labour’s campaign, drawing attention to concerns over the cost of living, NHS wait times, and immigration policies. Nigel Farage’s resurgence injected new dynamics into the election, exacerbating tensions among right-leaning voters who defected to Reform UK. Attempts to court these voters strained relations with centrist Tories who subsequently shifted allegiance to Labour or the Liberal Democrats, leaving the Conservatives caught in the middle.

Despite these challenges, was defeat inevitable? Most Tories I’ve spoken to describe the outcome as “not unexpected,” although some feel the extent of the loss could have been mitigated. Avoidable missteps, such as Rishi Sunak’s early departure from D-day commemorations, added to the setbacks. While Boris Johnson’s charisma continued to rally support, some supporters felt Sunak lacked a similar appeal. Questions lingered over the timing of the election called by Sunak in July, against advice for a later date to allow policies to yield tangible results.

Isaac Levido, their campaign strategist, argued unsuccessfully for delaying the election, anticipating concrete outcomes like asylum seeker returns or interest rate cuts to bolster their case. Critics of his strategy warned of potential future setbacks, such as increased Channel crossings or prison overcrowding issues. The focus now shifts to the party’s identity and policy direction as they embark on a soul-searching journey.

Looking ahead, Rishi Sunak has confirmed his intention to step down once a succession plan is in place. Discussions about appointing an interim leader to avoid awkward parliamentary scenarios are underway. Names like Sir Oliver Dowden, James Cleverly, or Jeremy Hunt have been floated, with speculation about their willingness to assume the leadership permanently.

Behind the scenes, MPs are maneuvering to consolidate support, including figures like Kemi Badenoch and Tom Tugendhat, who represent different wings of the party. Former contenders Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick are also expected to enter the fray, each critiquing the government’s stance on immigration during their tenure in the Home Office.

The composition of the remaining Tory MPs will influence the leadership contest, reflecting divisions within the party. Supporters of Sunak and Liz Truss dominate the new intake, while figures like Braverman and Badenoch have seen a decline in backing from their traditional supporters on the right. This demographic shift will play a pivotal role in shaping the party’s future trajectory.

The Tories face a critical juncture in determining their ideological direction. Will they pivot towards a more right-wing agenda to counter Reform UK’s influence, or attempt to reclaim centrist ground with candidates like Tugendhat or Hunt? These deliberations will shape the party’s evolution in the weeks and months ahead, marked by intense internal debate and reflection.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has extended an invitation to Russia for the next peace summit, despite earlier asserting that Russia could only participate if it surrendered Ukrainian territory.

Initially, Zelensky excluded Russia from the first peace summit held in Switzerland last month, a move that sparked discontent among some officials who argued that achieving peace would be impossible without both warring parties present.

However, on Wednesday, Zelensky seemed to adopt a more flexible approach, acknowledging the potential for Russian involvement in the future. “If the second peace summit has a plan to end the war, and we have more countries, we will organise it and Russian representatives must be present. Who? We will see,” he told Bloomberg News.

When asked about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s possible attendance, Zelensky remarked, “I’m not sure, I think he is afraid to leave Russia. Is it possible that somebody else besides Putin comes? Maybe by this time, there will be somebody else in the Kremlin, then we will talk to somebody else.”

The first Ukrainian-organised peace summit received widespread criticism from analysts, who viewed it as a Western effort to display solidarity with Ukraine rather than a genuine attempt to end the war.

Ahead of the Swiss summit, the Kremlin and its key ally, China, exerted significant diplomatic pressure on countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to boycott the event. The summit concluded with a vague commitment to a follow-up meeting but lacked any concrete outcomes.

In his Bloomberg interview, Zelensky also rejected Putin’s ceasefire proposal, which he had previously labeled a trap. Nevertheless, he proposed that the US and China could serve as intermediaries. “There are many questions between the two but if we want to end this war fairly, for Ukraine and for the whole world, they have to find a stance to stop Putin,” he stated.

Western intelligence sources revealed this week that Chinese factories are manufacturing drones for Russia. China’s influence over Russia has surged since Putin’s comprehensive invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Finnish President Alexander Stubb suggested that Beijing could end the conflict with “one phone call” threatening to withdraw economic and diplomatic support.

Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have been convening in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), an economic-military alliance they spearhead. During the summit, Xi emphasized the need for SCO member states to support each other, though he stopped short of advocating for a military alliance. “We should join hands to resist external interference, firmly support each other, take care of each other’s concerns,” he said.

Established in 2001, the SCO initially concentrated on former Soviet Central Asia but has since broadened its scope. On Thursday, Belarus joined the group, which already includes Iran, India, and Pakistan.

Temur Umarov, a Fellow at the Carnegie Centre think tank, noted that the SCO’s primary significance lies in providing a platform for leaders to meet away from Western influence rather than serving as an anti-West alliance. “Russia is trying to use it to gain support for its aggression in Ukraine but it doesn’t have the sympathies of all SCO members,” he commented. “Everybody else wants to remain neutral.”

According to an Israeli source knowledgeable about the ongoing discussions, Israel and Hamas are nearing a potential framework agreement aimed at establishing a ceasefire and facilitating the release of hostages. The source indicated that recent developments in the negotiations have led Israeli officials to believe that the two sides are poised to enter into more detailed talks to finalize this agreement.

Although the prospect of a deal is promising, it remains far from guaranteed at this stage. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must first approve moving forward to the next phase of negotiations. This subsequent phase is expected to be complex and protracted, involving several weeks of intense discussions to work out the specifics of any potential agreement. These details will include deciding which Palestinian prisoners will be released in exchange for the Israeli hostages held by Hamas and determining the sequence of these exchanges.

In the coming days, Israeli negotiators are scheduled to meet with the country’s political leaders, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, to decide on whether to proceed with the detailed negotiations. This phase will require careful deliberation and strategic planning to address the various aspects of the proposed deal.

Hamas has officially acknowledged that it has delivered a response to an Israeli proposal through mediators from Qatar and Egypt. The response reiterates Hamas’ demand for a comprehensive ceasefire. “We have put forward some demands that achieve securing access to a complete ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces,” Basem Naim, a member of Hamas’ political bureau, told CNN on Wednesday.

In addition to this demand, Hamas issued a separate statement on Wednesday indicating that it had “exchanged some ideas” with the mediators with the goal of halting “the aggression against our Palestinian people.” Hamas further noted in a subsequent statement that it has approached the Israeli proposal with a “positive” attitude.

Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh has been actively engaged in discussions with the mediators in Qatar and Egypt. According to a Hamas statement, Haniyeh spent several hours in communication with the mediators to explore ideas “in order to reach an agreement” to end the conflict in Gaza. The statement also revealed that “Communication has also taken place between the head of the movement and officials in Turkey regarding the recent developments.”

On the Israeli side, the Mossad, the country’s intelligence service overseeing the negotiations, confirmed on Wednesday that Egyptian and Qatari mediators had presented Hamas’ latest response to Israel. The Mossad stated, “Israel is evaluating the remarks and will convey its reply to the mediators,” although it did not provide additional details on the nature of the response or the evaluation process.

This latest development in the negotiations comes in the wake of a statement from the Hostage and Missing Families Forum, which has issued a stark warning about the potential public reaction if the government fails to secure a deal for the hostages’ release. The statement expressed a strong sentiment among Israelis regarding the need for a comprehensive agreement. “The people of Israel show time and time again in every poll that they are in favor of a complete deal for the return of all hostages. We will not allow the government’s ministers to torpedo the deal again,” the statement read.

The Forum also framed the situation as a crucial moral test for the government. “The government is at the highest moral test of its tenure: the continuation of abandonment or a determined action for rescue and restoration,” the statement said. “It’s either the complete return of the hostages or all Israeli citizens will be taking to the roads and intersections.”

As the situation evolves, both sides remain engaged in a delicate balance of negotiations, with high stakes for the potential outcomes of these talks. The path forward will depend on whether the two parties can agree on the terms of a ceasefire and the details of a prisoner exchange that addresses the demands and concerns of both Hamas and the Israeli government.

The international community, particularly the mediators from Qatar and Egypt, continues to play a significant role in facilitating these discussions. Their efforts are focused on bridging the gaps between the conflicting positions of Hamas and Israel to achieve a resolution that will bring an end to the violence and secure the release of hostages on both sides.

While there is cautious optimism that a framework agreement for a ceasefire and hostage release might be within reach, the road to finalizing a deal remains fraught with challenges. The upcoming days will be critical as Israeli and Hamas negotiators, along with their respective political leaderships, work through the complexities of the proposed agreement.

Over three years ago, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which claims to represent all Hindus in North America, initiated a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit against activists, academics, and journalists.

This report gives an overview of HAF’s lawsuit, examines their claims, and discusses how they unintentionally disclosed significant details about their funding and operations. Their claims of reduced financial support due to public criticism were not supported by their financial records. Additionally, their assertions of not always supporting the current Indian government do not match the public statements of HAF leaders.

Recently, HAF commenced a defamation lawsuit against several activists and academics, including Sunita Viswanath and Raju Rajagopal of Hindus for Human Rights, and Rutgers University professor Audrey Truschke. The lawsuit concerns allegations in two Al Jazeera articles suggesting that federal COVID-19 relief funding received by HAF and other organizations could be used to support a hate campaign against minorities in India.

In early 2021, Audrey Truschke began researching US-based Hindu nationalist groups, including HAF. Al Jazeera published two articles by Kashmiri journalist and Hindutva Watch founder Raqib Naik on April 2 and April 8, 2021. These articles detailed how HAF and other groups received $833,000 in federal COVID-19 relief funds, implying these funds might be used to endorse Hindu nationalism. After the articles were published, HAF sent cease-and-desist letters to several individuals quoted in the articles on April 19, 2021. The recipients included Truschke, Rasheed Ahmed, Viswanath, Rajagopal, and John Prabhudoss.

On May 7, 2021, HAF filed a defamation lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Initially, they sought $75 million in damages, later corrected to the jurisdictionally minimum amount of $75,000. The lawsuit targeted Viswanath, Ahmed, Prabhudoss, Rajagopal, and Truschke. Naik was added as a co-conspirator. Over 300 prominent writers, academics, and scholars have criticized the lawsuit, arguing that it attempts to suppress free speech and silence dissent.

HAF’s Allegations and Claims

HAF’s lawsuit alleges that defamatory statements in the Al Jazeera articles led to reduced donations and reputational harm. They argue the articles falsely claimed HAF funneled COVID-19 relief funds to promote Hindu nationalism and insist all funds were used lawfully for rent and employee retention during the pandemic.

HAF claims to have suffered losses in various categories, including reduced donations, lost donations, lost grants and opportunities, lost funds from family foundations, lost prospective new donors, mitigation expenses, and reputational damage.

However, a review of documents unsealed by Judge Amit Mehta on June 5, 2024, related to the lawsuit suggests that HAF’s claims of reduced donations are speculative. The documents indicate that the defendants dispute HAF’s claims broadly on three levels.

Refutation of Claims by Defendants

Firstly, the defendants emphasize the speculative nature of damages. They highlight HAF’s admission that it does not know of any donor who reduced or stopped contributions specifically because of the contested statements. They also note HAF’s inability to identify any written or oral communication from a donor stating such a reason for altering their donation habits.

Secondly, the defendants assert there is no causal link. HAF assumes a connection between the disputed statements and its purported losses without offering proof of a direct link. For example, HAF alleges it lost grants and opportunities, but the defendants argue HAF can’t substantiate that the decisions of grant providers were influenced by the disputed statements.

Thirdly, the defendants provide evidence that HAF received more donations and from a larger number of donors in the 12 months following the contested statements compared to the previous year. This undermines HAF’s assertion of financial harm. HAF also received significant funding from new donors during a fundraising campaign tied to the litigation, further contradicting their claims of reputational damage affecting their relationships with donors.

Donation Records: A Contradiction

In a defamation case, to establish damages, the plaintiff must provide concrete evidence that defamatory statements directly led to financial or reputational harm. Claims that are speculative or unsupported do not meet this legal standard. HAF’s reliance on speculation weakens their case due to the lack of necessary proof of causation.

Exhibit 1 of the unsealed documents details the financial records that HAF submitted as evidence. Despite HAF’s allegations, donation records from April 2018 to April 2022 show an uptick in contributions after the publication of the contested statements. The data shows a notable increase in both the donation amounts and the number of donors once the statements were publicized:

| Year       | Donation Amount  | Number of Donations |

|————|——————|———————|

| 2018-2019  | $1,343,848.08    | 1,420               |

| 2019-2020  | $1,785,007.23    | 2,456               |

| 2020-2021  | $1,580,784.28    | 2,502               |

| 2021-2022  | $2,583,102.22    | 6,515               |

Table 1: Donation Summary

The figures in Table 1 show a significant increase in donations after publication, contradicting HAF’s claims of financial damage. This raises questions about the actual impact of the supposed defamation and if the statements had any negative effect at all.

Speculative Nature of HAF’s Claims

Let’s dig a bit deeper to understand how HAF’s own data, which they submitted as evidence for their claims, along with their lack of supporting proof, highlights the speculative and often frivolous nature of their claims.

Reduced Donations:HAF’s claim of $157,623.90 in “Reduced Donations” is based on a spreadsheet comparing 2020 and 2021 donations. HAF cannot point to any communication from a donor attributing their reduced contributions to the challenged statements.

Lost Donations:HAF’s claim for “Lost Donations,” amounting to $1,212,508 from donors who contributed in 2020 but not in 2021 or 2022, is also speculative. HAF’s executive director admitted during a deposition that she didn’t know the specific reasons why donors stopped contributing, acknowledging the potential for unrelated factors.

Lost Grants and Opportunities:HAF’s claim of $186,000 in damages for “Lost Grants and/or Opportunities” is speculative and lacks supportive evidence. HAF alleges rejection from a grant and an opportunity due to the challenged statements but doesn’t provide any supporting evidence. HAF’s assumption that a potential presentation was rejected is based on hearsay, and it’s uncertain if the decision-makers were even aware of the challenged statements.

Lost Funds from Family Foundations:HAF’s claim of a $150,000 loss in donations from family foundations targeted in a direct mail campaign is unsupported by evidence. HAF admitted to not knowing the reasons behind the donation shortfall, and it remains unclear whether any of the targeted foundations were even aware of the challenged statements.

Lost Prospective New Donors:HAF’s claim of losing 668 potential new donors assumes these individuals refrained from donating due to the challenged statements, even though there’s no direct evidence supporting this assertion. In contrast, evidence indicates HAF attracted over 1,600 new donors through a fundraising campaign related to the lawsuit, which contradicts their claim of donor deterrence.

Mitigation Expenses:HAF claims damages associated with staff time and resources used to address the alleged harm. However, it does not specify an amount, making it difficult to ascertain the relevance of these alleged damages to the jurisdictional threshold. The claim of 135 staff hours spent addressing the challenged statements is not supported by documentation such as timesheets or meeting notes.

Reputational Damage:HAF’s claim for $485,000 in reputational damages is based on the potential future cost of hiring a public relations firm, an Online Reputation Management specialist, and advertising. These estimates were made by Eric Rose, a reputation media marketing expert. However, HAF has not actually retained these services and only presents this as a potential future expense, which holds no legal relevance in assessing damages. The claim that HAF requires these services 14 months after the challenged statements is not credible. HAF also tries to link its expulsion from the Alliance Against Genocide to the reputational damage caused by the challenged statements, but the organization clearly cited the lawsuit as the reason for the expulsion.

HAF Executive Director’s Testimony

During her deposition, Suhag Shukla, the executive director of HAF, was questioned about various aspects of the lawsuit. The primary focus was on the alleged damages suffered by HAF.

Reduced Donations:Shukla noted that HAF identified 173 donors who contributed less in 2021 than they did in 2020. However, she recognized that it’s not possible to definitively attribute these reductions to the defendants’ statements. Shukla conceded that HAF does not customarily contact donors to ask about reasons behind reduced contributions. Various factors, such as changes in donors’ financial circumstances or philanthropic priorities, could be influencing these changes.

Allstate Foundation Grant:Concerning the lost grant claim from the Allstate Foundation, Shukla explained that HAF only submitted a pre-application for a racial equity-focused grant opportunity. She clarified that HAF had not sent a full application and didn’t know if Allstate was even aware of the defendants’ statements. Shukla admitted that the defendants’ statements might have led to the pre-application rejection, but there was no evidence to back up this assertion.

PayPal Presentation:Shukla testified about a potential “Hinduism

101” presentation at PayPal which did not come to fruition. She was in contact with an anonymous employee who informed her, via email, that the event would involve HR, diversity and inclusion teams, and possibly employee resource groups. However, Shukla confirmed she had no knowledge of whether those who decided against the presentation were aware of the defendants’ statements. She conceded that her belief that these statements influenced PayPal’s decision was based on the presumption that PayPal might have found HAF’s values incompatible with their own due to these statements.

Emails and Public Communication:Shukla verified that HAF sent an email about the lawsuit to its database of approximately 20,000 individuals. She did not confirm if HAF took any steps to prevent recipients from forwarding the email, but she conceded that adding such a feature to their email system was likely achievable.

More Interesting Details from the Deposition*

During her deposition, Shukla mentioned that HAF solicited donations from a family foundation called Guru Krupa Foundation in 2022. She also revealed the name of a HAF supporter despite acknowledging that the individual had requested confidentiality, raising an ethical concern.

However, the most interesting parts pertain to the relationship between HAF and the Indian government and Hindutva. Unfortunately, as the full text of the deposition is unavailable, we will only examine these parts without extrapolating from the context or making any assumptions.

During the deposition, Shukla confirmed that HAF believes it is false to characterize the organization as supporting the current Indian government’s erosion of democratic values. She insisted HAF is a wholly independent, non-partisan American organization that does not contribute any funds to spread Hindu nationalism in India.

This is in response to Gregory H. Stanton, the founding president of Genocide Watch, who, in an email, stated that the HAF’s lawsuit against Hindus for Human Rights was a reflection of the organization’s support for the current Indian government’s erosion of democratic values.

Shukla further stated that HAF has even opposed certain Indian government policies. Specifically, HAF advocated for improvements to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), as the organization believes that governments should not specify religious groups in amnesty policies.

However, her statement from March 11, 2024, which contradicts her previous stance, can be found on the HAF website. It was published on the same day the Indian government notified the rules of the CAA, a move she praises as “long overdue” and “necessary.”

“India’s Citizenship Amendment Act is long overdue and necessary. It protects some of the most vulnerable refugees in India, granting them the human rights they were denied in their home country, and the clear and expedited path to citizenship needed for them to begin rebuilding their lives. CAA mirrors the long-established Lautenberg Amendment in the US, in place since 1990, which has provided a clear immigration path for persons fleeing a select group of nations where religious persecution is rampant. I’m proud to see both the oldest and largest secular democracies in the world — the US and India — be a beacon of hope by extending a pathway to freedom and a new life to those who have suffered gross human rights violations simply because of their religion,” she said.

More interestingly, Shukla stated that HAF objected to being labeled as “pro-Hindutva” due to the derogatory connotations attached to the term by the defendants. The term “Hindutva,” as used by the defendants, was understood to imply “Hindu supremacist” or “Hindu nationalist,” identities that HAF does not align with. Shukla further clarified that since HAF does not have an official definition for “Hindutva,” it cannot be determined whether the organization supports or opposes it.

However, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the fountainhead and mother ship of all things Hindutva, is said to have close links with HAF. HAF’s co-founder, Mihir Meghani, is reported to be a long-time member of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, which represents the overseas interests of the RSS. Meghani has spoken at conferences organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, the international religious branch of the RSS.

In 2005, HAF partnered with other organizations to lobby the state of California to change passages on Hinduism in official school textbooks. Critics suggest the changes HAF was pushing for reflected “chauvinistic political agendas,” seeking to equate the history of India with the history of Hinduism.

In October 2019, HAF invited Aarti Tikoo Singh, who claimed in a Twitter exchange that “Islamophobia is a bullsh*t word thrown in as a slur by those who have irrational fear (phobia) of any criticism of Islamic extremism [and] regressive Muslims.”

HAF served as a “partner organization” for an event marking Hindu Heritage month in October 2022. The chief guest and keynote speaker of the event was Dattatreya Hosabale, the general secretary of the RSS. Other supporting organizations of the event included the VHPA and the HSS. However, a disclaimer on the announcement for the event noted that “HAF was not part of the committee that invited the speakers for the inaugural program that took place on October 1, 2022.”

All these are well-documented by the Bridge Initiative Team at Georgetown University. You can read them [here](https://bridge.georgetown.edu/).

Conclusion

HAF’s SLAPP lawsuit is ironic, as they ended up revealing more about their own workings and alliances than they bargained for. Instead of silencing their critics, they have inadvertently created a platform for a broader conversation about their funding, operations, and functioning.

The meritless lawsuit, rather than protecting the reputation of the Hindu right, has highlighted their lack of strategic foresight and revealed the lengths they will go to suppress their critics. Such tactics, as seen in this case and others, have the potential to undermine democratic discourse and freedom of expression, often to the detriment of the parties initiating the lawsuits themselves.

Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, a Shiite Lebanese militant group, issued a threat against Israel in a speech, asserting his organization’s readiness for an expanded conflict. According to Nasrallah, Hezbollah purportedly commands a force of 100,000 fighters and hinted at potential hostilities extending to Cyprus.

Hezbollah, known for its ties to Iran and affiliation with Hamas, has escalated attacks on Israel since October 7, marked by rocket barrages targeting northern Israel and causing widespread evacuations. Nasrallah’s remarks, delivered at a funeral for Hezbollah fighters killed by Israeli forces, challenged Israel’s claims of success against Hezbollah, affirming the group’s resilience in the face of losses.

“The resistance’s manpower is unprecedented. We have recruited over 100,000 fighters,” Nasrallah stated, as reported by PressTV. “The enemy knows well that we have prepared ourselves for the worst… and that no place… will be spared our rockets.”

Nasrallah also warned against threats of war on Lebanon, asserting Hezbollah’s readiness and determination. Recent escalations in June saw Hezbollah launching rockets during the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, prompting significant Israeli military deployments along the Lebanese border. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have indicated readiness for offensive action if Hezbollah’s attacks persist.

Hezbollah further underscored its capabilities by releasing drone footage of northern Israel, purportedly gathered during reconnaissance missions over cities like Haifa. Nasrallah referenced this footage in his speech, describing extensive surveillance coverage of the region.

In addition to addressing Israel, Nasrallah praised other militant groups aligned with Iran, such as the Houthis in Yemen, highlighting their successful operations against commercial shipping despite international efforts to intervene.

Regarding Cyprus, Nasrallah’s speech included a direct threat in response to the country’s cooperation with the United States and Israel. He warned that allowing Israeli military access through Cypriot airports and bases would be seen as an act of war, promising Hezbollah would treat Cyprus accordingly.

Middle East Eye observed that Nasrallah’s threat against Cyprus, unprecedented in scale, coincided with Cypriot diplomatic engagements with the U.S., particularly concerning aid efforts in Gaza. Cyprus has strengthened ties with Israel in recent years, attracting investments and energy collaborations, actions Nasrallah views as supporting Israeli military operations against Lebanon.

Despite Nasrallah’s warnings, Cyprus’s President Nikos Christodoulides emphasized his nation’s neutrality in military conflicts and commitment to regional stability. He asserted that Cyprus plays a constructive role and is not involved in any military activities.

This situation has raised tensions in the region, with Israel and its allies closely monitoring Hezbollah’s actions and rhetoric, while Cyprus seeks to navigate diplomatic challenges amid escalating threats from militant groups like Hezbollah.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un have inked an accord on Wednesday, vowing reciprocal aid in the event of “aggression,” marking a significant strategic alliance amid heightened tensions with the West.

The specifics of the agreement remain unclear initially, but it potentially represents the strongest bond between Moscow and Pyongyang since the Cold War’s conclusion. Both leaders hailed the pact as a substantial elevation of bilateral ties, encompassing aspects such as security, trade, investment, as well as cultural and humanitarian relations.

Putin’s visit to North Korea, his first in 24 years, coincided with mounting concerns among the U.S. and its allies over possible military arrangements. These include speculations that Pyongyang could supply Moscow with crucial weaponry for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, in exchange for economic aid and technology transfers that could bolster Kim’s nuclear and missile capabilities.

Following his visit to North Korea, Putin traveled to Vietnam, where he received a ceremonial welcome and engaged with top Vietnamese officials to strengthen ties with a longstanding partner.

During their meeting, Kim characterized the relationship between North Korea and Russia as a “fiery friendship,” labeling the agreement as their “strongest ever treaty,” effectively positioning it akin to an alliance. He pledged full support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, while Putin described the pact as a “breakthrough document” that signifies mutual aspirations to elevate their partnership.

The historical backdrop includes a 1961 treaty between North Korea and the Soviet Union, which mandated Soviet military intervention in the event of aggression against North Korea. This agreement was replaced in 2000 with a less stringent pact following the USSR’s dissolution. The exact nature of the new agreement’s provisions regarding mutual assistance in the face of aggression remains unspecified.

Amid accusations and denials, the U.S. and South Korea have alleged North Korean involvement in supplying artillery, missiles, and other military equipment to aid Russia in Ukraine, potentially in exchange for advanced military technologies and assistance.

Russia, along with China, has consistently shielded North Korea from stringent international sanctions over its nuclear activities, further complicating global efforts to curb Pyongyang’s weapons development.

The visit featured symbolic gestures, including exchanges of gifts between the leaders. Putin presented Kim with a Russian-made limousine and other items, while Kim reciprocated with artwork depicting Putin.

The trip also included cultural engagements, such as attending a concert together, where both leaders were seen enjoying the performances and exchanging jovial moments.

The leaders also signed agreements aimed at infrastructure development, healthcare cooperation, and potential military-technical collaboration, with Putin not ruling out further deepening of such ties.

In response to Putin’s diplomatic outreach, reactions varied globally. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken criticized Russia’s efforts as desperate attempts to bolster support amid ongoing aggression in Ukraine. Meanwhile, South Korea’s government expressed cautious interest in the outcomes of the summit, particularly concerning North Korea’s commitments and Russia’s potential responses to regional security challenges.

Overall, Putin’s visit to Pyongyang is seen as a strategic move to assert Russia’s global influence beyond the Ukraine conflict, potentially unsettling Western powers and underscoring alternative alliances amidst heightened geopolitical tensions.

Canada, known for its political stability, is currently experiencing heightened anxiety over potential foreign interference within its government. This unease stems from a recent report by Canadian lawmakers, suggesting that some politicians might be covertly collaborating with foreign governments. Released by an all-party national security committee, the heavily redacted findings have added a layer of complexity to an already ongoing investigation into alleged foreign meddling in Canada’s 2019 and 2021 elections.

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) report is groundbreaking as it implicates Canadian lawmakers in potentially aiding foreign interference in political campaigns and leadership contests. The timing of this revelation is critical, given the global context of elections being influenced by advanced technologies and assertive foreign entities testing the resilience of democracies worldwide.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has found himself on the defensive since these allegations surfaced on Monday. Meanwhile, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has demanded transparency from the government. “The national security committee indicates there are members of this House that have knowingly worked for foreign hostile governments,” Poilievre stated on Wednesday. “Canadians have a right to know who and what is the information — who are they?”

The report’s findings have prompted calls for Canada’s national police force to investigate possible criminal charges. Additionally, the revelations have sparked a debate on whether Canada’s current deterrence measures are sufficient to curb foreign interference, despite the country’s highly regarded political and legal systems.

The NSICOP report detailed that “semi-witting or witting” parliamentarians had engaged with foreign missions to influence voters during campaigns, accepted money from these entities either knowingly or through deliberate ignorance, and shared confidential information with foreign diplomats. The committee, possessing top-security clearance, based its conclusions on over 4,000 documents and roughly 1,000 pieces of evidence, highlighting China and India as significant foreign interference threats to Canada.

The intelligence indicated that unnamed parliamentarians had been directed by foreign diplomats to manipulate parliamentary business to benefit foreign states. One particularly damaging aspect of the report points to Canada’s inadequacy in addressing long-standing issues concerning the use of national security information in criminal proceedings, suggesting this as a reason why criminal charges for such activities are improbable.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland acknowledged the seriousness of the issue but sidestepped questions about revealing the identities of the implicated parliamentarians. “We should recognize this is a new time,” she remarked, emphasizing the goal of authoritarian regimes to undermine democracies by fostering public distrust in governments. However, Freeland did not agree that public disclosure of names would necessarily benefit democracy, and she avoided further comments on the matter during subsequent inquiries.

In response to earlier allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian elections, the Trudeau government had already initiated an inquiry in September. These allegations included claims that the Chinese government mobilized voters against a Conservative candidate in Western Canada and supported a Liberal candidate in Toronto. Justice Marie-Josée Hogue was appointed to lead the investigation into foreign interference and election meddling, a topic also drawing significant interest from the U.S. Congress.

Conservative MP Michael Chong, who testified before the U.S. congressional-executive commission on China about being targeted by Beijing for his stance on Uyghur issues, discovered through media reports that a Chinese diplomat had been tasked with gathering information on him and his family. Other Canadian parliamentarians, including NDP MP Jenny Kwan, have also been warned by Canada’s spy agency about being surveilled by China.

Justice Hogue’s initial report last month noted that the Canadian government’s poor handling of foreign interference has eroded public trust in the democratic process. Although her findings indicated that foreign interference did not significantly alter the outcomes of the 2019 or 2021 federal elections, which saw Trudeau’s Liberals win back-to-back minority governments, the revelations continue to stir political tensions.

Following this week’s disclosures, Conservative MP Michael Chong urged the government to identify the implicated parliamentarians. However, Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc responded firmly, “We all know that no responsible government would reveal names under these types of confidential circumstances.” LeBlanc reiterated on Thursday that releasing names based on preliminary intelligence would be irresponsible, explaining that such intelligence is often unverified or uncorroborated.

David McGuinty, chair of the NSICOP, clarified that the decision to release the names is beyond his authority. He emphasized that he and the other committee members, who have top-secret security clearance, are bound by Canada’s Security of Information Act and face prosecution if they inadvertently disclose classified information. McGuinty avoided commenting on whether he felt uneasy working alongside potential collaborators of foreign interference, focusing instead on the need for government action. “I’m more concerned about the fact that now the government has to move forward on this,” he stated.

In Brussels, during previous EU leaders’ summits, Emmanuel Macron has faced criticism for his efforts to seize the spotlight. However, on Sunday night, he indisputably captured attention, albeit perhaps not in the manner he intended.

As votes for the European Parliament continued to be tallied, Macron emerged as the dominant figure in the headlines. His anticipated setback in the poll against French hard-right nationalists was no surprise, but his subsequent decision to dissolve the French national parliament came as a shock.

While he had toyed with the notion following his party’s defeat in France’s previous general election, few had expected such a move at this juncture. It’s a bold move, albeit from a position of vulnerability.

Identifying himself as a centrist and fervent supporter of European integration, Macron faces the prospect of navigating a snap general election scheduled for June 30 and July 7. This election could potentially force him to collaborate with a prime minister from the Eurosceptic far right—a scenario unprecedented in French politics.

Marine Le Pen, often depicted as Macron’s political adversary, proclaimed her party’s readiness to govern on Sunday. While France has previously witnessed instances where the president and prime minister hailed from different political factions, the appointment of a far-right prime minister would mark a historic departure.

In recent years, Le Pen has endeavored to broaden her party’s appeal and soften its extremist image. Her party’s significant victory at the EU level, securing more than double the votes garnered by Macron’s Renaissance party, has bolstered hopes of success in the upcoming snap election.

The success of Le Pen’s party reflects a broader trend across the EU, with the hard right and nationalist factions making gains fueled by concerns over migration, inflation, and the cost of environmental reforms. However, their ability to shape future EU policy remains uncertain, with centrist parties maintaining a firm grip on the majority of seats in the EU chamber.

Despite their collective grievances and populist rhetoric, uniting hard-right parties from different countries to exert influence at the EU level poses a formidable challenge. Divergent national priorities and ideological disparities, particularly regarding issues such as support for Ukraine against Russia, undermine cohesive action.

The hard right’s impact on environmental policy represents a tangible example of their influence on EU governance. Despite the EU’s ambitious climate agenda, the loss of seats by green parties in the European Parliament vote underscores growing public apprehension towards environmental regulations amid economic uncertainty.

Mass protests by farmers and public resistance to stringent environmental rules have provided fodder for the hard right to portray themselves as champions of the people against distant elites. Consequently, several EU environmental regulations were diluted or revoked ahead of the parliamentary vote, signaling potential setbacks in green initiatives.

As the nationalist right gains traction, traditional political labels become increasingly inadequate in gauging their influence. Some hard-right nationalists are adopting more mainstream positions to broaden their appeal, while center-right politicians mimic far-right rhetoric on contentious issues like migration and the environment to retain support.

Despite the media focus on far-right gains, it is the center-right that secured the largest number of seats and made significant gains in the European Parliament. However, such victories often pale in comparison to the sensationalism surrounding the rise of the far right.

In summary, Macron’s decision to dissolve parliament following his electoral defeat marks a pivotal moment in French politics, with far-reaching implications for EU governance and the balance of power within the European Parliament. As nationalist sentiments gain momentum, the landscape of European politics is poised for further upheaval, challenging traditional notions of political affiliation and influence.

In recent developments regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict, significant military activities have been reported across various regions, indicating ongoing intense clashes and strategic maneuvers by both sides.

In the Kupyansk direction, Ukrainian forces faced substantial artillery and mortar fire from Russian troops in the Kharkiv region, particularly around the settlements of Novomlynsk, Figolivka, and Dvorichna. Similarly, in the Lyman direction, Russian forces attempted offensive actions near Kreminna and Bilogorivka in the Luhansk region, though these efforts were largely unsuccessful. Airstrikes targeted multiple settlements in the Donetsk region, including Dibrova and Spirne, and artillery fire hit areas like Nevske and Bilogorivka in Luhansk.

The situation in Bakhmut remains critical, with Russian forces conducting unsuccessful offensive actions towards Klishchiivka and launching airstrikes near Bila Hora in Donetsk. Ukrainian settlements such as Vasyukivka and Ivanivske were subjected to heavy artillery fire. Conversely, in the Avdiivka direction, no major offensive operations were reported, though airstrikes and artillery shelling continued in areas like Novokalynove and Pervomaiske

In Marinka, Ukrainian defenders repelled 13 attacks, while Russian forces launched airstrikes and artillery fire on several settlements, including Maksimilianivka and Novomykhailivka. In the Shakhtarsk direction, Russian airstrikes hit Vugledar and Zolota Niva, with additional shelling reported in Prechistivka and NovoukrainkaThe Zaporizhzhia and Kherson directions saw continued defensive operations by Russian forces, who conducted airstrikes and artillery shelling in multiple settlements, including Olhivskyi in the Zaporizhzhia region and Odradokamyanka in Kherson. Ukrainian forces responded with significant airstrikes and artillery attacks, targeting Russian personnel, anti-aircraft systems, and other critical military infrastructure

On the diplomatic front, tensions continue to rise. Ukraine’s Deputy Defense Minister, Hanna Maliar, reported that Russian forces are struggling to maintain control over occupied territories, indicating a potential shift in the conflict dynamics. Moreover, Ukraine has been receiving increased military support from Western allies, including advanced weaponry, which has bolstered its defensive and offensive capabilities

Humanitarian concerns are also prominent. The conflict has led to severe civilian casualties and displacement. Efforts to evacuate civilians from conflict zones are ongoing, though they face significant challenges due to continued hostilities and infrastructure damage. The international community remains engaged, with various organizations providing aid and support to affected populations

The situation remains fluid, with both sides experiencing significant losses. Ukrainian forces reported that Russian manpower losses were particularly high, with approximately 880 soldiers killed in recent engagements. This highlights the intense and costly nature of the ongoing conflict

Overall, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine shows no signs of abating, with both military and diplomatic efforts continuing to shape the course of events. The international community watches closely, aware of the broader implications for regional and global stability.