Category: World

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi on October 4th told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that his country is ready to contribute to peace efforts in the ongoing conflict with Russia that has raged for seven months.

“I know that today’s era is not of war,” Mr. Modi told Mr. Putin had told Putin, describing global challenges like the food and energy crises that were hitting developing countries especially hard. “Today we will get a chance to discuss how we can move forward on the path of peace.”

However, NY Times reported that “After India’s prime minister said that now is not the time for war, an increasingly isolated Mr. Putin threatened “more serious” actions in Ukraine while insisting he was ready for talks.”

The war hasn’t gone Putin’s way. The Pentagon said in August that Russian casualties could be as high as 80,000, and that number has likely risen in recent months. In an effort to address Russia’s manpower problems, Putin recently announced a partial military mobilization, as well as various stop-loss measures, but things are not going well. There’s been local resistance to the draft, and tens of thousands of Russians have fled the country.

Putin also signed the annexation of four Ukrainian regions last week, despite the fact that Russia does not fully control or occupy these regions. In the time since, Ukrainian forces have recaptured territory in these areas. Recent reporting suggests that even members of Putin’s inner circle have begun to openly criticize the botched invasion, an action that can be dangerous and even deadly.

“He expressed his firm conviction that there can be no military solution to the conflict and conveyed India’s readiness to contribute to any peace efforts,” the Indian prime minister’s office said in a statement after a telephone conversation between Modi and Zelenskiy.

India is articulating its position against the Ukraine war more robustly to counter criticism that it is soft on Russia, but it still has neither held Moscow responsible for the invasion nor altered its policy on importing cheap Russian oil and coal. Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24.

The “Prime Minister emphasized the importance India attaches to the safety and security of nuclear installations, including in Ukraine,” the statement said.

He also reiterated the importance of respecting the UN Charter, International Law, and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states.

During his conversation with the Ukrainian president, Modi emphasised the importance India attaches to the safety and security of nuclear installations, including in Ukraine.

The prime minister underlined that endangerment of nuclear facilities could have far-reaching and catastrophic consequences for public health and the environment, the statement said.

The two leaders also touched upon important areas of bilateral cooperation, following up on their last meeting in Glasgow in November 2021, it said.

Ukraine and Russia have blamed each other for the attacks on the Zaporizhzhia plant, Europe’s largest atomic power complex.

Also, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday signed treaties to absorb the Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine, including the area around the nuclear plant.

The International Atomic Energy Agency had said Saturday that Russia told it that the “director-general of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant was temporarily detained to answer questions”.

The Vienna-based IAEA has said, “in line with its nuclear safety mandate”, it “has been actively seeking clarifications and hopes for a prompt and satisfactory resolution of this matter”.

The conversation between Modi and Zalenskyy comes a couple of weeks after the former had pressed Putin to end the conflict in Ukraine soon, saying “today’s era is not of war”. Modi had also called for finding ways to address the global food and energy security crisis.

In a bilateral meeting with Putin on the sidelines of the annual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in Samakand last month, Modi had underlined the importance of “democracy, dialogue and diplomacy” while calling for an early cessation of hostilities in Ukraine.

“Today the biggest worry before the world, especially developing countries, is food security, fuel security, fertilisers. We must find ways on these problems and you will also have to consider it. We will get an opportunity to talk about these issues,” Modi had said during his meeting with Putin.

It was the first in-person meeting between the two leaders after the Ukraine conflict began in February. “I know today’s era is not of war. We discussed this issue with you on phone several times, that democracy, diplomacy and dialogue touch the entire world. We will have the opportunity to talk today about how we can move forward on the road of peace in the coming days,” Modi had said.

On September 30, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed agreements illegally incorporating the Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson into Russia. He said Moscow would “defend our land with all the forces and resources we have.” He previously hinted this could include nuclear arms. Nuclear threats are no trivial matter, but Ukraine and the world should not be intimidated. The West should respond with political and military signals of its own.

Bogus referenda

The annexation of the four oblasts came 31 weeks after Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine and four days after Russian occupiers concluded so-called “referenda” on joining Russia. Those “referenda” were illegal under international law, had no credible independent observers, and, in some cases, required people to vote literally at gunpoint. No account was taken of the views of the millions of Ukrainian citizens who earlier had fled Russian occupation.

On that flimsy basis, Putin declared Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson to be parts of Russia, even though the Russian military does not control all those territories. Indeed, the Russian army finds itself on the defensive and retreating as Ukraine presses counter-attacks. Nevertheless, on October 3 and 4, Russia’s rubber-stamp legislative bodies, the Federal Assembly and Federal Council, each unanimously approved the annexations.

Putin’s territorial grab has two apparent motives. First, he seeks to divert domestic attention from the war’s costs (including tens of thousands of dead and wounded Russian soldiers), recent battlefield reverses and a chaotic mass mobilization. He wants to sell the Russian public on the idea that Russia has gained territory, so it must be winning.

Second, he hopes to dissuade Ukraine from continuing its counteroffensive and the West from supporting Kyiv. On September 30, Putin said the four Ukrainian oblasts would be Russian “forever” and would be defended “by all the means we possess.” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that attacks on the four oblasts would be considered attacks on Russia itself.

Putin has hinted at a nuclear threat, seeking to intimidate Ukraine and the West. Russian declaratory policy envisages the possible use of nuclear weapons in the event of a conventional attack on Russia “when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” Putin seeks to put a nuclear umbrella over the territories that Russia has seized.

Putin’s Nuclear Gambit

One cannot ignore Putin’s ploy: after all, a nuclear threat is involved. But one should also understand that he has made a serious overreach.

Russia could lose this war — that is, its military could be pushed back to the lines before Russia’s February 24 invasion or even before Russia seized Crimea — and Russia’s existence would not be in jeopardy. Ukraine’s goal is to drive the Russians out of Ukraine. The Ukrainian army will not march on Moscow; indeed, the Ukrainians have been extremely judicious in conducting only a small number of attacks against targets on Russian territory (that is, Russian territory as agreed by the post-Soviet states in 1991 following the Soviet Union’s collapse).

Moscow pundits try to portray the war as a conflict with the West, which they claim aims to destroy Russia. Perhaps it feels better to be losing to the West, not just Ukraine. Still, Western leaders have made clear that, while they will support Kyiv with arms and other assistance, they will not send troops to defend Ukraine. They do not seek Russia’s demise or dismemberment; they want to see Russia out of Ukraine.

Losing the war thus would not be existential for Russia. It could well prove so for Putin, or at least for his political future. The nuclear fear arises because Putin, as he grows more desperate, may see Russia’s fate and his own as one and the same.

However, Putin likely understands that, were Russia to use nuclear weapons, it would open a Pandora’s box full of unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences, including for Russia. Moreover, more sober-minded Russian political and military officials understand those risks. Would they allow Putin to put Russia in such peril? The decision to go to war was Putin’s; losing may be existential for him, but it need not be for others in Moscow.

While minimizing nuclear risks is an understandable concern, the West also must weigh the price of acceding to Putin’s gambit. If he can use vague nuclear threats to persuade the West to accept illegal annexations following sham “referenda,” what next? Putin himself has suggested Narva, a city in NATO-member Estonia, is “historically Russian” land. If his ploy succeeds in Ukraine, might he be tempted to seize portions of the Baltic states, annex them, and declare a nuclear threat to try to secure his ill-gotten gains?

Western messaging

Putin seeks to create a new geopolitical reality in Europe, one that few, if any, others will accept. The West should respond with pointed messaging of its own, some of which has begun.

First, Washington has set the right tone. On September 18, U.S. President Joe Biden warned Putin against using nuclear weapons, saying the U.S. response would be “consequential.” U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan reiterated the point on September 25, noting “that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the U.S. and our allies will respond decisively.” Both correctly left the specific nature of the U.S. and allied response ambiguous. Strategic ambiguity lets Russians worry about what might happen.

Washington has sent private messages to Moscow warning against nuclear use. U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley have periodically talked with their Russian counterparts and should now speak to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and to the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov. Shoigu and Gerasimov would be closely involved in any consideration of using nuclear arms. They may well have a more serious understanding of what nuclear use could entail for Russia than does Putin, and what is existential for Putin need not be existential for them.

Second, Washington and Kyiv’s other friends in the West should communicate their position to the Russian people, perhaps in a joint public statement. Such a statement should underscore that the West’s goal is not Russia’s destruction but withdrawal of the Russian army from Ukrainian territory or, at a minimum, a negotiated settlement on terms acceptable to Kyiv.

Third, Western diplomats should engage their counterparts in Beijing, Delhi, and other Global South capitals about Russia’s threat. Moscow needs to understand that any resort to nuclear weapons in a failing war against Ukraine would make Russia an international pariah.

Fourth, the West should increase military assistance so the Ukrainians can press forward and liberate more territory from Russian occupation. In particular, Washington should provide ATACMS — surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 200 miles — with the proviso, as currently applies to shorter-range U.S-supplied rockets, that they not target Russia (in its 1991 borders). But the door should be left ajar for ending that restriction should Russia escalate.

As the Kremlin continues to prosecute a war of aggression and tries to persuade the world that its annexations are legitimate, Putin has chosen to play a risky game. Western messaging should ensure that Russian political and military elites understand that the game poses serious risks as well for Russia and for them personally.

China, the world’s most populous country is expected to be overtaken by India in 2023. Moreover, by 2060 India’s population is projected to be nearly a half billion more than China’s.

(IPS) – While the world’s population of 8 billion is continuing to increase and projected to reach 9 billion by 2037 and 10 billion by 2058, considerable diversity in the population growth of countries is continuing in the 21st century.

At one extreme are some 50 countries, accounting for close to 30 percent of today’s world population, whose populations are expected to decline over the coming decades.

By 2060, for example, those projected population declines include 9 percent in Germany, 11 percent in Russia, 13 percent in Spain, 15 percent in China, 17 percent in Poland, 18 percent in Italy, 21 percent in South Korea, 22 percent in Japan, and 31 percent in Bulgaria (Figure 1).

In terms of the size of those population declines, the largest is in China with a projected decline of 218 million by 2060. Following China are population declines in Japan and Russia of 27 million and 16 million, respectively.

At the other extreme, the population of 25 countries, accounting for nearly 10 percent of the world’s population, are expected to more than double by 2060. Those projected population increases by 2060 include 106 percent in Afghanistan, 109 percent in Sudan, 113 percent in Uganda, 136 percent in Tanzania, 142 percent in Angola, 147 percent in Somalia, 167 percent in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 227 percent in Niger

With respect to the size of the populations that are projected to more than double, the largest is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with a projected increase of 165 million by 2060. DRC is followed by population increases in Tanzania and Niger of 89 million and 60 million, respectively.

In between the extremes of declining and doubling populations are 120 intermediate growth countries. They account for about 60 percent of today’s world population and are projected to have larger populations by 2060 to varying degrees.

Those projected increases in population size include 13 percent in the United States, 17 percent New Zealand, 20 percent in India, 24 percent in Canada, 29 percent in Australia, 38 percent Saudi Arabia, 58 percent Israel, 95 percent in Nigeria, and 98 percent in Ethiopia (Figure 3).

Among the intermediate growth countries, the largest expected population growth is in India with a projected increase of 278 million by 2060. India is followed by Nigeria and Ethiopia with population increases of 208 million and 121 million, respectively.

The continuing significant differences in the rates demographic growth are resulting in a noteworthy reordering of countries by population size.

For example, while in 1980 about half of the 15 largest country populations were developed countries, by 2020 that number declined to one country, the United States. Also, Nigeria, which was eleventh largest population in 1980, was the seventh largest in 2020 and is projected to be the third largest population in 2060 with the United States moving to fourth place (Table 1).

China, the world’s most populous country is expected to be overtaken by India in 2023. Moreover, by 2060 India’s population is projected to be nearly a half billion more than China’s, 1.7 billion versus 1.2 billion, respectively.

The major explanation behind the diversity in population growth rates is differing fertility levels. While the countries whose populations are projected to at least double by 2060 have fertility rates of four to six births per woman, those whose populations are projected to decline have fertility rates below two births per woman.

Europe’s current population of 744 million is expected to decline to 703 million by midcentury. By the century’s close the continent’s population is projected to be a fifth smaller than it is today, i.e., from 744 million to 585 million

About two-thirds of the world’s population of 8 billion live in a country, including the three most populous China, India and the United States, where the fertility rate has fallen below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. In addition, most of those populations have experienced low fertility rates for decades.

Also, many countries are experiencing fertility rates that are approximately half the replacement level or less. For example, the total fertility rate declined to 1.2 births per woman for China and Italy, 1.3 for Japan and Spain, with South Korea reaching a record low of 0.8 births per woman.

The population of some countries with below replacement fertility, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, are projected to continue growing due to international migration. However, if international migration to those countries stopped, their populations would begin declining in a few decades just like other countries with below replacement fertility levels.

In hopes of avoiding population decline, many countries are seeking to raise their fertility rates back to at least the replacement level. Among the countries with below replacement fertility close to two-thirds have adopted policies to increase their rates, including baby bonuses, family allowances, parental leave, tax incentives, and flexible work schedules.

Most recently, China announced new measures to raise its below replacement fertility rate by making it easier to work and raise a family. Those measures include flexible working arrangements and preferential housing policies for families, as well as support on education, employment, and taxes to encourage childbearing.

Despite the desires, policies, and programs of governments to raise fertility levels, returning to replacement level fertility is not envisaged for the foreseeable future.

The world’s average total fertility rate of 2.4 births per woman in 2020, which is about half the levels during the 1950s and 1960s, is projected to decline to the replacement level by midcentury and to 1.8 births per woman by the end of the 21st century. Consequently, by 2050 some 50 countries are expected to have smaller populations than today, and that number is projected to rise to 72 countries by 2100.

As many of those countries are in Europe, that continent’s current population of 744 million is expected to decline to 703 million by midcentury. By the century’s close Europe’s population is projected to be a fifth smaller than it is today, i.e., from 744 million to 585 million.

In contrast, the populations of roughly three dozen countries with current fertility levels of more than four births per woman are expected to continue growing throughout the century.

As most of those countries are in Africa, that continent’s population is projected to double by around midcentury. Moreover, by close of the 21st century Africa’s population is projected to be triple its current size, i.e., from 1.3 billion to 3.9 billion.

In sum, considerable diversity in the growth of populations is expected to continue throughout the 21st century. While the populations of many countries are projected to decline, the populations of many others are projected to increase. The net result of that diversity is the world’s current population of 8 billion is expected to increase to 10 billion around midcentury.

(Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”)

By, Joseph Chamie

China, the world’s most populous country is expected to be overtaken by India in 2023. Moreover, by 2060 India’s population is projected to be nearly a half billion more than China’s. 

(IPS) – While the world’s population of 8 billion is continuing to increase and projected to reach 9 billion by 2037 and 10 billion by 2058, considerable diversity in the population growth of countries is continuing in the 21st century.

At one extreme are some 50 countries, accounting for close to 30 percent of today’s world population, whose populations are expected to decline over the coming decades.

By 2060, for example, those projected population declines include 9 percent in Germany, 11 percent in Russia, 13 percent in Spain, 15 percent in China, 17 percent in Poland, 18 percent in Italy, 21 percent in South Korea, 22 percent in Japan, and 31 percent in Bulgaria (Figure 1).

In terms of the size of those population declines, the largest is in China with a projected decline of 218 million by 2060. Following China are population declines in Japan and Russia of 27 million and 16 million, respectively.

At the other extreme, the population of 25 countries, accounting for nearly 10 percent of the world’s population, are expected to more than double by 2060. Those projected population increases by 2060 include 106 percent in Afghanistan, 109 percent in Sudan, 113 percent in Uganda, 136 percent in Tanzania, 142 percent in Angola, 147 percent in Somalia, 167 percent in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 227 percent in Niger 

With respect to the size of the populations that are projected to more than double, the largest is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with a projected increase of 165 million by 2060. DRC is followed by population increases in Tanzania and Niger of 89 million and 60 million, respectively.

In between the extremes of declining and doubling populations are 120 intermediate growth countries. They account for about 60 percent of today’s world population and are projected to have larger populations by 2060 to varying degrees.

Those projected increases in population size include 13 percent in the United States, 17 percent New Zealand, 20 percent in India, 24 percent in Canada, 29 percent in Australia, 38 percent Saudi Arabia, 58 percent Israel, 95 percent in Nigeria, and 98 percent in Ethiopia (Figure 3).

Among the intermediate growth countries, the largest expected population growth is in India with a projected increase of 278 million by 2060. India is followed by Nigeria and Ethiopia with population increases of 208 million and 121 million, respectively.

The continuing significant differences in the rates demographic growth are resulting in a noteworthy reordering of countries by population size.

For example, while in 1980 about half of the 15 largest country populations were developed countries, by 2020 that number declined to one country, the United States. Also, Nigeria, which was eleventh largest population in 1980, was the seventh largest in 2020 and is projected to be the third largest population in 2060 with the United States moving to fourth place (Table 1).

China, the world’s most populous country is expected to be overtaken by India in 2023. Moreover, by 2060 India’s population is projected to be nearly a half billion more than China’s, 1.7 billion versus 1.2 billion, respectively.

The major explanation behind the diversity in population growth rates is differing fertility levels. While the countries whose populations are projected to at least double by 2060 have fertility rates of four to six births per woman, those whose populations are projected to decline have fertility rates below two births per woman.

Europe’s current population of 744 million is expected to decline to 703 million by midcentury. By the century’s close the continent’s population is projected to be a fifth smaller than it is today, i.e., from 744 million to 585 million

About two-thirds of the world’s population of 8 billion live in a country, including the three most populous China, India and the United States, where the fertility rate has fallen below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. In addition, most of those populations have experienced low fertility rates for decades.

Also, many countries are experiencing fertility rates that are approximately half the replacement level or less. For example, the total fertility rate declined to 1.2 births per woman for China and Italy, 1.3 for Japan and Spain, with South Korea reaching a record low of 0.8 births per woman.

The population of some countries with below replacement fertility, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, are projected to continue growing due to international migration. However, if international migration to those countries stopped, their populations would begin declining in a few decades just like other countries with below replacement fertility levels.

In hopes of avoiding population decline, many countries are seeking to raise their fertility rates back to at least the replacement level. Among the countries with below replacement fertility close to two-thirds have adopted policies to increase their rates, including baby bonuses, family allowances, parental leave, tax incentives, and flexible work schedules.

Most recently, China announced new measures to raise its below replacement fertility rate by making it easier to work and raise a family. Those measures include flexible working arrangements and preferential housing policies for families, as well as support on education, employment, and taxes to encourage childbearing.

Despite the desires, policies, and programs of governments to raise fertility levels, returning to replacement level fertility is not envisaged for the foreseeable future.

The world’s average total fertility rate of 2.4 births per woman in 2020, which is about half the levels during the 1950s and 1960s, is projected to decline to the replacement level by midcentury and to 1.8 births per woman by the end of the 21st century. Consequently, by 2050 some 50 countries are expected to have smaller populations than today, and that number is projected to rise to 72 countries by 2100.

As many of those countries are in Europe, that continent’s current population of 744 million is expected to decline to 703 million by midcentury. By the century’s close Europe’s population is projected to be a fifth smaller than it is today, i.e., from 744 million to 585 million.

In contrast, the populations of roughly three dozen countries with current fertility levels of more than four births per woman are expected to continue growing throughout the century.

As most of those countries are in Africa, that continent’s population is projected to double by around midcentury. Moreover, by close of the 21st century Africa’s population is projected to be triple its current size, i.e., from 1.3 billion to 3.9 billion.

In sum, considerable diversity in the growth of populations is expected to continue throughout the 21st century. While the populations of many countries are projected to decline, the populations of many others are projected to increase. The net result of that diversity is the world’s current population of 8 billion is expected to increase to 10 billion around midcentury.

 (Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”)

(Reuters) – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said that his country’s military had made major, rapid advances against Russian forces and freed dozens of towns in the south and east over the last week.

“This week alone, since the Russian pseudo-referendum, dozens of population centres have been liberated. These are in Kherson, Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk regions all together,” he said in a Tuesday nighttime address.

Last month, referendums were held on joining Russia in four regions, and Moscow used the overwhelming vote in favour as grounds for annexation of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. The vote was widely condemned by the West as rigged.

Zelenskiy cited eight small towns in Kherson in the south by name as recently having been recaptured. Reuters could not independently verify his statements.

A video released by the Ukraine defence ministry appeared to show the Ukrainian flag being raised over one of those communities, Davydiv Brid, in Kherson.

Ukrainian forces retook several villages in an advance along the strategic Dnipro River on Monday, Ukrainian officials and a Russian-backed leader in the area said.

In the east, Ukrainian forces have been expanding an offensive after capturing the main Russian bastion in the north of Donetsk, the town of Lyman, hours after Putin proclaimed the annexation of the province last week.

Russian forces in the Donetsk and Kherson regions have been forced to retreat in recent days and appear to be struggling to halt an increasingly Western-equipped Ukrainian army.

RUSSIAN ESCALATION

Russian President Vladimir Putin had been expected to sign on Tuesday evening a law formally annexing the four Ukrainian regions. They represent about 18% of Ukraine’s territory, and Kyiv and its Western allies annexation say is illegal and will not be recognised.

Russia does not fully control any of the four regions it claims – Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine and Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in the south – and the Kremlin has said it has yet to determine the final borders of the annexed territory.

Russia has escalated its seven-month war with the annexation drive, a military mobilisation and warnings of a possible recourse to nuclear weapons to protect all of its territory.

Moscow hopes a “partial mobilisation” it announced two weeks ago can help reverse a series of battlefield setbacks.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu was cited by the RIA news agency on Tuesday as saying that Russia had so far called up more than 200,000 reservists out of a planned 300,000 men.

Many Russian men have fled the country rather than fight in Ukraine, however, and Russian lawyers say they are working flat out to offer advice to men who want to avoid being drafted. Some Russians are making journeys of thousands of miles by car, train and plane to escape.

Russian defense ministry maps presented on Tuesday appeared to show rapid withdrawals of Russian forces from areas in eastern and southern Ukraine where they have been under severe pressure from the Ukrainian counteroffensive.

The ministry’s daily video briefing made no mention of any pullbacks, but on maps used to show the location of purported Russian strikes, the shaded area designating Russian military control was much smaller than the day before.

On the eastern front, Denis Pushilin, the Russia-backed leader in Donetsk, said Russian forces were building a serious line of defence around the city of Kreminna after being pushed back.

In the early hours of Tuesday morning, a missile crashed into the outskirts of the Ukraine-controlled eastern city of Kramatorsk. A Reuters reporter on the scene said the missile had gouged a huge crater in the backyard of a house.

U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO MEET

U.S. President Joe Biden told Zelenskiy in a call on Tuesday that Washington would provide Kyiv with $625 million in new security assistance, including High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers.

Biden also reiterated that the United States would “never recognise” Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory, the White House said. Earlier, the European Union also rejected Moscow’s “illegal annexation” and urged it to unconditionally withdraw its troops.

The 193-member U.N General Assembly will meet on Monday over Russia’s annexation. The General Assembly is expected to vote next week on a draft resolution denouncing Russia’s action, diplomats said. Russia vetoed a similar resolution in the 15-member Security Council last week.

In a decree on Tuesday, Zelenskiy formally declared any talks with Putin “impossible”, while leaving the door open to talks with Moscow if it got a new leader.

The Kremlin said that what it calls its “special military operation” in Ukraine would not end if Kyiv ruled out talks, adding that it “takes two sides to negotiate”.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also said Moscow did not want to take part in “nuclear rhetoric” spread by the West, after Britain’s Times newspaper reported that NATO had warned members Putin might test an atomic weapon on Ukraine’s border.

A Western diplomat told Reuters on Tuesday NATO had not warned its members of a Russian nuclear threat. Separately, a NATO official said the alliance had not observed any changes in Russia’s nuclear posture but that NATO remained vigilant. (Reporting by Reuters bureaux; Writing by Cynthia Osterman)

Amid repeated holds on proposals to designate Pakistan-based terrorists under the UN sanctions regime, India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said that terrorism should not be used as a “political tool” and the idea that something is blocked without assigning a reason challenges common sense.

“We do believe that in any process if any party is taking a decision, they need to be transparent about it. So the idea that something is blocked without assigning a reason, it sort of challenges common sense,” Jaishankar said as he spoke to a group of Indian journalists here on Saturday after wrapping up the New York leg of his visit to the US with his address to the UN General Assembly high-level session.

He was responding to a question by PTI on the issue of repeated holds and blocks on proposals to list Pakistan-based terror group leaders under the UN sanctions regime and whether this came up in his talks with his global counterparts as he met them during the high-level General Assembly week. “We do believe that in any process if any party is taking a decision, they need to be transparent about it. So the idea that something is blocked without assigning a reason, it sort of challenges common sense,” Jaishankar said.

“It came up in some of my meetings. I also mentioned it in my BRICS intervention,” he said referring to the meeting held last week on the margins of the General Assembly between the foreign ministers of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa group – Brazilian Foreign Minister Carlos Alberto Franco Franca, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi and Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of the Republic of South Africa Naledi Pandor. 

China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, has repeatedly put holds on listing proposals by India, the US and other allies to blacklist Pakistan-based terrorists under the 1267 Al Qaeda Sanctions regime of the Council.

Last week, China put a hold on a proposal moved at the United Nations by the US and co-supported by India to designate Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Sajid Mir, wanted for his involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks, as a global terrorist.

Last month, China put a hold on a proposal by the US and India at the United Nations to blacklist Abdul Rauf Azhar, the brother of Jaish-e Mohammed (JEM) chief Masood Azhar and a senior leader of the Pakistan-based terror organisation. Abdul Rauf Azhar, born in 1974 in Pakistan, was sanctioned by the US in December 2010.

In June this year, China had put a hold, at the last moment, on a joint proposal by India and the US to list Pakistan-based terrorist Abdul Rehman Makki under the 1267 Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council.

Jaishankar, in his UNGA address on Saturday, said that no rhetoric, however sanctimonious can ever cover up blood stains and nations who defend proclaimed terrorists in the United Nations advance neither their own interests nor their reputation, a clear reference to China and Pakistan.

“Having borne the brunt of cross border terrorism for decades, India firmly advocates a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach. In our view, there is no justification for any act of terrorism, regardless of motivation. And no rhetoric, however sanctimonious can ever cover up blood stains,” Jaishankar said in the UN General Debate.

“The United Nations responds to terrorism by sanctioning its perpetrators. Those who politicise the UNSC 1267 Sanctions regime, sometimes even to the extent of defending proclaimed terrorists, do so at their own peril. Believe me, they advance neither their own interests nor indeed their reputation,” he said.

With the Chinese Foreign Minister listening, Jaishankar had said during a ministerial meeting in the Security Council on Ukraine this week that the fight against impunity is critical to the larger pursuit of securing peace and justice. The Security Council must send an unambiguous and unequivocal message on this count. 

He had said “politics should never ever provide cover to evade accountability. Nor indeed to facilitate impunity. Regrettably, we have seen this of late in this very Chamber, when it comes to sanctioning some of the world’s most dreaded terrorists.” “If egregious attacks committed in broad daylight are left unpunished, this Council must reflect on the signals we are sending on impunity. There must be consistency if we are to ensure credibility,” he said.

 “We hope that reason would prevail and people, first of all, would not arbitrarily or politically block,” Jaishankar said, underlining that the message is that this is “not inter-state politics which we are talking about.”

“We are trying to get across our message that terrorism is not political. It should not be used as a political tool, its consequences should not be made political.
If you go into the UN and say does everybody consider terrorism a common threat, everybody will say yes. So we are saying well, if that’s what your position is, then why don’t your policies and your actions follow up on it,” he said.

By, Reena Bhardwaj, ANI

United States on Friday, Sept. 23, 2022, hosted a ministerial meeting of The Quad grouping with India, Japan and Australia, the first such meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

The leaders from the Quad countries signed the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) partnership guidelines.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who is here on a 10-day official visit to the United States, said, “Given the turbulent times, it’s important that Quad goes further in constructive agenda that we’ve set for ourselves that we work together on the delivery of public goods, that our efforts and particularly what we’re signing today the HADR partnership which we discussed and finalized in Tokyo is extremely timely.”

He said there were other initiatives in the making, some a little further in the pipeline like STEM fellowship.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who lost his father overnight and is likely to rush out of New York, hosted the Quad meeting.

Blinken announced that the meeting in New York is evidence that Quad is “strong and is getting stronger”.

“Not one of us alone can do what is necessary to meet these challenges and seize these opportunities and that is the inspiration behind Quad,” Blinken told his counterparts.

“This is the first time that the foreign ministers of the Quad nations got together at the UNGA so my hope is that it will be held as a regular feature at the meetings,” Blinken added.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong talked about Australia’s commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific that is inclusive and resilient.

“Quad is a forum committed to bringing tangible benefits to the region and ensuring a region which is peaceful, stable, prosperous and where sovereignty is respected, where the countries are free to make their own choices,” Wong said.

Wong took a veiled dig at China over the country trying to dominate the Indo-Pacific and said, “No one in this room wants to see a region where countries are not able to make their sovereign choices, where any one country or any one perspective dominates.”

The Indo-Pacific region is being reshaped economically and strategically, she asserted. “We want to represent countries to navigate this period of change together. So this is the heart of the Quad,” Wong noted.

Japan Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa highlighted the importance of Quad and, in a veiled swipe at Russia and China, referred to attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by “force”. The minister stated that free and open international order based on rule of law is under threat.
“It is extremely significant for us to demonstrate together to the international community our firm commitment to the UN charter and free and open Indo Pacific (FOIP),” the minister asserted.
“At the same time, FOIP cannot be achieved without working together with countries in the region. I am confident that the guidelines for Quad partnership on HADR here will further strengthen our collaboration to effectively respond to disasters in the Indo-Pacific region,” the minister concluded.

By, Ted Anthony

(AP) — The head of the United Nations had just warned of a world gone badly wrong — a place where inequity was on the rise, war was back in Europe, fragmentation was everywhere, the pandemic was pushing onward and technology was tearing things apart as much as it was uniting them.

“Our world is in big trouble. Divides are growing deeper. Inequalities are growing wider. Challenges are spreading farther,” Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Tuesday morning as he opened the general debate at the 77th U.N. General Assembly. And he was, on all counts, incontrovertibly correct.

Yet barely an hour later, here were two U.N. delegates — one Asian, one African — grinning and standing in the sun-dappled lobby of the U.N. Secretariat Building, thrilled to be there in person on this particular morning as they snapped photos of each other, laughing along the way as they captured the moment.

Hope: It can be hard to find anywhere these days, much less for the people who walk the floors of the United Nations, where shouldering the world’s weight is central to the job description. After all, this is an institution that listened last year as the president of the not-yet-at-war nation of Ukraine described it as being “like a retired superhero who has long forgotten how great they once were.”

And when world leaders are trying to solve some of humanity’s thorniest problems — or, to be frank, sometimes to impede solutions to those same problems — it’s easy, from a distance, to lose sight of hope through the haze of negative adjectives.

Yet beneath the layers of existential gloom Tuesday — and this is no doubt a pandemic-exhausted group of people representing a world in a really bad mood from so many disquieting challenges — there were signs of brightness poking through like persistent clovers in the sidewalk cracks.

“For each and every one of us, the U.N. is a unique platform for dialogue and for cooperation,” Swiss President Ignazio Cassis said. Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. spoke of his country being an “optimistic” nation for whom “solutions are within our collective grasp.”

“There’s one friend of mine who is a neurosurgeon who said my problem is I’m a congenital optimist,” U.S. President Joe Biden said on Wednesday ahead of a meeting with Guterres. “But I am optimistic. I think we can make things better.”

And David Kabua, president of the ocean-besieged Marshall Islands — a man who has little reason to express optimism these days — came to the United Nations and spoke of “this iconic hall, the symbol of humanity’s hope and aspiration for world peace, prosperity, and international cooperation.”

“As humanity strives to defend freedom and build lasting peace, the U.N.’s role is indispensable,” said South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol.

There were many other such moments Tuesday and Wednesday. Taken together, they are noteworthy: There seems a collective sense — echoed by leader after leader in different, sometimes oblique ways — that even when it disappoints or falters, the United Nations must be a place of hope amid the cold-eyed pragmatism.

Why is that? Part of it is the unswerving commitment since the U.N.’s very beginnings to the principle of multilateralism, a $10 word for playing nicely with each other. And to play nicely when your feuds are ancient or bloody or seemingly insurmountable — to even try — requires hope.

That’s always been true, though. There’s also something else, something unique to this year, to this moment. In the frightening early pandemic days of 2020, the U.N. General Assembly was all virtual, and leaders stayed home and made videos. Last year, despite a theme of “Building Resilience Through Hope,” the hybrid General Assembly produced spotty leader attendance and little sense of the world congregating.

Now, though the pandemic persists, the U.N. grounds are alive with people from most of the planet’s backgrounds and traditions, interacting and talking and generally doing what the United Nations was built to do — take nations and turn them into people, as the late Sen. William Fulbright 

“It’s the only place in international organizations where there is this effort to define what is collectively shared,” says Katie Laatikainen, a professor of political science and international relations at Adelphi University in Garden City, New York, who studies the United Nations.

“They’re working to figure out what it means to be part of the international community,” she says. “They’ve learned the language of appealing to the `we,′ and it encourages others to define the `we’ and commit to the `we.’”

Guterres made sure to infuse that sensibility as he opened the proceedings with his doom-saturated speech. He told of a ship called the Brave Commander, loaded with Ukrainian grain and — helped by the warring nations of Ukraine and Russia — headed for the Horn of Africa, where it can help prevent famine.

It flew under a U.N. flag, and Guterres said it and the dozens of ships that followed were not only carrying grain; they were carrying “one of today’s rarest commodities” — hope.

“By acting as one,” he said, “we can nurture fragile shoots of hope.”

So, no: Hope is not absent at the United Nations this week. That much is certain. It’s contained, it’s muted, it’s tentative. But it is there, gossamer though it might be — even if some might find the notion naive. “Our opportunity is here and now,” said the president of the General Assembly, Csaba Kőrösi of Hungary.

The world, after all, is not an easy place. Was it ever? The second secretary-general of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjöld, understood that. “The United Nations was not created in order to bring us to heaven,” he said, “but in order to save us from hell.”

(Aource: AP coverage of the UNGA, visit https://apnews.com/hub/united-nations-general-assembly)

United States on Friday, Sept. 23, 2022, hosted a ministerial meeting of The Quad grouping with India, Japan and Australia, the first such meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

The leaders from the Quad countries signed the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) partnership guidelines.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who is here on a 10-day official visit to the United States, said, “Given the turbulent times, it’s important that Quad goes further in constructive agenda that we’ve set for ourselves that we work together on the delivery of public goods, that our efforts and particularly what we’re signing today the HADR partnership which we discussed and finalized in Tokyo is extremely timely.”

He said there were other initiatives in the making, some a little further in the pipeline like STEM fellowship.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who lost his father overnight and is likely to rush out of New York, hosted the Quad meeting.

Blinken announced that the meeting in New York is evidence that Quad is “strong and is getting stronger”.

“Not one of us alone can do what is necessary to meet these challenges and seize these opportunities and that is the inspiration behind Quad,” Blinken told his counterparts.

“This is the first time that the foreign ministers of the Quad nations got together at the UNGA so my hope is that it will be held as a regular feature at the meetings,” Blinken added.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong talked about Australia’s commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific that is inclusive and resilient.

“Quad is a forum committed to bringing tangible benefits to the region and ensuring a region which is peaceful, stable, prosperous and where sovereignty is respected, where the countries are free to make their own choices,” Wong said.

Wong took a veiled dig at China over the country trying to dominate the Indo-Pacific and said, “No one in this room wants to see a region where countries are not able to make their sovereign choices, where any one country or any one perspective dominates.”

The Indo-Pacific region is being reshaped economically and strategically, she asserted. “We want to represent countries to navigate this period of change together. So this is the heart of the Quad,” Wong noted.

Japan Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa highlighted the importance of Quad and, in a veiled swipe at Russia and China, referred to attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by “force”. The minister stated that free and open international order based on rule of law is under threat.
“It is extremely significant for us to demonstrate together to the international community our firm commitment to the UN charter and free and open Indo Pacific (FOIP),” the minister asserted.
“At the same time, FOIP cannot be achieved without working together with countries in the region. I am confident that the guidelines for Quad partnership on HADR here will further strengthen our collaboration to effectively respond to disasters in the Indo-Pacific region,” the minister concluded.

Amid repeated holds on proposals to designate Pakistan-based terrorists under the UN sanctions regime, India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said that terrorism should not be used as a “political tool” and the idea that something is blocked without assigning a reason challenges common sense.

“We do believe that in any process if any party is taking a decision, they need to be transparent about it. So the idea that something is blocked without assigning a reason, it sort of challenges common sense,” Jaishankar said as he spoke to a group of Indian journalists here on Saturday after wrapping up the New York leg of his visit to the US with his address to the UN General Assembly high-level session.

He was responding to a question by PTI on the issue of repeated holds and blocks on proposals to list Pakistan-based terror group leaders under the UN sanctions regime and whether this came up in his talks with his global counterparts as he met them during the high-level General Assembly week. “We do believe that in any process if any party is taking a decision, they need to be transparent about it. So the idea that something is blocked without assigning a reason, it sort of challenges common sense,” Jaishankar said.

“It came up in some of my meetings. I also mentioned it in my BRICS intervention,” he said referring to the meeting held last week on the margins of the General Assembly between the foreign ministers of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa group – Brazilian Foreign Minister Carlos Alberto Franco Franca, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi and Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of the Republic of South Africa Naledi Pandor.

China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, has repeatedly put holds on listing proposals by India, the US and other allies to blacklist Pakistan-based terrorists under the 1267 Al Qaeda Sanctions regime of the Council.

Last week, China put a hold on a proposal moved at the United Nations by the US and co-supported by India to designate Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Sajid Mir, wanted for his involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks, as a global terrorist.

Last month, China put a hold on a proposal by the US and India at the United Nations to blacklist Abdul Rauf Azhar, the brother of Jaish-e Mohammed (JEM) chief Masood Azhar and a senior leader of the Pakistan-based terror organisation. Abdul Rauf Azhar, born in 1974 in Pakistan, was sanctioned by the US in December 2010.

In June this year, China had put a hold, at the last moment, on a joint proposal by India and the US to list Pakistan-based terrorist Abdul Rehman Makki under the 1267 Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council.

Jaishankar, in his UNGA address on Saturday, said that no rhetoric, however sanctimonious can ever cover up blood stains and nations who defend proclaimed terrorists in the United Nations advance neither their own interests nor their reputation, a clear reference to China and Pakistan.

“Having borne the brunt of cross border terrorism for decades, India firmly advocates a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach. In our view, there is no justification for any act of terrorism, regardless of motivation. And no rhetoric, however sanctimonious can ever cover up blood stains,” Jaishankar said in the UN General Debate.

“The United Nations responds to terrorism by sanctioning its perpetrators. Those who politicise the UNSC 1267 Sanctions regime, sometimes even to the extent of defending proclaimed terrorists, do so at their own peril. Believe me, they advance neither their own interests nor indeed their reputation,” he said.

With the Chinese Foreign Minister listening, Jaishankar had said during a ministerial meeting in the Security Council on Ukraine this week that the fight against impunity is critical to the larger pursuit of securing peace and justice. The Security Council must send an unambiguous and unequivocal message on this count.

He had said “politics should never ever provide cover to evade accountability. Nor indeed to facilitate impunity. Regrettably, we have seen this of late in this very Chamber, when it comes to sanctioning some of the world’s most dreaded terrorists.” “If egregious attacks committed in broad daylight are left unpunished, this Council must reflect on the signals we are sending on impunity. There must be consistency if we are to ensure credibility,” he said.

“We hope that reason would prevail and people, first of all, would not arbitrarily or politically block,” Jaishankar said, underlining that the message is that this is “not inter-state politics which we are talking about.”

“We are trying to get across our message that terrorism is not political. It should not be used as a political tool, its consequences should not be made political.
If you go into the UN and say does everybody consider terrorism a common threat, everybody will say yes. So we are saying well, if that’s what your position is, then why don’t your policies and your actions follow up on it,” he said.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Pope Francis initially appeared to uphold the Vatican’s longstanding policy of not taking sides, before eventually changing tack and saying explicitly that Russia was the aggressor in the war.

Now, Francis has weighed in on a morally thorny issue, saying on Thursday that it is acceptable for countries to provide weapons to Ukraine so that the country can defend itself.

Self-defense in the face of aggression is “not only lawful but also an expression of love of country,” Francis said.

But he also stressed that communication channels with Russia should remain open even if, he said, dialogue with the aggressor “stinks,” because “otherwise we close off the only reasonable door to peace.”

Francis spoke to reporters onboard a plane returning from a three-day trip to Kazakhstan, where he participated in an interfaith conference attended by faith leaders from 60 countries. The meeting promoted interfaith dialogue as a means to help heal the world’s ills, including war.

Asked whether it was right for countries to supply weapons to Ukraine, Francis said that was “a political decision, which can be moral — morally acceptable — if it is done according to the conditions of morality.” It would be immoral, he said, “if it is done with the intention of provoking more war or selling weapons or discarding those weapons that are no longer needed.”

The pope made a reference to “just war,” a set of ethical principles regarding the proportional response to aggression, usually traced to the writings of St. Augustine.

The interfaith conference was supposed to provide an opportunity for Francis to meet with Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, who has justified the war in Ukraine. But Kirill decided last month not to attend and the Russian delegation was headed instead by Metropolitan Anthony, who is in charge of the church’s foreign relations.

The two religious leaders did speak by video in March, but Kirill spent a good part of that meeting reading prepared remarks that echoed the arguments of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin. Francis told an Italian newspaper he had told Kirill that the men were not “clerics of the state” and said the patriarch could not be “Putin’s altar boy.”

In August, Ukrainian officials were dismayed when Francis referred to Daria Dugina, a 29-year-old Russian ultranationalist who spoke out in favor of the invasion of Ukraine, and was killed by a car bomb, as an “innocent” victim.

Afterward, Ukraine’s foreign minister summoned the Vatican’s ambassador to Ukraine to express “profound disappointment” in Francis’s words. It was after that meeting that the Pope explicitly blamed Russia in the conflict.

Prime Minister Liz Truss has appointed her new cabinet, hours after taking over at 10 Downing Street. Liz Truss rewarded close allies with top cabinet jobs while removing most supporters of Rishi Sunak from government in a major reshuffle as she took over from Boris Johnson as prime minister.

The bulk of Ms Truss’s appointments are on the Conservative party’s right-wing, dampening hopes that she would try to unite the party after an extremely divisive leadership contest.

For the first time, there are no white males in any of the four most senior positions of the UK government: prime minister, chancellor, home secretary and foreign secretary. Suella Braverman has been appointed as home secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng as chancellor and James Cleverly as foreign secretary.

The new prime minister binned deputy PM Dominic Raab and cabinet colleagues Grant Shapps, George Eustice and Steve Barclay. Former business secretary Kwarteng, a long-term ally of Truss’s, entered the Treasury to replace Nadhim Zahawi.

Following Zahawi’s brief stint in the role, Kwarteng becomes the UK’s fourth ethnic-minority chancellor in a row – with Sunak and Sajid Javid having also held the job in the past four years.

Coffey, the former work and pensions secretary who is regarded as Truss’s closest friend in Westminster, replaced Raab as the second in command after he described Truss’s tax plans as an “electoral suicide note”.

The pair’s alliance is thought to stretch back to their post-university politics days, and was cemented when they were both elected as MPs of near-neighbouring eastern England constituencies in 2010.

Braverman replaces Priti Patel, who announced her departure on Monday before Truss entered No 10 after her home office job was publicly linked with her now successor. The former attorney general ran for the Tory leadership, decrying what she termed “woke rubbish” and pledging to take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Truss has made Cleverly – who was shuffled to the position of education secretary as Boris Johnson’s premiership collapsed around him in July – her successor at the foreign office.

India has warned of a significant increase in the presence of terrorist groups in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and threats to other countries emanating from there, even as it revived a diplomatic presence in the capital Kabul but has stopped short of formal recognition.

“We need to see concrete progress in ensuring that such proscribed terrorists, entities, or their aliases do not get any support, tacit or direct, either from Afghan soil or from the terror sanctuaries based in the region”, India’s Permanent Representative Ruchira Kamboj told the UN Security Council on Monday, August 29, 2022.

India’s concerns about terrorist threats from Afghanistan were widely shared by participants at the Council meeting held on the eve of the anniversary of the U.S. withdrawal from there.

Kamboj said that there was “a significant increase” in the presence of the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISIL-K) group in Afghanistan and its “capacity to carry out attacks”.

The Islamic State affiliate “continues to issue threats of terrorist attacks on other countries”, she said.

Kamboj drew attention to the attack on a gurdwara in Kabul in June and the bomb explosion near it the next month, which she said were “hugely alarming”.

ISIS-K had claimed responsibility for the attack on the Sikh temple.

“The linkages between groups listed by the UN Security Council such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed as well as provocative statements made by other terrorist groups operating out of Afghanistan pose a direct threat to the peace and stability of the region”, she added.

Britain, France, the United States, Albania, Kenya and, even, China and Russia acknowledged the terrorism threats from Afghanistan.

The meeting was convened at the request of Russia, which, along with China, Iran and Pakistan, wanted the sanctions on the Taliban loosened.

They used the terrorism threat to make their case, asserting that engaging with the Taliban, lifting travel bans on their leaders and releasing the country’s frozen funds would pave the way for finding solutions to terrorism and other issues like women’s rights.

China’s Permanent Representative Zhang Jun said the US should “immediately return the frozen assets” – and Pakistan’s Permanent Representative Munir Akram duly echoed it.

US Permanent Representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield countered: “No country that is serious about containing terrorism in Afghanistan would advocate giving the Taliban instantaneous, unconditional access to billions in assets that belong to the Afghan people”.

United Arab Emirates Permanent Representative Lana Zaki Nusseibeh said that the Council should use the tools available to it to make the Taliban combat terrorism.

Albania’s Permanent Representative Frid Hoxha noted that pervasive ties between the Taliban and international terrorist organizations continue, while Kenya’s Counselor Gideon Kinuthia Ndung’u said that it should ensure that Afghanistan will not be a base for terrorist organizations like the Islamic State and Al-Qaida to launch attacks.

Russia, joined by China, Iran and Pakistan, blamed the US for the terrorism in Afghanistan.

Russia’s Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzya said, “The US came to Afghanistan with a special mission – to fight against terrorism” but “in reality, their arrival to the country only strengthened its status as a hotbed of terrorism and a centre for the production and distribution of drugs”.

He and Zhun said that the US and other Western countries should make up for their mistakes in Afghanistan.

Kamboj said that India has sent Afghanistan 32 tonnes of medical assistance, which includes essential life-saving medicines, anti-TB medicines and 500,000 doses of Covid vaccine, and over 40,000 tonnes of wheat.

These were being distributed through the World Health Organisation and the UN’s World Food Program to ensure they reached the people.

In a statement last Saturday, the Afghan foreign ministry in Kabul said it “welcomes India’s step to upgrade its diplomatic representation in Kabul.”

In June, India re-established its diplomatic presence in Kabul by deploying what it called a “technical team’ ” – a euphemism for junior diplomats – in its embassy in the Afghan capital.

India had withdrawn its officials from the embassy after the Taliban seized power in August 2021 following concerns over their security.

Kamboj also expressed “concern at developments in Afghanistan which directly impact the well-being of women and girls”.

“We join others in calling for the protection of the rights of women and girls, and to ensure that the long-fought gains of the last two decades are not reversed”, the Indian representative said.

The Taliban has severely restricted employment, education and participation in public life by women. (Courtesy: South Asia Monitor)

The man credited with introducing key political and economic reforms to the USSR, helped end the Cold War, leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 until its dissolution in 1991, Gorbachev tried to revive the moribund communist state by introducing polices of economic and political openness, known as perestroika and glasnost.

But the reforms quickly overtook him and resulted in the collapse of the authoritarian Soviet state, the freeing of Eastern European nations from Russian control and the end of decades of East-West nuclear confrontation, bringing the Cold War to a conclusion.

When Gorbachev turned 90 last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin — a critic of Gorbachev’s policies — hailed him in a letter published by the Kremlin as “one of the most outstanding statesmen of modern times who made a considerable impact on the history of our nation and the world.” He had been in failing health for some time.

Even though Gorbachev won the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending the Cold War, he was despised by many at home as Russians blamed him for the collapse of the once-fearsome Soviet Union. When he ran for president in 1996, Gorbachev received less than 1% of the vote.

With his outgoing, charismatic nature, Gorbachev broke the mold for Soviet leaders who until then had mostly been remote, icy figures. Almost from the start of his leadership, he strove for significant reforms, so the system would work more efficiently and more democratically. Hence the two key phrases of the Gorbachev era: “glasnost” (openness) and “perestroika” (restructuring).

“I began these reforms and my guiding stars were freedom and democracy, without bloodshed. So the people would cease to be a herd led by a shepherd. They would become citizens,” he later said.

Gorbachev had humble beginnings: He was born into a peasant family on March 2, 1931 near Stavropol, and as a boy, he did farm labor along with his studies, working with his father who was a combine harvester operator. In later life, Gorbachev said he was “particularly proud of my ability to detect a fault in the combine instantly, just by the sound of it.”

He became a member of the Communist Party in 1952 and completed a law degree at Moscow University in 1955. It was here that he met — and married — fellow student Raisa Titarenko.

During the early 1960s, Gorbachev became head of the agriculture department for the Stavropol region. By the end of the decade he had risen to the top of the party hierarchy in the region. He came to the attention of Mikhail Suslov and Yuri Andropov, members of the Politburo, the principal policy-setting body of the Communist Part of the Soviet Union, who got him elected to the Central Committee in 1971 and arranged foreign trips for their rising star.

In 1978, Gorbachev was back in Moscow, and the next year he was chosen as a candidate member of the Politburo. His stewardship of Soviet agriculture was not a success. As he came to realize, the collective system was fundamentally flawed in more than one way.

A full Politburo member since 1980, Gorbachev became more influential in 1982 when his mentor, Andropov, succeeded Leonid Brezhnev as general secretary of the party. He built a reputation as an enemy of corruption and inefficiency, finally rising to the top party spot in March 1985.

‘A man one can do business with’

Hoping to shift resources to the civilian sector of the Soviet economy, Gorbachev began to argue in favor of an end to the arms race with the West.

However, throughout his six years in office, Gorbachev always seemed to be moving too fast for the party establishment — which saw its privileges threatened — and too slow for more radical reformers, who hoped to do away with the one-party state and the command economy.

Desperately trying to stay in control of the reform process, he seemed to have underestimated the depth of the economic crisis. He also seemed to have had a blind spot for the power of the nationality issue: Glasnost created ever-louder calls for independence from the Baltics and other Soviet republics in the late 1980s.

He was successful in foreign policy, but primarily from an international perspective, with other world leaders taking note. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher called him “a man one can do business with.”

In 1986, face to face with American President Ronald Reagan at a summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, Gorbachev made a stunning proposal: eliminate all long-range missiles held by the United States and the Soviet Union. It was the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 “for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community.”

The pact that resulted, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, endured as a pillar of arms control for three decades until, in 2019, the United States formally withdrew and the Russian government said it had been consigned to the trash can.

He will be buried next to his wife at the Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow, RIA Novosti reported citing the Gorbachev Foundation. (With inputs from CNN)

India for the first time has voted against Russia during a “procedural vote” at the United Nations Security Council on Ukraine on Wednesday, August 24th, as the 15-member powerful UN body invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to address a meeting through a video tele-conference.

This is for the first time that India has voted against Russia on the issue of Ukraine, after the Russian military action began in February. So far, New Delhi has abstained at the UN Security Council on Ukraine, much to the annoyance of the Western powers led by the United States.

Although this was the first time India had not abstained on a matter linked to Ukraine and voted with the west, the vote was different from the issues India had abstained on and those were more substantial. “It was (only) for or against Zelensky’s participation” in the meeting through a video link, the source pointed out. Before this, India had abstained on two occasions at the UNSC and once in the General Assembly on the resolutions on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

India has not criticized Russia for its aggression against Ukraine. New Delhi has repeatedly called upon the Russian and Ukrainian sides to return to the path of diplomacy and dialogue, and also expressed its support for all diplomatic efforts to end the conflict between the two countries.

India currently is a non-permanent member of the UNSC for a two-year term, which ends in December. Western nations, including the US, have imposed major economic and other sanctions on Russia following the aggression.

On the 31st anniversary of Ukraine’s independence, the UN Security Council met on Wednesday to assess the six-month-old conflict. As the meeting began, Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vassily A Nebenzia requested a procedural vote on the Ukrainian President’s video teleconference participation.

Following his and Albanian Prime Minister Ferit Hoxha’s words, the Council invited Zelensky to join in the meeting via video teleconference by a vote of 13 to one. Russia and China both voted against such an invitation.

Zelensky, addressing via video conference, demanded that the Russian Federation be held accountable for its actions against Ukraine. “If Moscow is not stopped now,” he continued, “all these Russian murderers will definitely end up in other countries.”

“It is on the territory of Ukraine that the world’s future will be decided,” he added. “Our independence is your security,” he told the UNSC.

The Ukrainian President called on Russia to cease its “nuclear blackmail” and completely withdraw from the plant.

Ukraine celebrated its Independence Day on Wednesday, which also marked exactly six months since the start of Russia’s military offensive against the country on February 24.

A formal case of terrorism charges have been filed against former Prime Minister Imran Khan, Pakistan authorities said Monday, escalating political tensions in the country as the ousted premier holds mass rallies seeking to return to office.

A case under Anti Terrorism Act section 7 has been registered against Former PM Imran Khan by Islamabad police on the alleged threats that he gave to the IG Police Islamabad and a Female magistrate during a public rally in Islamabad on 20th August.

The charges followed a speech Khan gave in Islamabad on Saturday in which he vowed to sue police officers and a female judge and alleged that a close aide had been tortured after his arrest.

Khan himself has not publicly spoken about the latest charges against him. However, a court in Islamabad issued a so-called “protective bail” for Khan for the next three days, preventing police from arresting him over the charges, said Shah Mahmood Qureshi, a senior leader in his Tehreek-e-Insaf opposition party.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman was booked under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). An FIR has been filed against Niazi under Section 7 ATA for challenging judicial and law enforcement authorities.

Hundreds of Tehreek-e-Insaf members stood outside Khan’s home on Monday in a show of support as the former premier held meetings inside. The party has warned that it will hold nationwide rallies if Khan is arrested while working to try to squash the charges in court.

“We will take over Islamabad and my message to police is … don’t be part of this political war anymore,” warned Ali Amin Khan Gandapur, a former minister under Khan.

Under Pakistan’s legal system, police file what is known as a first information report about charges against an accused person to a magistrate judge, who allows the investigation to move forward. Typically, police then arrest and question the accused.

The report against Khan includes testimony from Magistrate Judge Ali Javed, who described being at the Islamabad rally on Saturday and hearing Khan criticize the inspector-general of Pakistan’s police and another judge. Khan went on to reportedly say: “You also get ready for it, we will also take action against you. All of you must be ashamed.”

Khan could face several years in prison from the new charges, which accuse him of threatening police officers and the judge under Pakistan’s 1997 anti-terrorism law, which granted police wider powers amid sectarian violence in the country. However, 25 years later, critics say the law helps security forces skirt constitutional protections for defendants while governments also used it for political purposes.

Khan has not been detained on other lesser charges levied against him in his recent campaigning against the government.

The Pakistani judiciary also has a history of politicization and taking sides in power struggles between the military, the civilian government and opposition politicians, according to the Washington-based advocacy group Freedom House. Current Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif likely will discuss the charges against Khan at a Cabinet meeting scheduled for Tuesday.

In seeking Khan’s ouster earlier this year, the opposition had accused him of economic mismanagement as inflation soars and the Pakistani rupee plummets in value. The parliament’s no-confidence vote in April that ousted Khan capped months of political turmoil and a constitutional crisis that required the Supreme Court to step in. Meanwhile, it appeared the military similarly had cooled to Khan.

Khan alleged without providing evidence that the Pakistani military took part in a U.S. plot to oust him. Washington, the Pakistani military and Sharif’s government have all denied the allegation. Meanwhile, Khan has been carrying out a series of mass rallies trying to pressure the government.

In his latest speech Sunday night at a rally in the city of Rawalpindi outside of Islamabad, Khan said so-called “neutrals” were behind the recent crackdown against his party. He has in the past used the phrase “neutrals” for the military.

“A plan has been made to place our party against the wall. I assure you, that the Sri Lankan situation is going to happen here,” Khan threatened, referencing the recent economic protests that toppled that island nation’s government.

“Now we are following law and constitution. But when a political party strays from that path, the situation inside Pakistan, who will stop the public? There are 220 million people.”

Khan’s party has been holding mass protests, but Pakistan’s government and security forces fear the former cricket star’s popularity still could draw millions out to the street. That could further pressure the nuclear-armed nation as it struggles to secure a $7 billion bailout from the International Monetary Fund amid an economic crisis, exacerbated by rising global food prices due in part by Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Khan came to power in 2018, promising to break the pattern of family rule in Pakistan. His opponents contend he was elected with help from the powerful military, which has ruled the country for half of its 75-year history.

The Mexican President proposed that the top commission should include Pope Francis, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, and Indian PM Narendra Modi.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is planning to submit a written proposal to the UN to create a commission, made up of three world leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to promote a world truce for a period of five years, MSN web portal reported.

“I will make the proposal in writing, I will present it to the UN. I have been saying it and I hope the media will help us to spread it. Because they do not speak when it is not convenient for them,” MSN quoted Obrador as saying during a press conference.

The Mexican President proposed that the top commission should include Pope Francis, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, and Indian PM Narendra Modi.

The aim of the commission would be to present a proposal to stop the wars around the world and reach an agreement to seek a truce for at least five years.

“The three of them meet and soon present a proposal to stop the war everywhere, and reach an agreement to seek a truce of at least five years, so that governments around the world dedicate themselves to support their peoples, especially the people who are suffering the most from the war and its effects; that we have five years without tension, without violence and with peace,” he said.

Calling for an end to warlike actions, the Mexican President has invited China, Russia and the United States, to seek peace and hoped the three countries “will listen and accept an intermediation such as the one we are proposing”.

“Tell them, by their confrontations, in nothing more than a year, they have caused this. They have precipitated the world economic crisis, they have increased inflation and caused food shortages, more poverty and, worst of all, in one year, because of the confrontations, so many human beings have lost their lives. That is a paragraph. That’s what they have done in one year,” MSN quoted him.

According to Obrador, the proposed truce would facilitate “reaching agreements in the case of Taiwan, Israel and Palestine, and not be promoting, provoking more confrontation”.

Furthermore, he urged that all the governments around the world should join in support of the UN and not the bureaucratic mechanism in which proposals and initiatives are presented.

(The Conversation) — This month marks the 75th anniversary of Pakistan’s independence and of its Partition from British India in a devastating process that uprooted more than 15 million people and resulted in 1 million to 2 million dead. Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs – communities that had coexisted for hundreds of years – all participated in the sectarian violence. Countless people have borne the scars from these events over multiple generations.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, sought to create a democratic, egalitarian and secular country where the Muslims of the subcontinent, who constituted about 25% of the population, could enjoy full equality. For most of his life, he sought to achieve this equality within an undivided Hindu-majority India. Later he became convinced that a separate homeland was necessary to realize such equality.

Today, widespread and escalating violence against Indian Muslims under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s right-wing, Hindu-nationalist rule seems to confirm Jinnah’s fears.

Jinnah died just a year after Pakistan was born. As a scholar of South Asia, I know that in the years that followed, the military and the business elite consolidated their power and helped shape a country that bears little resemblance to his vision – although many continue to fight for it.

Pakistan today

Ideology and religion are divisive forces in Pakistan today – from sectarian violence against Shia Muslims to the state’s blasphemy laws that authorize a death sentence for anyone who insults Islam. Religion, as interpreted by the state, plays a significant role in politics and governance. An example of its harmful role can be seen in the deterioration of the rights of Ahmadis, members of a religious minority targeted by the state.

Other religious minorities also face discrimination, with Christians subject to particularly harsh treatment. According to Pew Research statistics, 75% of Pakistanis say blasphemy laws are necessary to protect Islam, while only 6% say blasphemy laws unfairly target minorities.

Pakistan also remains on a turbulent political and economic trajectory. The army has been in direct control of the state for most of its existence, with four military coups and decades of military rule since 1958. The military and notorious intelligence services remain in direct control of domestic and foreign policy, making decisions to protect their power and economic interests, including vast commercial holdings.

Economically, Pakistan has lagged behind other developing countries, with debt as high as 71.3% of its GDP. Inequality is high, with the top 10% of households owning 60% of the national wealth, and the bottom 60% owning just 10%.

The elite evade taxes on a massive scale, contributing to the country’s economic instability. While millions live in dire poverty and hunger, the government’s spending to mitigate poverty is among the lowest in the region. Dissidents, human rights activists and journalists face censorship and repression.

Born in Karachi in 1876 to a Muslim family, Jinnah was first educated at a local Muslim school and later at Karachi’s Christian Missionary Society High School.

At 16, Jinnah was sent to London, where he decided to study law. After returning to India, he established himself in Bombay as a successful and eloquent lawyer.

Happier days: Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Mahatma Gandhi.
Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Jinnah joined the Indian National Congress in 1906, becoming part of the largest Indian political party organizing for independence from British colonial rule. At this time, he was the foremost proponent of Hindu-Muslim harmony in India and pursued a strategy of a unified front against the British.

He considered himself “a staunch Congressman” and rejected political organizing that separated Muslims and Hindus in India. Accordingly, Jinnah delayed joining the All-India Muslim League, the political party formed to represent the rights and concerns of the Muslims of British India, until 1913. For years he remained a member of both parties.

Jinnah’s concerns over Hindu nationalism

Jinnah’s faith in the Congress party would wane, and he resigned in 1920. He was increasingly concerned with Congress’ growing emphasis on India’s Hindu identity and the lack of political representation for the country’s Muslim minority.

Jinnah was also deeply disturbed by the emergence of right-wing Hindu nationalist groups like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, a violent paramilitary group that drew inspiration from European fascist parties, opposed Muslim-Hindu unity and increasingly sought to force Muslims to convert or leave India.

In 1934, Jinnah was unanimously elected as the president of the Muslim League, and he continued to advocate for the rights of Muslims in a unified India. He did not embrace dividing the Indian subcontinent into separate Muslim-majority and Hindu-majority areas until the 1940s.

In this period, escalating sectarian violence stoked by both Hindu and Muslim right-wing groups, and Congress’ refusal to accept a federation in which Muslim-majority regions enjoyed greater political representation, contributed to foreclosing an alternative to partition. During this period, Jinnah stressed that Muslims would never enjoy security and full equality in the Hindu-majority nation.

Jinnah eventually led the Muslims of India to form a nation of their own with the creation of Pakistan in 1947. He insisted that this new nation be a secular democratic country with equal rights for all who resided there.

Jinnah’s vision for a secular Pakistan

Jinnah emphasized the necessity of secular education to improve social and economic conditions in the Muslim community, argued for equality between the sexes and advocated for the discarding of the parda, or veil.

Jinnah did not write a book or memoir, but his speeches give an insight into his vision for Pakistan. Notably, his speech a few days before becoming Pakistan’s first president, delivered on Aug. 11, 1947, expressed his secular aspirations for the newly formed country. In it he stressed: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

Four days later, on Aug. 14, 1947, British India was divided into the independent nations of Pakistan and India. As the first president of Pakistan, Jinnah again emphasized his secular vision for the new country, saying, “We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. … We are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.”

Jinnah’s dream unrealized

Jinnah’s achievement remains a significant milestone of the 20th century. But 75 years later, Pakistan is far from the country he envisioned.

People from the region, nostalgic for a unified country and cognizant of the suffering during Partition and beyond, sometimes express that it might have been better if they had not been divided based on their religious identity but had instead continued the struggle for a pluralistic society with equal rights for all. Others maintain that Jinnah was right to conclude that Muslims in India were bound to face continued violence and be treated as second-class citizens in a Hindu-majority country.

What is certain is that Jinnah’s dream of a compassionate homeland for the minorities of the subcontinent remains unrealized. But glimmers of it have lived on in movements and people who have gone on to dream of a more equitable, inclusive and just Pakistan.

For example, Christian and Muslim landless farmers in the Peasant Movement, one of the largest and most successful land rights movements in South Asia, have resisted violent efforts to quash their demands for a more equitable society. Some 80,000 lawyers were part of the Lawyers Movement, which challenged the power of the military and fought for a free and independent judiciary. And individuals such as human rights activist Sabeen Mahmud have paid with their lives for their dream of a just and pluralist Pakistan.

And while today’s Pakistan is far from Jinnah’s vision, the work of these people and movements reflects the famous words of Pakistan’s most celebrated revolutionary poet, Faiz Ahmed Faiz: “We must [continue to] search for that promised Dawn.”

(Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer, University of Pennsylvania. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)