Category: World

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.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a stern warning that Moscow might provide arms to nations aiming to strike Western targets. This statement came as he criticized the West’s decision to supply Ukraine with long-range weapons.

Several countries, including the United States, have given Ukraine the go-ahead to attack targets inside Russia. Putin warned such actions could lead to “very serious problems.” He posed a rhetorical question to foreign reporters, “If someone thinks it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone to attack our territory and create problems for us, why don’t we have the right to supply weapons of the same class to regions of the world where there will be strikes on sensitive facilities of those countries?” He further hinted that Russia’s response could be “asymmetric,” stating, “We will think about it.” However, Putin did not clarify which countries might receive these weapons from Moscow.

Putin specifically criticized Germany, which recently informed Ukraine it could use long-range German-made weapons to hit targets inside Russia. “When they say that there will be more missiles which will hit targets on Russian territory, this definitively destroys Russian-German relations,” Putin declared.

The U.S. has also allowed Ukraine to use American-supplied weapons to strike Russian targets, though only near the Kharkiv region. The White House has prohibited the use of long-range ATACMS missiles on Russian soil. Nonetheless, recent reports from a U.S. senator and a Western official indicate that Ukraine has used U.S. weapons for strikes inside Russia.

The fighting has intensified north-east of Kharkiv following a new Russian offensive across Ukraine’s northern border. Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, lies just 30km (18 miles) from the border.

UK Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron stated that it is up to Ukraine to decide how to use British weapons, affirming Ukraine’s right to target Russian territory. Ukraine has accused Russia of employing North Korean missiles on its territory, while Western intelligence suggests that Iran-made drones are being used by Russia in the conflict.

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Putin’s comments were made at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, where he also addressed the West’s underestimation of Moscow’s potential use of nuclear weapons. He stated, “For some reason, the West believes that Russia will never use it,” adding that Russia’s nuclear doctrine allows for the use of all available means if the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are threatened. He emphasized, “This should not be taken lightly, superficially.”

Dismissing concerns about Russia attacking NATO territory, Putin criticized the notion, saying, “You should not make Russia out to be the enemy. You’re only hurting yourself with this, you know?” He ridiculed the idea that Russia intends to attack NATO, calling it “complete nonsense” and “total rubbish.”

The context of these remarks includes the broader geopolitical tensions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The war has prompted significant international responses, including sanctions on Russia and substantial military aid to Ukraine from Western countries. The ongoing conflict has also raised concerns about global stability and the potential for broader escalation.

Putin’s statements reflect a heightened rhetoric that underscores the serious risks associated with the conflict. The threat to arm other nations could destabilize other regions and complicate global security dynamics. His reference to nuclear doctrine highlights the gravity of the situation and the potential for a catastrophic escalation if diplomatic solutions are not pursued.

The situation remains highly fluid, with continuous developments on the battlefield and in diplomatic arenas. Western support for Ukraine, including military supplies, has been a crucial factor in the conflict, influencing the dynamics on the ground. Meanwhile, Russia’s potential countermeasures, including the possible provision of weapons to other nations, introduce additional uncertainties.

The international community continues to monitor the conflict closely, weighing options for further support to Ukraine and measures to deter Russian aggression. The balance between aiding Ukraine and avoiding a wider conflict remains delicate, with significant implications for regional and global security.

Putin’s warnings about arming other nations and the potential use of nuclear weapons represent a serious escalation in rhetoric. His remarks at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum underscore the ongoing tension between Russia and the West, with significant implications for the future of the conflict in Ukraine and global stability. The situation requires careful navigation to prevent further escalation and to seek a resolution that ensures the sovereignty and security of all nations involved.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, speaking at a meeting of defense chiefs from across the Asia-Pacific, including China and the US, in Singapore, expressed concerns about China’s support to Russia and its potential impact on the duration of the war in Ukraine. Zelensky also called on countries across the Asia-Pacific to participate in an upcoming peace summit on Ukraine, scheduled to be held in Switzerland on June 15-16.

Zelensky’s Remarks on China’s Support to Russia:

During a press conference in Singapore, Zelensky highlighted the potential consequences of China’s support to Russia, stating, “With China’s support to Russia the war will last longer. That is bad for the whole world, and the policy of China – who declares that it supports territorial integrity and sovereignty and declares it officially. For them it is not good.”These remarks underscore the concerns about the impact of external support on the conflict in Ukraine.

China’s Position and Allegations:

China has maintained a stance of neutrality in the conflict and has emphasized its commitment to peace. However, it has strengthened its economic and diplomatic ties with Russia since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The US has alleged that China’s export of dual-use goods to Russia is bolstering the warring country’s defense industrial base, a claim that China has refuted. Zelensky also alluded to support from China, suggesting that certain elements of Russia’s weaponry “come from China.”

Russia’s Efforts to Disrupt the Peace Summit:

Zelensky warned that Russia, with the help of China, is attempting to pressure countries not to participate in the upcoming international peace summit. He stated, “Russia is trying to disrupt the peace summit and that is true … (Russia) is now traveling around many countries in the world threatening them with the blockade of the agricultural goods, of the food products, of chemical products … it is simply pushing the other countries of the world so that they’re not present on the summit.”Zelensky also accused Russia of using Chinese diplomats to disrupt the peace summit.

China’s Response and Position:

China has announced that it will not send a delegation to the peace summit, emphasizing the need for recognition by both Russia and Ukraine, equal participation by all parties, and fair discussion of all peace plans. Chinese Minister of National Defense Dong Jun reiterated China’s commitment to promoting peace talks and refuted allegations of providing weapons to either side in the conflict. The Chinese Foreign Ministry defended China’s trade with Russia as “above board” and emphasized the importance of its relations with Ukraine.

Urgency for International Support:

Zelensky’s appeal for international support comes at a critical time as Ukraine faces a major Russian advance into its northeast region of Kharkiv. The urgency to repel the invasion and bolster international support for Ukraine’s peace plan has become increasingly pressing.

The geopolitical dynamics surrounding the conflict in Ukraine, including China’s support to Russia and efforts to disrupt the peace summit, underscore the complexities and challenges involved in resolving the crisis. As Zelensky seeks to rally international support for Ukraine’s peace plan, the role of key global players, including China and the US, will continue to be closely scrutinized in the context of the ongoing conflict.

The phrase “The Clash of Civilizations”      was first used by Albert Camus in 1946, by Times of India editor Girilal Jain in his analysis of the Ayodhya dispute in 1988, and by many others subsequently. It was much later that the phrase came to be widely discussed.

The “Clash of Civilizations” is a thesis by the American political scientist Samuel P Huntington in which he argues people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post–Cold War world and followed up in a lecture in 1992 at the American Enterprise Institute,  that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures. It was later developed in a 1993 article titled “The Clash of Civilizations?”, in response to his former student Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 book “The End of History and the Last Man”. But it was only years later when the world took a fancy to the phrase when Huntington expanded his thesis in a 1996 book “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”. At the end of his 1993 Foreign Affairs article, “The Clash of Civilizations?”, Huntington writes, “This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth a descriptive hypothesis as to what the future may be like.”

Many of the individual arguments about the specifics of the “clash of civilizations” didn’t get at the larger point, which is really about how much culture matters as opposed to geopolitics or economics or ideology. Nor do civilizations appear to have an important indirect influence on interstate conflict through the realist or liberal variables. Except to loosely predict alliance patterns it makes little contribution to explaining political institutions or commercial interactions. Huntington challenged us to consider the role that civilizations might play in international relations, but there is little evidence that they define the fault lines along which international conflicts are occurring.

1.     The USA-Iran is not a clash of civilizations more than the USA not wanting Iran to have nukes and have a say in the geopolitics of Central Asia, a confluence of warm waters, Europe and Asia, so important for economic activities.

2.     The Russian–Ukraine conflict is obviously for territory and not a clash of civilizations.

3.     The Israel- Arab (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or whoever) is more as Palestinians against Israel (occupier) as also Israel is perceived as a hindrance to Iran’s hegemony in the area (with the nukes when it gets)

4.     Neither are conflicts in Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iraq etc. clash of civilizations.

5.     The Indo-China conflicts, Indo-Pak wars, the Korean War, China’s predatory eye on Taiwan, South China Sea are all not a clash of civilizations.

Real clash of civilizations

The differences among civilizations are too basic in that civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and, most importantly, religion. These fundamental differences are the product of centuries and the foundations of different civilizations, meaning they will not be gone soon. The world is becoming a smaller place.   Due to economic modernization and social change, people are separated from long-standing local identities. Interactions between civilizations are increasing with commitments that transcend national boundaries and unite civilizations.  Economic regionalism is increasing. Successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness. Yet, economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization.

By this logic, the four prominent civilizations to be reckoned with today are the West (led by the USA), India, China and Islam.

Western: The Western civilization has been largely shaped by ancient Greece and Rome which spread to Europe and after evolving took roots in the colonies of America which became the center of gravity of the West. West also includes Latin America, Russia and Australia though Australia is changing ethnically. The USA is a declining power which too will become a nonwhite majority state in a few decades. The non-white USA will continue to follow a foreign policy of ruthless self-interest in Asia to secure its geopolitical goals. Western leaders wedded to democracy at home and cozying up to pliant dictators abroad to find a moral escape route in the Middle East on the fraudulent pretext of preserving the region’s historical stability are treading on thin ice. Though the influence and economy of the USA are on the decline, the West will continue to influence.

India: India is deeply rooted in history and is a growing hard and soft power. India has a widely dispersed diaspora with the center of gravity geographically well set in India, with a strong demographics of the working population; soon to be third largest economy; a confluence of cultures as nowhere else, diversity and democracy. Amidst a challenging global scenario, India has emerged as a significant economic and geopolitical power. Its actions in the coming year could lay the groundwork for the country to become the world’s third-largest economy in the next five years and a developed nation by 2047, setting an example of inclusive, sustainable economic growth, digital development and climate action. This is the time for India to strike – diplomatically – Africa Latin America, Russia etc

China: China deeply rooted in history, will continue to rise, influencing from the Pacific to Africa. It is the second largest economy with the center of gravity being China. China’s economy is going through a rough time, given its resilience it has the potential to recover. China’s recovery, though,  is built on quite shaky foundations. There is a weakness in domestic real estate investment. There is a fear exports will not increase due to uncertain global demand and ongoing trade frictions with the US. Domestically, the Chinese government has started to use monetary policy to generate growth.  Given the headwinds ranging from lower productivity to an aging population, China’s financial system simply won’t be able to generate the same levels of credit growth that it has in previous years. Therefore, Beijing will have far less control over the direction of its economy than it has in the past. The IMF has said it expected China’s growth rate to reach 5.4 per cent in 2023, and gradually decline to 3.5 per cent in 2028. China is also sitting on a tinderbox of suppressed people’s freedom.

Islam: Unlike the other civilizations discussed here, Islam does not have a center of gravity and though united by religion, the Islamic Umma is spread over many polities, each with its own agenda.  There are deep-rooted sectarian differences within. The economy of Islamic states, with the exception of Indonesia, is largely based on oil. Most states are ruled by undemocratic monarchs or sheikhs. Islam has to compete for salience and space in the multifarious economic world.  More importantly, Islam will have to modernize and adapt and change from within to compete. It is a big ask in the current circumstances.

India and China represent the future, America (West) the present, and Europe the past; Islam has a long way to go. With the headwinds in the Chinese economy, the best-placed civilization to advance to become a developed nation to lead the world is India. With Japan competing in the economic area, the future will be with a non-white West, India, China, and Japan.

(The author is an Indian Army veteran and a contemporary affairs commentator. The views are personal. He can be reached at  kl.viswanathan@gmail.com)

Read more at: https://www.southasiamonitor.org/spotlight/clash-civilizations-which-will-be-best-placed-lead-world

The Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis has published China’s ‘New Era’ Changes the Game for Global Actors. Authored by Senior Fellow on Chinese Economy Diana Choyleva, the paper is the second in a two part series exploring how Chinese President Xi Jinping’s vision for a “new era,” as decreed at the 19th Party Congress in 2017, has changed incentives for key groups in China and beyond.

According to the report, Deng Xiaoping believed in a low-profile “hide and bide” strategy for China, but Xi has coined a new doctrine for Chinese foreign policy: “dare to fight.”

“China’s economy is now the largest in the world by some measures, which has emboldened Beijing to become more assertive in challenging U.S. ‘hegemony’ in Asia and around the world,” writes Choyleva. “China has called into question the validity of the U.S.-led global order, undermining U.S. credibility where it can and offering alternatives to the international order on its own terms.”

As China has sought to reshape the international order, they have stepped up their diplomatic outreach to the Global South: “China strives to be an ‘ideologically-neutral trading partner,’ in contrast with the United States, which has historically been vocal and interventionist in support of human rights and freedom of speech.”

The most prominent shift has been China’s embrace of Russia. “The more China challenges the West and rallies the Global South with its confrontational stance and economic support, the more authoritarian regimes will be emboldened to pursue their idiosyncratic policy goals,” writes Choyleva.

The report notes that the West has rebuilt strategic alliances, such as the Quad, in response to China’s “bumptious” behavior. Furthermore, “the rapid evolution of China’s military and Xi’s aggressive assertion of its sovereignty claims over Taiwan and the South China Sea, where it has ramped up gray-zone activity over the past few years, have prompted the U.S. military to redouble its efforts to secure a free and open Indo-Pacific and invest heavily in changing its way of war, adopting a more dispersed and resilient form of power projection.”

As both China and the United States pour money and resources into achieving independent technological dominance, multinational companies have struggled to understand how economic decoupling might work in practice. “As China and the United States rewrite the rules of their economic and financial engagement and global conflicts mushroom, companies with operations that straddle the two worlds will find it hard to avoid picking a side,” writes Choyleva.

Both countries recognize that decoupling in today’s highly interconnected world will be costly, but are working hard to reduce their interdependence and turn the global system in their favor. “The global economy is becoming less efficient and less productive as national security is prized over economic gains,” Choyleva concludes.

Read the full report here. Members of the media interested in connecting with Choyleva should email pr@asiasociety.org.

Happiness, like love, is perhaps one of the least understood and most sought-after emotions and experiences in human life.

And while many inspiring teachings exist about attaining individual happiness, it’s worthwhile to consider how happy entire countries are on a collective scale.

We visualize the findings from the World Happiness Report 2024, an enduring attempt to measure, quantify, and compare happiness levels around the world, sourcing data from Gallup.

The Gallup World Poll surveys approximately 1,000 respondents in nearly every country on a variety of issues, one of which is to evaluate their current life on a scale from 0–10.

The World Happiness Report then averages the score from life evaluations per country over a three-year period (2021–2023 for this year’s edition) and ranks from highest to lowest. For a full breakdown of how this works, please see the end of this article.

Ranked: The Most & Least Happy Countries in 2024

The top 10 happiest countries—led by Finland, Denmark, and Iceland—have remained largely unchanged since 2023’s findings.

Experiencing the grandeur of some of the world’s most beautiful churches transcends religious boundaries. The intricate details and awe-inspiring architecture of these structures go beyond mere places of worship, becoming powerful testaments to human strength and creativity.

Duomo di Milano – Milan:

Milan’s central cathedral, the Duomo di Milano, is a colossal masterpiece that has dominated the cityscape since construction began in 1386. Commissioned by Milan’s ruler Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the Gothic-style cathedral aimed to symbolize the grandeur of the city. While the nave was consecrated in 1418, the construction continued for over 200 years, involving thousands of artisans, sculptors, and workers, making it an ongoing testament to human dedication.

Interesting Facts:

1. The Duomo is the world’s fifth-largest Christian church, covering an entire city block.
2. Adorned with 135 gargoyles, 700 figures, and 3,400 statues, it boasts more statues than any other building globally.
3. A sundial placed in 1768 by astronomers on the main entrance’s floor, using a hole in the wall, still precisely regulates clocks today.

La Sagrada Familia – Barcelona:

Barcelona’s La Sagrada Familia, a uniquely designed cathedral by Antoni Gaudí, has been under construction since 1882. Gaudí, inspired by nature, dedicated 43 years of his life to this cathedral before his untimely demise. Consecrated as a minor basilica by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010, it continues to attract over 4.5 million visitors annually.

Interesting Facts:

1. At Gaudí’s death, only one tower, the crypt, the apse walls, and one portal were complete.
2. The interior features a “forest” supporting the ceiling, with pillars resembling colorful trees.
3. The cathedral boasts 17 towers, symbolizing the Apostles, Virgin Mary, and evangelists.

St. Basil’s Cathedral – Moscow:

Moscow’s St. Basil’s Cathedral, a vibrant testament to Russian architecture, commenced and concluded construction in the mid-1500s under the rule of Ivan the Terrible. Initially named the Church of the Intercession, its current moniker honors Basil the Blessed, buried in the cathedral in 1557.

These magnificent churches, from Milan’s Duomo di Milano to Barcelona’s La Sagrada Familia and Moscow’s St. Basil’s Cathedral, stand as living testaments to the artistic prowess and dedication of generations past. Whether it’s the ongoing construction of La Sagrada Familia or the vibrant history of St. Basil’s Cathedral, these architectural marvels continue to inspire awe and wonder, transcending time and beliefs.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized on Sunday his unwavering commitment to seeking a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, asserting that the ongoing conflict undermined the credibility and authority of the Security Council. Guterres made these remarks at the Doha Forum conference, where he addressed the recent veto by Washington on a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war.

“I urged the Security Council to press to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, and I reiterated my appeal for a humanitarian ceasefire to be declared,” Guterres stated. Despite the disappointing outcome, he emphasized the continued necessity of such a ceasefire, stating, “Regrettably, the Security Council failed to do it, but that does not make it less necessary. I will not give up.”

Qatar’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, affirmed Doha’s commitment to exerting pressure on both Israel and Hamas for a truce, even as the chances for success appeared to be diminishing. Qatar, serving as a key mediator with several political leaders of Hamas based in the country, has actively facilitated negotiations between the Palestinian group and Israel.

Sheikh Mohammed underscored the impact of diplomatic efforts, noting that hostages were released from Gaza due to negotiations, not solely as a result of Israel’s military actions. Despite the challenges, he maintained Qatar’s resolve in pursuing a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

The head of UNRWA, the U.N. aid agency for Palestinians, Philippe Lazzarini, decried the dehumanization of Palestinians, asserting that it has allowed the international community to tolerate Israel’s sustained attacks on Gaza. Lazzarini emphasized the urgent need for a humanitarian ceasefire, stating, “There is no doubt that a humanitarian ceasefire is needed if we want to put an end to hell on earth right now in Gaza.”

The opposition to a ceasefire from the United States and Israel stems from their belief that it would primarily benefit Hamas. Instead, Washington advocates for intermittent pauses in fighting to safeguard civilians and facilitate the release of hostages taken by Hamas in a deadly October 7 attack on Israel.

In addition to addressing the Gaza conflict, Secretary-General Guterres used the platform to appeal to leaders attending the COP28 climate conference. He urged them to reach a consensus on substantial emissions reductions to prevent global warming from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Despite previous commitments, Guterres highlighted that emissions are currently at a record high, with fossil fuels identified as the primary contributor.

At the climate summit in Dubai, tensions escalated as oil-producing nations clashed with other countries over a potential agreement to phase out fossil fuels. This discord jeopardizes the prospects of achieving a historic commitment to end the use of oil and gas in the context of 30 years of global warming talks.

“I urge leaders at COP28 in Dubai to agree on deep cuts to emissions, in line with the 1.5-degree limit,” Guterres urged. He further called upon fossil fuel companies and their supporters to leverage their significant resources to spearhead the transition to renewable energy, emphasizing the critical role they play in the global shift toward sustainable practices.

In a historic invocation of Article 99, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has urged the UNSC to take urgent action and call for a human ceasefire in Gaza. Article 99 allows the Secretary-General to bring to the Security Council’s attention any pressing international security issue.

With an intensifying Israeli offensive and escalating civilian casualties, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres invoked a rarely exercised power this week to warn the Security Council of an impending “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. He urged members to demand an immediate humanitarian cease-fire.

Article 99 of the U.N. Charter is a provision of the United Nations Constitution. It states that the secretary-general — the U.N.’s top diplomat — may bring to the attention of the Security Council “any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.”

It was last used over half a century ago — which says the secretary-general may inform the council of matters he believes threaten international peace and security. This gives an important additional power to the secretary-general, since the real power at the U.N. is held by its 193 member nations and especially the 15 countries that serve on the Security Council.

Taking to X (formerly Twitter) Guterres shared a letter addressed to the UN Security Council and wrote, “I’ve just invoked Art. 99 of the UN Charter – for the 1st time in my tenure as Secretary-General. Facing a severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system in Gaza, I urge the Council to help avert a humanitarian catastrophe  and appeal for a humanitarian ceasefire to be declared.”

Article 99 of the UN Charter grants the Secretary-General the authority to bring to the Security Council’s attention any matter that, in his judgment, poses a threat to international peace and security.

This unprecedented move comes after the Security Council’s delay in adopting a resolution supporting a ceasefire. In the letter, Guterres conveyed the grim reality of more than eight weeks of conflict, emphasizing the “appalling human suffering, physical destruction, and collective trauma across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

The Secretary General further emphasized the devastating toll of the military operation, revealing that over 15,000 people, with over 40% being children, had lost their lives. Thousands were injured, more than half of all homes were destroyed, and 80% of the 2.2 million population of what??? were forcibly displaced into increasingly confined areas.

In his letter, Guterres also  painted a dire picture of the healthcare system in Gaza, which is on the brink of collapse, with hospitals transformed into battlegrounds. He warned that with constant bombardment and a lack of shelter and essentials for survival, the breakdown of public order in Gaza was imminent.

Guterres believes that the humanitarian system and the humanitarian operations in Gaza are collapsing. He also warns in his letter that in the current situation, “amid constant bombardment by the Israeli Defense Forces and without shelter or essentials to survive, I expect public order to completely break down soon due to the desperate conditions, rendering even limited humanitarian assistance impossible.”

Guterres concluded the letter by stating that the international community has a responsibility to use all its influence to prevent further escalation and end this crisis. He urged the Security Council to take decisive action to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe.

The United States on Friday, December 8^th, 2023  vetoed a proposed United Nations Security Council demand for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in the war between Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas in Gaza, diplomatically isolating Washington as it shields its ally.

Thirteen other members voted in favor of a brief draft resolution, put forward by the United Arab Emirates, while Britain abstained. The vote came after U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres made the rare move to formally warn the 15-member council of a global threat from the two-month long war.

“What is the message we are sending Palestinians if we cannot unite behind a call to halt the relentless bombardment of Gaza?” Deputy UAE U.N. Ambassador Mohamed Abushahab asked the council. “Indeed, what is the message we are sending civilians across the world who may find themselves in similar situations?”

The United States and Israel oppose a ceasefire because they believe it would only benefit Hamas. Washington instead supports pauses in fighting to protect civilians and allow the release of hostages taken by Hamas in a deadly Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Robert Wood told the Security Council that the draft resolution was a rushed, imbalanced text “that was divorced from reality, that would not move the needle forward on the ground in any concrete way. We do not support this resolution’s call for an unsustainable ceasefire that will only plant the seeds for the next war.”

Israel’s relationship with the United Nations has reached a historic low following an escalation in tensions between the two entities this week. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres invoked Article 99 of the UN Charter, a seldom-used but potent tool, in his determined effort to secure a ceasefire in Gaza. This move, however, sparked outrage among Israeli diplomats who vehemently opposed calls for a ceasefire, asserting the need to continue their offensive against Hamas.

Guterres’ employment of Article 99 marked the seventh instance in the UN’s 78-year history and the first since 1989. The article empowers the UN chief to bring to the Security Council’s attention any issue that could exacerbate existing threats to international peace and security. In a letter to the council, Guterres urged for unified action to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, stating, “We are at a breaking point…there is a high risk of the collapse of the humanitarian support system in Gaza, which would have devastating consequences.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen criticized Guterres, labeling the UN chief’s tenure as a “danger to world peace” and accusing him of siding with Hamas. Cohen argued that the call for a ceasefire endorsed the October 7 attack by Hamas, where militants killed 1,200 people and took over 240 hostages. Israel’s offensive in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry in Ramallah, has resulted in over 16,000 deaths.

Guterres’ unprecedented use of Article 99 was described as a “symbolic punch” by Daniel Forti, a senior UN analyst at the International Crisis Group. Forti emphasized that, while unlikely to shift political dynamics within the Security Council, the rare utilization of this tool had a moral impact due to its infrequency.

Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan argued against a ceasefire, contending that it would solidify Hamas’ control of Gaza and prolong suffering for all. He criticized Guterres for invoking Article 99, highlighting the contrast with other global conflicts that did not prompt a similar response.

The United States later vetoed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, referencing Guterres’ use of Article 99. Drafted by the United Arab Emirates and co-sponsored by at least 97 other countries, the resolution received majority support from thirteen Security Council members, with the UK abstaining. The US, exercising its veto power, emphasized Israel’s right to self-defense and criticized the resolution for overlooking Hamas’ attacks on October 7.

Gabriela Shalev, former Israeli ambassador to the UN, asserted that Israel-UN relations were at a historic low. Shalev, noting strained ties since Israel’s establishment in 1947, criticized the UN for not understanding Israel’s existential threat. Israeli diplomats, led by Erdan and Cohen, openly denounced the UN, with Erdan wearing a yellow Star of David to protest alleged inaction.

The ongoing conflict has strained not only relations with Guterres but extended to various UN agencies, including the World Health Organization, UN Women, and the UN’s Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese. Over 100 UN staffers have been killed in Gaza, marking the largest loss in the organization’s history, with UNRWA facing criticism from Israel.

Israeli media has amplified stories questioning UNRWA’s role in the war, with allegations of complicity in Hamas’ militancy. Albanese, the UN’s Special Rapporteur, faced accusations of being a “shameless Hamas-complicit official,” prompting her to defend her work and criticize the attacks as baseless.

Despite distrust, Shalev cautioned against anti-UN rhetoric, urging a focus on presenting the facts of the October 7 attack. She emphasized the need for a measured approach rather than emotional declarations to convey Israel’s perspective.

The recently concluded week-long cease-fire, aimed at exchanging hostages held by Hamas for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody, has given way to renewed hostilities between Israel and Hamas. Amidst efforts by mediators to broker another swap, concerns arise about the remaining captives in the besieged enclave.

In the deadly October 7 attack by Hamas and other militants on southern Israel, approximately 247 hostages were seized, resulting in over 1,200 casualties. In retaliation, Israel has pounded the Gaza Strip, claiming the lives of at least 13,300 individuals, with two-thirds being women and children, as reported by health authorities in the Hamas-ruled territory.

Examining the current status of hostages, Israel stated on Friday that 136 individuals remain captive in Gaza, comprising 119 men and 17 women and children. Notably, around 10 hostages are aged 75 and older. Among the captives, 11 are foreign nationals, including eight from Thailand, one each from Nepal and Tanzania, and one with French-Mexican citizenship.

Highlighting the plight of those still in captivity, families anxiously await the return of their loved ones, expressing concerns about the challenging conditions and inadequate access to food, water, and medicine. The uncertainty surrounding the fate of hostages, such as 10-month-old Kfir Bibas and his family, adds to the anguish of their relatives.

Despite the cease-fire, reports indicate that four hostages, including the oldest captive, have died in captivity. The military confirmed the deaths of Maya Goren (56), Arye Zalmanovich (86), Ronan Engel (54), and Eliyahu Margalit (75). Kibbutz Nir Oz, home to these individuals, suffered significant losses during the attack, with a quarter of its population killed or kidnapped.

Little information has been provided about the circumstances of the hostages’ deaths, but the military claims to have gained valuable insights from returned hostages. The grieving families mourn the loss of their loved ones, with the death of Arye Zalmanovich, a founding member of Kibbutz Nir Oz, and Maya Goren, a mother of four and kindergarten teacher, being particularly poignant.

Despite the grim news, there were moments of relief during the cease-fire, as 110 hostages held by Hamas were released. These included 86 Israeli citizens and 24 foreign nationals, primarily Thais. While the returnees generally appeared in stable health, some experienced weight loss, and one 84-year-old hostage returned in critical condition due to inadequate medical care during captivity.

Families celebrated the return of their loved ones, yet doctors emphasized the psychological toll of captivity, cautioning that recovery would be a lengthy process. The government, meanwhile, urged those released to refrain from disclosing details of their time as prisoners to ensure the safety of those still held captive. The lack of in-depth narratives about the hostages’ ordeals reflects this cautious approach.

Today marks 365 days since India assumed the G20 Presidency. It is a moment to reflect, recommit, and rejuvenate the spirit of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, ‘One Earth, One Family, One Future.’

As we undertook this responsibility last year, the global landscape grappled with multifaceted challenges: recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, looming climate threats, financial instability, and debt distress in developing nations, all amid declining multilateralism. In the midst of conflicts and competition, development cooperation suffered, impeding progress.

Assuming the G20 Chair, India sought to offer the world an alternative to status quo, a shift from a GDP-centric to human-centric progress. India aimed to remind the world of what unites us, rather than what divides us. Finally, the global conversation had to evolve – the interests of the few had to give way to the aspirations of the many. This required a fundamental reform of multilateralism as we knew it.

Inclusive, ambitious, action-oriented, and decisive—these four words defined our approach as G20 president, and the New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration (NDLD), unanimously adopted by all G20 members, is testimony to our commitment to deliver on these principles.

Inclusivity has been at the heart of our presidency. The inclusion of the African Union (AU) as a permanent member of the G20 integrated 55 African nations into the forum, expanding it to encompass 80% of the global population. This proactive stance has fostered a more comprehensive dialogue on global challenges and opportunities.

The first-of-its-kind ‘Voice of the Global South Summit,’ convened by India in two editions, heralded a new dawn of multilateralism. India mainstreamed the Global South’s concerns in international discourse and has ushered in an era where developing countries take their rightful place in shaping the global narrative.

Inclusivity also infused India’s domestic approach to G20, making it a People’s Presidency that befits that world’s largest democracy. Through “Jan Bhagidari” (people’s participation) events, G20 reached 1.4 billion citizens, involving all states and Union Territories (UTs) as partners. And on substantive elements, India ensured that international attention was directed to broader developmental aims, aligning with G20’s mandate.

At the critical midpoint of the 2030 Agenda, India delivered the G20 2023 Action Plan to Accelerate Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), taking a cross-cutting, action-oriented approach to interconnected issues, including health, education, gender equality and environmental sustainability.

A key area driving this progress is robust Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI). Here, India was decisive in its recommendations, having witnessed the revolutionary impact of digital innovations like Aadhaar, UPI, and Digilocker first-hand. Through G20, we successfully completed the Digital Public Infrastructure Repository, a significant stride in global technological collaboration. This repository, featuring over 50 DPIs from 16 countries, will help the Global South build, adopt, and scale DPI to unlock the power of inclusive growth.

For our One Earth, we introduced ambitious and inclusive aims to create urgent, lasting, and equitable change. The Declaration’s ‘Green Development Pact’ addresses the challenges of choosing between combating hunger and protecting the planet, by outlining a comprehensive roadmap where employment and ecosystems are complimentary, consumption is climate conscious, and production is planet-friendly. In tandem, the G20 Declaration calls for an ambitious tripling of global renewable energy capacity by 2030. Coupled with the establishment of the Global Biofuels Alliance and a concerted push for Green Hydrogen, the G20’s ambitions to build a cleaner, greener world is undeniable. This has always been India’s ethos, and through Lifestyles for Sustainable Development (LiFE), the world can benefit from our age-old sustainable traditions.

Further, the Declaration underscores our commitment to climate justice and equity, urging substantial financial and technological support from the Global North. For the first time, there was a recognition of the quantum jump needed in the magnitude of development financing, moving from billions to trillions of dollars. G20 acknowledged that developing countries require $5.9 trillion to fulfil their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by 2030.

Given the monumental resources required, G20 emphasised the importance of better, larger, and more effective Multilateral Development Banks. Concurrently, India is taking a leading role in UN reforms, especially in the restructuring of principal organs like the UN Security Council, that will ensure a more equitable global order.

Gender equality took centre stage in the Declaration, culminating in the formation of a dedicated Working Group on the Empowerment of Women next year. India’s Women’s Reservation Bill 2023, reserving one-third of India’s Parliament and state legislative assembly seats for women epitomizes our commitment to women-led development.

The New Delhi Declaration embodies a renewed spirit of collaboration across these key priorities, focusing on policy coherence, reliable trade, and ambitious climate action. It is a matter of pride that during our Presidency, G20 achieved 87 outcomes and 118 adopted documents, a marked rise from the past.

During our G20 Presidency, India led deliberations on geopolitical issues and their impact on economic growth and development. Terrorism and the senseless killing of civilians is unacceptable, and we must address it with a policy of zero-tolerance. We must embody humanitarianism over hostility and reiterate that this is not an era of war.

I am delighted that during our Presidency India achieved the extraordinary: it revitalised multilateralism, amplified the voice of the Global South, championed development, and fought for the empowerment of women, everywhere.

As we hand over the G20 Presidency to Brazil, we do so with the conviction that our collective steps for people, planet, peace, and prosperity, will resonate for years to come.

In the early hours of the truce between Israel and Hamas, Israa, named after her mother, was born in a crowded shelter, signaling hope for peace. Israa abu Aaser, cradling her newborn, expressed relief, “Her arrival was an omen of peace—there was quiet and no bombings.” The family, sheltered due to their apartment being destroyed, faced challenges. Bilal abu Aaser crafted a crib from wood scraps for his 3-day-old daughter, acknowledging, “The cold and hunger made her cry; I had to do something.”

Israa’s mother worried about the harsh conditions, stating, “I’m afraid for my daughter in a place like this; I can barely keep her clean and warm.” As the truce’s final day approached, the new parents pondered the uncertain future, hoping for an extension. Their wish was granted temporarily when, after mediation by Qatar and Egypt, Hamas declared a two-day extension.

This extension aimed to facilitate the release of hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7 from Israel and Palestinian women and teenagers in Israeli prisons. Approximately a quarter of the 240 hostages were freed in exchange for over 100 Palestinians during the truce. In Gaza, the extension brought relief from the relentless Israeli military campaign, which local health authorities reported to have claimed over 13,300 lives.

During the pause, aid groups intensified humanitarian efforts, and Gaza’s 2.3 million inhabitants reflected on their losses while stocking up on essentials. Many prayed for a longer-lasting ceasefire, hoping it would evolve into a durable peace. Tahani Haboush, assisting her husband undergoing dialysis, emphasized the need for the truce to persist, recalling past conflicts when life was less disrupted.

For Ahmad Mughrabi, the truce offered a temporary reprieve. Fleeing south with his family, an Israeli tank’s shell caused severe injuries, forcing him to endure a painful wait for medical attention. Lack of supplies and relentless bombing delayed treatment, but ultimately, a surgeon at Al Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, despite challenging circumstances, managed to stabilize his arm with a platinum bar.

Respondents from India, China, and Russia expressed optimism about their country’s future, in contrast to Western nations’ pessimism

A global survey conducted by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), in collaboration with Oxford University’s ‘Europe in a Changing World’ project, exposed significant shifts in attitudes towards the future world order.

The survey included responses from people in 21 different countries, including India and the United States, providing valuable insight into a dynamic geopolitical scene.

This departure from traditional power alliances is reflected in respondents’ views of the current international system, which is an intriguing aspect of the survey. It shows that countries are increasingly choosing issue-based alliances rather than full allegiance to the United States or China.

A sizable percentage of respondents still favored closer security cooperation with the United States over China, despite the poll’s split results. The majority of respondents from Brazil, India, and South Africa supported the United States. A significant number of respondents from India, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia foresaw European Union’s potential collapse within the next 20 years.

The survey also delved into perceptions about ongoing global conflicts, notably the war in Ukraine. Non-Western countries, including India, had a higher percentage of respondents who predicted Russia would win within the next five years. The report suggested that European countries would view such a development as an existential threat.

Notably, respondents from India, China, and Russia expressed optimism about their country’s future, in contrast to Western nations’ pessimism.

In a strategic move five years ago, Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, penned a note urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take a “calculated risk” on a ceasefire, as revealed by former National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat. Speaking to an Italian journalist, Sinwar expressed a desire for peace, stating, “I don’t want war anymore. I want a ceasefire,” envisioning a prosperous Gaza akin to Singapore or Dubai.

Recent events, particularly Hamas’s orchestrated assault on Israel on October 7, prompt a reassessment of Sinwar’s words. Israeli officials now admit to a lapse in vigilance, with reduced surveillance along the Gaza border and a shift in focus toward Iran and Syria. Chen Artzi Sror, an Israeli analyst, highlights the perception that Hamas had been deterred, leading to a sense of complacency.

Michael Milshtein, former head of Palestinian research for the military’s intelligence department, notes Sinwar’s success in shaping the Israeli consciousness. “He wanted Israel to believe that Hamas was concentrating on stability in Gaza, promoting civil affairs. He planted this wrong idea in the minds of Israelis.”

As the Israeli military responds to the October 7 attacks, targeting Hamas, Sinwar emerges as the alleged mastermind and a prime assassination target, thought to be hiding in a Gaza tunnel. The conflict has claimed over 11,000 lives, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

The roots of this confrontation trace back decades, with Sinwar, born in a poor neighborhood in Khan Younis, playing a pivotal role in founding Hamas’s military wing during the first Palestinian uprising in the late 1980s. He later led efforts to eliminate Palestinian collaborators with Israel, resulting in a life sentence in 1989. Sinwar’s time in prison provided an opportunity for him to gain deep insight into Hebrew, Israeli society, and the dynamics of the region.

Described as a cold-blooded and magnetic leader, Sinwar faced a health crisis in the early 2000s when a brain tumor threatened his life. Despite attempts to recruit him as an agent after Israel saved him through surgery, Sinwar remained committed to his cause.

Released in a 2011 exchange involving over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, Sinwar quickly resumed his activities within Hamas. By 2017, he assumed leadership for all of Gaza, replacing Ismail Haniyeh.

According to Akram Atallah, a Gaza-based columnist, and Ali Baraka, a senior Hamas official, Sinwar and Hamas strategically misled Israel. They created a misinformation campaign, convincing Israel that their focus was on peace, workers, and economic development for Gaza residents. Baraka revealed that the October 7 attack had been in planning for two years, during which Israel was led to believe that Hamas was primarily governing Gaza.

A 2021 conference titled “The Promise of the End of Days,” where Sinwar delivered the keynote address, shed light on Hamas’s post-conflict plans. The conference discussed the fate of Israeli experts after the defeat, suggesting the retention of Jewish scientists and experts in various fields.

Despite no direct communication between Hamas officials and Israeli authorities, Sinwar collaborated with intermediaries to convey benign intentions. Notably, Hamas worked with the Palestinian Authority to secure Israeli work permits for around 18,000 Gazans, ostensibly for employment in Israel. Israeli security officials claim that some of these workers contributed to the tactical preparation for the October 7 assault.

Following the attacks, Sinwar has maintained silence, refraining from issuing statements or engaging with the press. Meanwhile, a poster in the Tel Aviv defense ministry features Hamas commanders, with lines drawn across the faces of those killed, symbolizing a plan to mark the poster as the conflict progresses.

As the region grapples with the aftermath of the October 7 assault, the intricate dance between Sinwar and the Israeli security establishment continues, marking a pivotal chapter in their decades-long history of monitoring and analyzing each other’s moves.

The Strategic Deception of Hamas: Unraveling the Enigma of Yahya Sinwar

In a strategic move five years ago, Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, penned a note urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take a “calculated risk” on a ceasefire, as revealed by former National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat. Speaking to an Italian journalist, Sinwar expressed a desire for peace, stating, “I don’t want war anymore. I want a ceasefire,” envisioning a prosperous Gaza akin to Singapore or Dubai.

Recent events, particularly Hamas’s orchestrated assault on Israel on October 7, prompt a reassessment of Sinwar’s words. Israeli officials now admit to a lapse in vigilance, with reduced surveillance along the Gaza border and a shift in focus toward Iran and Syria. Chen Artzi Sror, an Israeli analyst, highlights the perception that Hamas had been deterred, leading to a sense of complacency.

Michael Milshtein, former head of Palestinian research for the military’s intelligence department, notes Sinwar’s success in shaping the Israeli consciousness. “He wanted Israel to believe that Hamas was concentrating on stability in Gaza, promoting civil affairs. He planted this wrong idea in the minds of Israelis.”

As the Israeli military responds to the October 7 attacks, targeting Hamas, Sinwar emerges as the alleged mastermind and a prime assassination target, thought to be hiding in a Gaza tunnel. The conflict has claimed over 11,000 lives, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

The roots of this confrontation trace back decades, with Sinwar, born in a poor neighborhood in Khan Younis, playing a pivotal role in founding Hamas’s military wing during the first Palestinian uprising in the late 1980s. He later led efforts to eliminate Palestinian collaborators with Israel, resulting in a life sentence in 1989. Sinwar’s time in prison provided an opportunity for him to gain deep insight into Hebrew, Israeli society, and the dynamics of the region.

Described as a cold-blooded and magnetic leader, Sinwar faced a health crisis in the early 2000s when a brain tumor threatened his life. Despite attempts to recruit him as an agent after Israel saved him through surgery, Sinwar remained committed to his cause.

Released in a 2011 exchange involving over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, Sinwar quickly resumed his activities within Hamas. By 2017, he assumed leadership for all of Gaza, replacing Ismail Haniyeh.

According to Akram Atallah, a Gaza-based columnist, and Ali Baraka, a senior Hamas official, Sinwar and Hamas strategically misled Israel. They created a misinformation campaign, convincing Israel that their focus was on peace, workers, and economic development for Gaza residents. Baraka revealed that the October 7 attack had been in planning for two years, during which Israel was led to believe that Hamas was primarily governing Gaza.

A 2021 conference titled “The Promise of the End of Days,” where Sinwar delivered the keynote address, shed light on Hamas’s post-conflict plans. The conference discussed the fate of Israeli experts after the defeat, suggesting the retention of Jewish scientists and experts in various fields.

Despite no direct communication between Hamas officials and Israeli authorities, Sinwar collaborated with intermediaries to convey benign intentions. Notably, Hamas worked with the Palestinian Authority to secure Israeli work permits for around 18,000 Gazans, ostensibly for employment in Israel. Israeli security officials claim that some of these workers contributed to the tactical preparation for the October 7 assault.

Following the attacks, Sinwar has maintained silence, refraining from issuing statements or engaging with the press. Meanwhile, a poster in the Tel Aviv defense ministry features Hamas commanders, with lines drawn across the faces of those killed, symbolizing a plan to mark the poster as the conflict progresses.

As the region grapples with the aftermath of the October 7 assault, the intricate dance between Sinwar and the Israeli security establishment continues, marking a pivotal chapter in their decades-long history of monitoring and analyzing each other’s moves.

Breaking a deadlock, the UN Security Council adopted a Malta-drafted resolution urging humanitarian pauses and corridors in Gaza. The 15-nation Council adopted a resolution with 12 votes in favour and abstentions from Russia, the UK, and the US.

The UNSC resolution, the fifth attempt on the Israel-Hamas war, calls for the immediate release of all hostages held by Hamas and for urgent and extended humanitarian corridors throughout the enclave to save and protect civilian lives. The affirmative vote came after four unsuccessful efforts to take action last month.

HIGHLIGHTS

• The UN Security Council succeeds in finding unity, adopting resolution 2712 on the Israel-Palestine crisis that began on 7 October, with 12 members voting in favour, none against and three abstentions (Russia, United Kingdom, United States), calling for “urgent and extended humanitarian pauses and corridors” in Gaza for “a sufficient number of days” to allow full, rapid, safe and unhindered access for UN agencies and partners
• The Council “calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups, especially children, as well as ensuring immediate humanitarian access”, by the terms of the resolution
• The Council, by additional provisions in the text, calls on all parties to refrain from depriving the civilian population in Gaza of basic services and aid indispensable to their survival, consistent with international humanitarian law
• The resolution does not condemn the Hamas attacks of 7 October which began the current wave of violence and battle for control of Gaza
• The Council rejected an amendment proposed by Russia, with five votes in favour, one against and nine abstentions
• “Our vote today translates into real human lives,” said the ambassador of Malta, penholder of the newly adopted resolution
• Ambassadors from the UK and US separately regretted to note that the draft failed to condemn Hamas and voiced support for civilian protection and rapid aid delivery measures
• Russia’s ambassador said a real ceasefire is needed and “the Council will need to make a decision on further steps”, including what observers to send to the conflict area and which UN contingent will be involved
• “This madness must be brought to an end,” said Palestine’s Permanent Observer to the UN, adding that: “It is time for peace”
• Israel’s Ambassador said the crisis could be brought to an immediate end if all Israeli hostages are returned unscathed and Hamas laid down their arms and turned themselves in

Reasons for abstention

US ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield noted the resolution’s unique mention of Hamas but highlighted the lack of the Hamas condemnation.

UK Ambassador Woodward regretted the resolution’s failure to explicitly condemn Hamas, leading to a UK abstention.

Russian Ambassador Nebenzia stated Moscow’s abstention was in response to regional calls for humanitarian action, emphasising the need for an immediate ceasefire as a precondition for effective humanitarian measures.

Earlier attempts

The adoption of the resolution came after four failed attempts last month in the Council to take action on allowing humanitarian access in the Israel-Hamas conflict that broke out after the militant group attacked Israel on October 7.

Earlier, Russia and China vetoed a US resolution affirming the right to self-defence against terrorist threats. A Brazilian text proposing humanitarian pauses was vetoed by the US.

Resolution ‘detached from reality’: Israel

 Israel’s Deputy Permanent Representative, Brett Jonathan Miller, was the last to speak at the meeting.

He said the resolution was “detached from the reality on the ground” and “falls on deaf ears when it comes to Hamas and other terrorist organizations”.

He noted that the Council has met nearly 10 times in the six weeks since Hamas’s “barbaric invasion” of Israel, which it still has not condemned as the world’s premier body for peace and security.

“The resolution focuses solely on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. It makes no mention of what led up to this moment,” he said. “The resolution makes it seem as if what we are witnessing in Gaza happened of its own accord.”

He added that Israel’s top priority is to bring the hostages home, “and seeing as Security Council resolutions hold no sway with terrorists, Israel will continue to do whatever it takes to accomplish this goal.”

Mr. Miller said the war would end immediately “should Hamas choose to lay down their arms, turn themselves in and handover the hostages unscathed”.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lior Haiat insists that extended humanitarian pauses are unfeasible as long as Hamas holds 239 hostages, calling on the UN Security Council to condemn Hamas.

Simultaneously, Israel resumed its military operation at Gaza’s Al-Shifa hospital, claiming a Hamas command center located below. The US and Israel allege tunnels exist, which Hamas and hospital directors deny.

Israeli forces also drop leaflets warning Palestinians to evacuate southern Gaza, hinting at a potential expansion of operations.

A 12-member group of countries known as Uniting for Consensus, which is led by Italy and has Pakistan as a leading member, has used procedural tactics to prevent the adoption of a negotiating text because they oppose expanding the permanent membership of the Council, a demand of the majority of UN’s 193 members.

With the UN Security Council “crumbling under the weight of 21st-century geopolitical realities”, India has said that “naysayers” should be stopped from blocking its reform. The negotiations for reforming the Council that was started 14 years ago should be made to deliver concrete outcomes within a fixed time frame, Pratik Mathur, a counsellor at India’s Mission, said on Tuesday at a meeting on revitalising the 193-member General Assembly.

“Naysayers cannot be allowed to hold the intergovernmental negotiations (IGN) process hostage in perpetuity”, he said referring to the machinery set up by the Assembly for Council reform. He said that the reform negotiations should adopt a text-based process and not be blocked by procedural tactics.

The IGN is stalled because it has been prevented from adopting a negotiating text that would form the basis of discussions to progress by setting a firm agenda and recording the points of convergence and divergence that need to be worked on.

A 12-member group of countries known as Uniting for Consensus, which is led by Italy and has Pakistan as a leading member, has used procedural tactics to prevent the adoption of a negotiating text because they oppose expanding the permanent membership of the Council, a demand of the majority of UN’s 193 members.

Mathur said that there was “widespread recognition that the current architecture is anachronistic, and indeed ineffective” and in a reference to the exclusion of Africa and Latin America from permanent membership he said that it was “deeply unfair” as it denied “entire continents and regions of voice in a forum that deliberates their future”.

“We need an all-encompassing comprehensive reform process, which includes expansion of categories, both permanent as well as non-permanent seats in the Security Council”, he said.

The basic architecture of the Council is stuck in the post-World War II scenario when the five victors assumed permanent membership and veto powers that came with it for themselves and the UN’s membership was 51 while most of the world was under the colonial yoke of two permanent members.

The Council’s veto and the relationship between the Assembly and the Council should also be considered against “the backdrop of the prevailing global scenario”, he said.

The Council is ineffective in the two major contemporary conflicts, Ukraine and Gaza, unable to even demand a cease-fire because of the veto powers of the permanent members.

The Council is “crumbling” and it “has turned some of the tides towards the General Assembly, giving us more face time and traction, where the voice of Global South is a formidable force, unlike what is the case in the Security Council”, Mathur said.

Even though the Assembly has no enforcement powers, took steps to make the permanent members of the Council morally answerable for the exercise of veto powers.

Whenever a permanent member vetoes resolutions at the Council, it now has to appear before the Assembly and explain its action while also facing criticism from other UN members.

The Assembly has also passed resolutions echoing the sentiments of the vetoed Council resolutions by large majorities.  (Read more at: https://www.southasiamonitor.org/un-watch/security-council-crumbling-india-says-naysayers-should-be-stopped-blocking-un-reform)

Recent weeks have witnessed a surge in deadly violence in the West Bank as the Israeli military takes action against Palestinian militants in the aftermath of the Hamas attack from Gaza. During this period, more than 90 Palestinians have lost their lives in the Israeli-occupied territory, primarily in clashes with Israeli forces.

This surge in violence has the potential to open another front in the ongoing conflict and places additional pressure on the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority. This authority administers portions of the West Bank but faces widespread unpopularity among Palestinians due to its cooperation with Israel on security matters.

The toll of casualties includes six Palestinians who lost their lives in various incidents on a recent Sunday, including two individuals who perished in an airstrike on a mosque located in the volatile Jenin refugee camp. Israel’s justification for the airstrike was that the mosque was allegedly being used by militants. Another airstrike occurred during a battle in a different West Bank refugee camp last week, resulting in the deaths of 13 Palestinians, including five minors, as well as a member of Israel’s paramilitary Border Police.

It’s worth noting that Israel seldom deploys air power in the occupied West Bank, despite its use in the ongoing bombardment of Hamas-controlled Gaza since the militant group’s cross-border incursion on October 7.

The overall death toll in Israel since the conflict’s initiation exceeds 1,400 individuals, with the majority being civilians who tragically lost their lives during the initial Hamas assault. According to the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza, over 4,300 Palestinians have perished.

In the West Bank, the Palestinian Health Ministry reports that 91 Palestinians have been killed since October 7. In the year leading up to the Hamas attack, 197 Palestinians lost their lives.

In addition to military operations, Palestinians have also been killed during anti-Israel protests marked by violence and, in some instances, by attacks from Jewish settlers.

In response to the Hamas assault, Israel swiftly tightened its control over the region, closing crossings and checkpoints between Palestinian communities. According to Israel, its security forces have detained over 700 suspects in the West Bank, including 480 Hamas members, since the conflict’s onset.

The recent resumption of aerial attacks by Israel, which reached a level of intensity in Jenin not seen since the Palestinian uprising against Israel two decades ago, suggests a shift in military tactics.

The Israeli military has described the Al-Ansar Mosque in Jenin as a militant compound linked to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, a smaller but more radical Palestinian militant group. They claim that these militants have conducted multiple attacks in recent months and were planning another imminent assault.

This escalation of violence follows more than a year of increasing raids and arrests in the West Bank and deadly Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

Israel took control of the West Bank, along with Gaza and east Jerusalem, during the 1967 war. The Palestinians aspire to have all three of these regions as part of a future state. However, over 500,000 Israelis reside in settlements across the West Bank, which are considered illegal by most of the international community. More than 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank live under Israeli military rule.

The settlements are viewed by Palestinians as the principal obstacle to resolving the conflict with Israel. The last significant peace negotiations, addressing substantive issues, broke down over a decade ago.

Settler violence against Palestinians has also increased since the Hamas attack. According to Palestinian authorities, at least five Palestinians have been killed by settlers, and human rights organizations report incidents of settlers torching vehicles and assaulting small Bedouin communities, leading to their evacuation to other areas.

The West Bank Protection Consortium, a coalition of non-governmental organizations and donor countries, including the European Union, has reported that at least 470 Palestinians in the West Bank have been forcibly displaced due to settler violence since October 7. This is in addition to the more than 1,100 who were displaced since 2022.

On October 7th, Israel experienced a shockingly unexpected attack, reminiscent of the 1973 October War, which brought the nation to the brink 50 years ago. This recent assault by Hamas from the Gaza Strip, occurring on a holiday morning and taking Israel off guard, draws parallels with historical conflicts that reshaped their respective landscapes. Similar to the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, the Hamas attack demonstrated unforeseen capacities, briefly overwhelming a superior military, and prompting a reevaluation of the conflict’s nature.

The prevailing assumption in Israel that the Palestinian conflict could be “managed” rather than resolved is now in question. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discarded this notion, declaring that the country was “at war,” not engaged in a mere operation or round of conflict. This shift in perspective has far-reaching implications, not only for Israel but also for global political and military leaders who must reconsider the potential outcomes of this conflict.

This attack has cast doubt on a potential peace deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia that hinged on the presumed acceptance of the status quo by the occupied Palestinians. It also challenges America’s longstanding hope to shift its focus away from the Middle East and rekindles the competition between global powers in the region. Once again, Israel and the Palestinians become pivotal players in the near future of geopolitics.

Israel had grown accustomed to brief, one-sided battles with Gaza militants, often fought using drones or fighter jets. Israeli officials even humorously referred to these encounters as “cutting the grass.” This routine became a stark military aspect of “managing the conflict,” a strategy that has dominated for decades. It operates on the assumption that there is no political solution to the contest for land between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians, both of whom lay claim to the same territory.

In the West Bank, home to 3 million Palestinians and around 500,000 Jewish settlers, much of the management falls under the purview of a robust internal security apparatus overseen by Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen. Abbas wagered that quelling violent resistance, including from Hamas, a rival to his Fatah party, would lead to negotiations resulting in a Palestinian state. However, this bet has not paid off.

Unlike the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, housing 2.2 million Palestinians, saw the departure of Jewish settlers and the Israeli military in 2005. Since then, it has been governed by Hamas, or the Islamic Resistance Movement, and sealed off by Israel. While Israel exerts control over Gaza’s power supply, telephone systems, and much of its economy, managing it has proven more challenging. Poverty is widespread, and the young population has limited options for leaving. Israeli security relied heavily on fences and walls, which Hamas guerrillas tunneled under in 2014 and demolished on October 7th, using paragliders.

The events that followed have left a deep impact on Israelis, who, in addition to possessing the region’s most powerful military, carry a reservoir of trauma. In the chaotic hours of that Sabbath morning, everything was overwhelmed: the Israel Defense Force, the Iron Dome missile defense system, and the sense of security that had led hundreds of young people to an overnight rave in the desert where the paragliders landed and opened fire. Some of these terrified revelers became among the approximately 100 hostages, including Israelis and foreign citizens, taken into Gaza.

The abduction of individuals, including the bodies of soldiers, has been a recurring tactic in the asymmetrical warfare faced by Israel. It provides bargaining leverage following hit-and-run operations. These actions, along with civilian casualties, ensure sympathy for Israel and afford it latitude in its responses. Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed to turn parts of Gaza “to rubble,” but doing so while dozens of Israeli hostages are in harm’s way presents a complex challenge.

The surprise attack by Hamas on Israel has shattered assumptions about managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has led to a shift in perspective from “management” to being officially “at war.” This development has far-reaching implications, influencing not only the regional dynamics but also global politics. The events that unfolded on that fateful day have left deep scars on the collective psyche of Israelis, and the situation remains fluid, with complex challenges ahead.

Amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza, a concerning message has surfaced from Hamas Commander Mahmoud al-Zahar, expressing his group’s aspirations for global dominance.

A video clip, lasting over a minute, featuring the senior Hamas official has gone viral on the internet. In the footage, he claims that Israel is just the initial target and that their goal is to expand their influence worldwide. This ominous warning comes as Israel has declared war on Hamas following a shocking attack that claimed the lives of hundreds of Israelis.

Zahar stated in the video, “Israel is only the first target. The entire planet will be under our rule.”

He continued, “The entire 510 million square kilometres of Planet Earth will be subject to a system devoid of injustice, oppression, and the kind of violence and crimes witnessed against Palestinians and Arabs in various Arab countries, including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and others.”

Shortly after the video emerged, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement reaffirming his commitment to the ongoing fight against Hamas, declaring that every member of the Palestinian group was a target.

“Hamas is equivalent to Daesh (the Islamic State group), and we will dismantle them just as the world did with Daesh,” he stated during a brief televised address.

Meanwhile, Hamas members holding Israeli soldiers and civilians captive have issued a threat to execute a hostage for each Gaza home struck by Israel without warning. At the time, there was no confirmation of Hamas carrying out this threat.

In response to the escalating crisis, Israel has formed an emergency unity government, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu working alongside former Defense Minister Benny Gantz in a war cabinet.

This development comes as the Israeli military intensifies its operations in Gaza, aiming to eradicate the Palestinian group Hamas before a potential ground offensive in the Palestinian coastal enclave.

Comparing Hamas to ISIS, Netanyahu outlined some of the horrific acts committed during the recent attacks, including the burning of individuals alive. He highlighted that nearly every Israeli family has a connection to a victim of these attacks.

“We will unite to protect our homeland,” Netanyahu declared and expressed appreciation for the “unprecedented” support Israel has received from global leaders. “We are on the offensive… Every Hamas member is a target,” he asserted.

Netanyahu concluded by emphasizing that all of Israel stands behind its soldiers, assuring that Israel will emerge victorious.

“We are all one; we are all enlisted in this fight,” proclaimed Benny Gantz. He added, “There is only one camp, the camp of the Nation of Israel,” emphasizing that the partnership with Netanyahu is not political but one of fate. “All of Israel is under Order Number 8 (the order sent to reservists for an emergency wartime call-up),” Gantz noted.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will visit India to attend the G20 Summit in New Delhi from September 9 to 10, where he will join fellow world leaders to engage in discussions on global economic and political matters.. Prior to his visit to New Delhi, Trudeau will travel to Indonesia to participate in the ASEAN Summit and thereafter head to Singapore for a bilateral visit.

“The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that he will travel to Jakarta, Indonesia to participate in the ASEAN Summit from September 5 to 6, 2023. This will be followed by a bilateral visit to Singapore from September 7 to 8, 2023. He will then participate in the G20 Summit in New Delhi, India, from September 9 to 10, 2023,” Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement.

The G20 Summit comprises 19 countries, collectively representing 85% of the world’s GDP, two-thirds of its population, and 75% of global trade. This summit serves as a vital platform for prominent world leaders to come together with a shared aim of fostering global economic cooperation. Operating under the theme ‘One Earth – One Family – One Future,’ the summit seeks to address global challenges and work toward a better tomorrow for people worldwide. During his visit, Prime Minister Trudeau aims to bolster bilateral relations between Canada and India.

At the G20 Summit in New Delhi, Trudeau will work with international partners to tackle global crises to build a better tomorrow for people around the world. He will promote the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in his role as co-chair of the SDG Advocates group.

Canada Prime Minister’s Office in the statement said, “Canada is, and will always be, a champion of the rules-based international order, and the global trade and economic progress that depend on those rules. Russia’s brutal war of aggression in Ukraine is an attack on the rules that all countries rely on to do business, trade, grow, and improve life for their citizens.”

It further said, “That’s why, at the G20, Prime Minister Trudeau will continue to advocate for collective action to hold Putin accountable for his illegal war and to secure a just and durable peace that starts with Russia’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine. Working collaboratively to tackle global crises while holding Russia accountable is essential to maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the G20.”

In a comprehensive study, it has been revealed that a significant portion of firearm-related fatalities in the year 2016 were concentrated in six nations located in the Americas. These nations include Brazil, the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, and Guatemala. The findings underscore the critical issue of gun violence as a severe public health crisis, prompting a need for heightened awareness and intervention. The study, which assessed mortality data from 1990 to 2016 across 195 countries and territories globally, spotlighted the grave impact of gun-related incidents on communities.

Brazil stood out with the highest number of gun-related deaths, with over 43,000 individuals losing their lives due to firearm injuries in 2016. The United States followed closely, reporting 37,200 gun-related deaths during the same period. Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, and Guatemala were among the countries with the highest gun death tolls. Collectively, these six nations accounted for a staggering 50.5% of the quarter-million firearm-related deaths in 2016. This statistic encompasses various causes of gun fatalities, including homicides, suicides, and accidental injuries.

Dr. Mohsen Naghavi, the lead author of the study, emphasized the magnitude of the gun violence crisis, stating, “Gun violence is one of the greatest public health crises of our time.” This statement was made upon the study’s release in August of that year. The study’s focus on a wide range of countries and territories offered insights into the global prevalence of firearm-related deaths.

Delving into regional trends, the study pinpointed El Salvador as the country with the highest gun death rate per 100,000 inhabitants in 2016. The complexities of the Latin American region’s high homicide and violent crime rates are multifaceted, varying across different locales. For instance, a 2016 report from the Inter-American Development Bank identified four key factors influencing crime rates in the region’s cities: economic deprivation, residential instability, disruptions in family structures, school absenteeism, and demographic composition, as well as alcohol consumption.

The study unearthed that nearly two-thirds of global gun deaths in 2016 resulted from homicides, while slightly over a quarter were attributed to suicides, and less than 10% were categorized as accidental injuries due to firearms. This underscores the predominant role of homicides in contributing to firearm-related fatalities. A striking observation was that in 2016, nearly 90% of those killed by guns were men. Moreover, the age group most affected by firearm-related deaths was individuals aged 20 to 24. This demographic experienced the highest number of fatalities, with young men constituting the majority of victims.

Assessing whether the situation had improved over time, the study presented a nuanced perspective. While the absolute number of deaths from firearm injuries increased from 209,000 in 1990 to 251,000 in 2016, there was a slight decrease in the overall death rate during the same period. However, except for 1994 – the year of the Rwandan genocide – firearm-related deaths consistently surpassed deaths caused by global conflict and terrorism in every other year. The sobering reality of nearly 700 daily deaths resulting from firearm-related injuries underscores the pressing need for substantial progress in curbing gun violence.

The study’s revelations highlight the concentrated nature of firearm-related deaths in a handful of countries in the Americas. This pattern underscores the urgent need for comprehensive interventions to address the alarming public health crisis posed by gun violence. The study’s global scope further emphasizes the significance of this issue across different regions and cultures. While incremental progress has been made, the high prevalence of firearm-related deaths, especially among young men, necessitates sustained efforts to create safer communities worldwide.

Explaining the Hindu divide at the Parliament of the World’s Religions

It shouldn’t be hard to see why fusing of religious and national identity causes anxiety and fear.

A new Task Force on U.S.-China Policy report, Prioritizing Southeast Asia in American China Policy, lays out reasons why Southeast Asia is a critically important but under-appreciated region when it comes to U.S. interests and U.S. competition with China, and recommends actions for the U.S. government, in the face of China’s growing influence in the region.

Southeast Asia has, in recent decades, become an engine of growth for the global economy, with a combined GDP among its 11 nations of more than $3.6 trillion. Much of the world’s trade moves through Southeast Asia’s strategically important waters – the South China Sea and the Malacca Strait.

China is now the region’s top trading partner and one of its top investors. While many Southeast Asians view their region’s economic relationship with China favorably, concern is growing about how China uses its economic clout for political leverage and strategic positioning, sometimes at the expense of Southeast Asian interests. In response, Southeast Asians are increasingly seeking ways to counterbalance China’s growing influence in the region.

The report explains why there is room, and good reason, for the United States to strengthen its already considerable economic, political, and strategic ties with the region. It includes perspectives shared by Southeast Asian policy experts from each of the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, in two days of closed-door dialogue with the Task Force on U.S.-China Policy’s Working Group on Southeast Asia, hosted by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore in May 2023, under the Chatham House Rule.

The Task Force on U.S.-China Policy is co-chaired by Asia Society Vice President and Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations Orville Schell, and by Susan Shirk, the founding chair of the University of California, San Diego’s 21st Century China Center.

The report gives recommendations for U.S. policy both from the perspective of the Working Group’s Southeast Asian dialogue partners, and from the Working Group itself.

Southeast Asian recommendations include:

• Be consistent in the U.S. approach to the region. Episodic, inconsistent and self-serving governmental engagement has been America’s greatest failing and weakness, leading to a perception that the U.S. may not be a reliable long-term partner.
• Forget about American “primacy.” The region is now genuinely multipolar. America is only one of several regional actors.
• Get in the regional economic game. Joining regional economic organizations is imperative. If you can’t join CPTPP or RCEP, give serious thought to negotiating a regional U.S.-ASEAN foreign trade agreement.
• Significantly improve U.S. diplomacy, and public diplomacy. Show Southeast Asians that they matter to the United States, and get better at telling what the U.S. is already doing to help them.
• Take ASEAN seriously as an organization. Increase U.S. Mission to ASEAN staff and develop ASEAN-wide initiatives, rather than merely pursuing bilateral relationships.

The Working Group’s recommendations include:

• Resist viewing the region only or mostly through the lens of competition with China
• Increase top-level U.S. governmental visits to Southeast Asia
• Strengthen U.S. embassy capacities throughout the region
• Create a Regional Development Initiative that offers aid and other assistance to improve public health, food and water security, environmental sustainability, and more.
• Increase U.S. public diplomacy, and strengthen U.S. soft power and influence
• Upgrade diplomatic relations and interactions with ASEAN
• Play to American strengths in commerce, with U.S. as part of the regional economic architecture
• Strengthen US intelligence and counter-intelligence cooperation with Southeast Asian counterparts

Continue the full range of in-country military/security assistance programs

The Working Group on Southeast Asia was led by David Shambaugh, Gaston Sigur Professor of Asian Studies, Political Science & International Affairs and Director, China Policy Program, George Washington University, who was also the report’s lead author.

Other Working Group members were:

Orville Schell, Vice-President and Arthur Ross Director, Center on US-China Relations, Asia Society

Daniel Russel, Vice-President for International Security and Diplomacy, Asia Society Policy Institute, and former Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (2013–2017)

Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, Chair, Parkside Global Advisors & former U.S. Trade Representative (1997–2001)

Professor Steven F. Jackson, Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Mary Kay Magistad, Deputy Director, Center on US-China Relations, Asia Society, and former NPR Southeast Asia correspondent

Zack Cooper, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Gen. (Rtd.), Karl W. Eikenberry, former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (2009–2011).

To connect with any of the speakers directly for an interview, please reach out to pr@asiasociety.org.

The third assembly of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (FMCBG) in Gandhinagar concluded last week with a Chair Summary and Outcome Document due to the absence of a consensus on the “language” to be used in a communique concerning the Russia-Ukraine conflict. As the host country, India faced challenges in reconciling differing views, particularly regarding the characterization of the conflict as a “war.”

Following the two-day meeting, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman addressed the media, explaining, “We have issued a chair statement because we have not yet arrived at a common language regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict. We are bound by the language agreed upon at the Bali Leaders’ Summit and cannot unilaterally change it. Consequently, the final decision on this matter will be left to the leaders during the G20 Leaders’ Summit scheduled for September. We deemed it inappropriate to make alterations without proper authorization.”

As the host country, India struggled to find a consensus among the participating nations, as some insisted on categorizing the Ukraine conflict as a “war” and demanded that it be mentioned as such in the final communique.

Indian officials emphasized that the Russia-Ukraine conflict lay beyond the purview of the G20. Sitharaman noted, “While there was agreement on several issues, there was a need for more time to determine the appropriate language to use.”

During the discussions, numerous G20 nations also expressed condemnation of Russia’s decision to suspend a critical deal that permitted the export of grain from Ukraine by sea. Sitharaman further elaborated, stating, “Several members voiced their disapproval and raised concerns about the disruption of food shipments through the Black Sea.”

The Outcome Document and Chair Summary released after the G20 meeting conveyed the following, “A majority of members strongly condemned the ongoing war in Ukraine and emphasized its devastating impact on human lives, exacerbation of global economic vulnerabilities, hampering of growth, rise in inflation, disruption of supply chains, escalation of energy and food insecurity, and elevation of risks to financial stability. While differing opinions and assessments of the situation and the implementation of sanctions were expressed, it was acknowledged that the G20 is not the appropriate platform for resolving security issues. Nonetheless, the assembly recognized that security concerns can have significant ramifications for the global economy.”

On July 16, Janet Yellen, United States Secretary of the Treasury, pledged “equivocal support for Ukraine”, saying “Another key priority this week is to redouble our support to Ukraine as it continues to defend itself against Russia’s illegal and unprovoked attack… Ending this war is first and foremost a moral imperative and the single best thing we can do for the global economy.”

The FMCBG meeting concluded with a Chair Summary and Outcome Document comprising 26 paragraphs and two annexures. “We ended with a rich Chair Summary which reflects the deliberations held during the meeting and conveys the wide support that the Indian G20 Presidency received for various deliverables envisaged for 2023,” Sitharaman said.

The Outcome Document released after the meeting emphasized the condemnation of the war and its far-reaching consequences on human suffering, global economy, and various aspects of international stability. The matter is now set to be discussed at the G20 Leaders’ Summit in September, where the leaders will have the authority to make the final decision on the language used in addressing the Russia-Ukraine conflict. While recognizing the limitations of the G20 in resolving security matters, it was acknowledged that such issues could have significant implications for the global economy.