Global Leaders Plead for Peace in Ukraine at UN

The 2023 United Nations General Assembly, much like the previous year, has been engaged in discussions concerning the role of the United Nations and its member nations in addressing the crisis in Ukraine.

The United States and its allies continue to assert that the UN Charter mandates countries to support Ukraine in the conflict until its pre-2014 internationally recognized borders are restored. They argue that this obligation stems from Article 2:4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against a state’s territorial integrity or political independence in international relations.

According to their interpretation, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine constitutes a violation of Article 2:4, making any compromise or negotiated settlement unacceptable, regardless of the consequences of prolonging the war.

In contrast, other nations have advocated for a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the Ukraine conflict, emphasizing Article 2:3 of the UN Charter, which encourages members to settle international disputes through peaceful means to preserve international peace, security, and justice.

They also point to the UN’s purposes, outlined in Article 1:1, which include the resolution of international disputes through peaceful means, highlighting the urgency of diplomacy to swiftly end the war, given the risks of escalation and nuclear conflict.

The Amir of Qatar expressed this sentiment to the General Assembly, stating, “A long-term truce has become the most looked-for aspiration by people in Europe and all over the world. We call on all parties to comply with the UN Charter and international law and resort to a radical peaceful solution based on these principles.”

This year’s General Assembly has also addressed various other global crises, such as the failure to address climate change, the limited progress on the Sustainable Development Goals established in 2000, the persisting neocolonial economic system, and the pressing need for reform of the UN Security Council, which has fallen short of its primary duty to maintain peace and prevent conflict.

Leaders from different nations have raised concerns about abuses of power by the United States and Western nations. These include the occupation of Palestine, controversial and unlawful U.S. sanctions against countries like Cuba, Western exploitation of Africa, and a global financial system that exacerbates wealth and power inequalities worldwide.

Brazil’s President Lula da Silva addressed the Ukraine crisis, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and the UN’s role in promoting peace. He said, “The war in Ukraine exposes our collective inability to enforce the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. I have reiterated that work needs to be done to create space for negotiations… The international community must choose between the expansion of conflicts, furthering inequalities, and the renewal of multilateral institutions dedicated to promoting peace.”

President Biden’s speech at the General Assembly received criticism for being unclear and disjointed. President Gustavo Petro of Colombia highlighted the irony of humanity’s focus on war and conflict instead of working to extend life beyond Earth. He called for an end to wars in Ukraine, Palestine, and elsewhere and proposed two peace conferences, one for Ukraine and one for Palestine, to guide global peace efforts.

Other leaders, such as Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, rejected the notion that the central global struggle is between democracies and autocracies. He argued that the real conflict revolves around control, ownership, and distribution of the world’s resources. Gonsalves also urged Russia, NATO, and Ukraine to embrace peace to avoid a potential nuclear catastrophe.

Some NATO members, including Bulgaria, Hungary, and Spain, combined their denunciations of Russian aggression with pleas for peace, emphasizing the need to end the killing and destruction.

African leaders also took the opportunity to call for peace in Ukraine, highlighting the stark contrast between the world’s attention to the Ukraine conflict and its neglect of Africa’s challenges. They stressed the importance of ending the Ukraine conflict for global peace, energy security, and food security.

Leaders from approximately 50 countries voiced their support for peace in Ukraine at the 2023 UN General Assembly. They emphasized the principles of the UN Charter, the urgency of diplomatic solutions, and the need to prevent further violence in Ukraine. The international community appears united in its commitment to preserving territorial integrity, sovereignty, and peace.

Pope Francis And Bill Clinton Discuss ‘Wind Of War That Blows Throughout The World’

(RNS) — In an online conversation with former U.S. President Bill Clinton on Monday (Sept. 18), Pope Francis stressed the importance of people and nations coming together to care for the environment and to put an end to global conflicts.

“It’s time to shift toward peace and brotherhood. It’s time to put down the weapons and return to dialogue, to diplomacy. Let us cease the pursuit of conquest and military aggression. That’s why I repeat: no to war!” the pope said, answering a question by the former U.S. president.

The conversation between the political and spiritual leaders was livestreamed at the 2023 meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, taking place in New York City Sept. 18-19. The event seeks to address urgent global issues, such as climate change and the flow of refugees.

To these challenges, Francis added another: “the wind of war that blows throughout the world,” fueling what he described as “the Third World War, fought piecemeal.”

The pope urged all nations to take responsibility and stressed that “no challenge can be faced alone — only together, sisters and brothers, children of God,” he said.

Pope Francis has been a vocal advocate for peace following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and has sought a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. He appointed Cardinal Matteo Zuppi as a peace envoy to meet with the main stakeholders in the war, including President Joe Biden in July.

In his message, the pope also stated that “it is time to work together to stop the ecological catastrophe, before it is too late,” and repeated his intention to publish a new version of his “green” encyclical, “Laudato Si,” for the care and protection of the environment.

Clinton said he had a “wonderful meeting” with the pope at the Vatican in early July.

“You make us all feel empowered and that is perhaps your greatest power as the pope,” Clinton said during the conference. “You make everybody, even those who aren’t members of the Catholic Church, feel like they have power and share in the responsibility.”

The Clinton Global Initiative was created by Bill Clinton in 2005 and collaborates with over 10,000 organizations aiming to provide actionable solutions to global challenges.

Among the main reasons for the online meeting was raising awareness for the Pediatric Hospital Bambino Gesù, commonly referred to as the “pope’s hospital.” The pope spoke of the care that the hospital provides despite its small size, including helping Ukrainian children fleeing the conflict.

“There are illnesses that cannot be cured, but there are no children that cannot be cared for,” he said.

Is Iran On The Brink Of Producing Nuclear Weapons?

The United Nations nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has condemned Iran’s move to withdraw accreditation for several of its most experienced inspectors as “disproportionate and unprecedented”.

U.N. nuclear chief Rafael Grossi said in an interview Monday, Sep. 18, 2023 with the media that the Iranian government’s removal of many cameras and electronic monitoring systems installed by the International Atomic Energy Agency make it impossible to give assurances about the country’s nuclear program. Grossi has previously warned that Tehran has enough enriched uranium for “several” nuclear bombs if it chose to build them.

Picture : VOA

Grossi said the experts who lost accreditation had “unique knowledge in enrichment technology” and had previously conducted essential verification work at Iranian enrichment facilities under IAEA safeguards. Grossi said Iran’s move “constitutes an unnecessary blow to an already strained relationship between the IAEA and Iran”.

The IAEA director general also said he asked to meet Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi to try to reverse Tehran’s uncalled for ban on “a very sizable chunk” of the agency’s inspectors.

The deal
In 2015, major world powers reached a deal with Iran under which it was to check its nuclear programme in exchange for relief from crippling economic sanctions. But in 2018, then-US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions.

Iran’s response
The strongly worded statement came amid longstanding tensions between Iran and the IAEA, which is tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear programme that western nations suspected is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists the programme is peaceful.

Iran’s foreign ministry criticised the IAEA’s approach, linking it to an alleged attempt by the US, France, Germany and Britain to misuse the UN’s nuclear agency “for their own political purposes” and in retaliation for “political abuses”.

The Vienna-based IAEA reported earlier this month that Iran had slowed the pace at which it was enriching uranium to nearly weapons-grade levels. That was seen as a sign that Iran was trying to ease tensions after years of strain in its relationship with the US.

A top Pentagon official had reported that Iran could make the nuclear material for a device in about 12 days if it wanted to do so. The International Atomic Energy Agency also stated its monitors had detected that Iran now had the capability of enriching uranium to close to 84%, which is on the verge of making weapons-grade uranium.

Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy official, when asked to describe Iran’s nuclear progress since then-President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

“Iran’s nuclear progress since we left the JCPOA has been remarkable,” Kahl said. “Back in 2018, when the previous administration decided to leave the JCPOA, it would have taken Iran about 12 months to produce one bomb’s worth of fissile material,” said Kahl about Iran’s so called “breakout time. “Now it would take about 12 days.”

Kahl said he still thinks going back to the deal is better than not having any deal because he said it could “put constraints” on Iran. At the same, he acknowledged that isn’t likely, given that efforts to go back to the deal are “on ice” since Iran turned down a U.S. offer last summer.

“Of course, Iran’s behavior has changed since then, not the least of which there’s support for Russia and Ukraine, which is the subject of the conversation here today,” he told lawmakers. “So, I don’t think we’re on the precipice of reentering the JCPOA.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi said Tuesday that his country will never give up its right “to have peaceful nuclear energy” and urged the United States “to demonstrate in a verifiable fashion” that it wants to return to the 2015 nuclear deal. Addressing the annual high-level meeting of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, September 20, 2023, Raisi said the American withdrawal from the deal trampled on U.S. commitments and was “an inappropriate response” to Iran’s fulfillment of its commitments.

Raisi made no mention of the IAEA inspectors but the European Union issued a statement late Tuesday saying its top diplomat, Josep Borrell, met Iran’s Foreign Minister on Tuesday and raised the nuclear deal and the inspectors as well as Iran’s arbitrary detention of many EU citizens including dual nationals.

Biden Reaffirms US Support For India’s Seat On The UN Security Council

During his speech at the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), in New York, US President Joe Biden reaffirmed the unwavering commitment of the United States to reform the United Nations Security Council membership, thus supporting India’s primary goal of a permanent seat on UNSC. Biden emphasized support for other key US-India strategic endeavors including strengthening of the Quad partnership, advancing Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), and welcoming the African Union’s inclusion in the G20, accomplished during India’s leadership in that forum.

Addressing world leaders during the UN general debate, President Biden recalled, “In my address to this body, last year, I announced the United States to support expanding the Security Council, increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent members. The United States has undertaken serious consultation with many Member States and will continue to do our part to push more reform efforts forward…”

Biden noted, “This month we strengthened the G20 as a vital forum welcoming the African Union as a permanent member by upgrading and strengthening our institutions… That’s only half of the picture. We must also forge new partnerships, confront new challenges…” adding “In the Indo Pacific, we’ve elevated our Quad partnership with India, Japan, and Australia, to deliver concrete progress to people of the region on everything from vaccines to maritime security.”

“Similarly groundbreaking efforts were announced at the G20 [in New Delhi] connecting India to Europe, through the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel – will spur opportunities investment across two continents…” Biden added about the PGII initiative.

Picture : TheUNN

Over 151 Heads of State and Government are participating in the high-level week in New York, where four of the five permanent members of UNSC – Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom will be absent. US President Joe Biden is the only permanent member of UNSC who participated and addressed global leaders as well.

PM Modi, who successfully hosted the G20 Summit in New Delhi, will not be traveling to New York to address the UNGA session. Instead, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar will address the session on September 26 and is expected to reaffirm India’s commitment to several vital issues including the Global South.

On the eve of the UNGA session, Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj said that India’s participation during the current session will underscore its steadfast dedication to the “global cooperation, peace, and sustainable development.” This commitment is rooted in the vision of a unified global family and resonates with the sentiments articulated by PM Modi, according to Kamboj.

Emphasizing India’s focus during the UNGA session, Kamboj noted, “Firstly, as the current President of the G20, India will continue to emphasize issues that are vital to the Global South countries including climate action, finance, and the sustainable development goals. We proudly opened the doors for the African Union to join the G20 recognizing the importance of global collaboration to address contemporary challenges.”

Kamboj pointed out that the G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration underscores India’s dedication to fostering sustainable economic growth and promoting environmentally friendly initiatives. This commitment is exemplified by the collective focus on an inclusive and action driven G20 agenda under PM Modi’s guidance.

On human rights and social issues, Kamboj added “We stand firmly for women’s rights, constructive human rights dialogues, and an intercultural dialogue for peace. India will Chair the 62nd session of the UN Commission for Social Development, the first time since 1975, that India holds this esteemed position.”

About UN reforms, Kamboj said India actively engages in discussion surrounding UNSC reforms with a primary goal of securing permanent membership and emphasizing the need for expansion of both permanent and non-permanent member categories. Furthermore, India will prioritize efforts to revitalize the Non-Aligned Movement.

On September 18, two members of G4 nations, Japan and Brazil met on the sidelines of the UNGA session in New York and discussed ways to carry forward the G20 agenda under India’s Presidency.

“The two Ministers shared the view that Japan and Brazil will continue to strengthen cooperation as ‘strategic global partners’ and that they will work together towards the G20 Rio de Janeiro Summit next year, building on the achievements that led from the G7 Hiroshima Summit to the G20 New Delhi Summit,” Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, Kamikawa Yoko, and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federative Republic of Brazil, Mauro Vieira said in their joint statement.

The Joint Communiqué of the Fourth Trilateral Meeting of the African Union, the European Union and the United Nations on September 17 also reaffirmed their leaders “commitment to promote effective multilateralism and welcomed the extension of G20 membership to the African Union.” Notably, the African Union was inducted as a permanent member during the recently concluded G20 Leaders’ Summit under India’s Presidency in New Delhi.

UN Living In The 1940s Mindset, Urgently In Need Of Reforms

(IPS) – Politically, the United Nations has largely been described as a monumental failure —with little or no progress in resolving some of the world’s past and ongoing military conflicts and civil wars, including Palestine, Western Sahara, Kashmir, and more recently, Ukraine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan and Myanmar, among others.

Still, to give the devil its due, the UN has made some remarkable progress providing food, shelter and medical care to millions of people caught in military conflicts, including in Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Somalia. Has the UN been gradually transformed into a humanitarian aid organization — diplomats without borders?

How fair are these characterizations?

Meanwhile, during the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly beginning September 18, some of the world’s political leaders, representing four of the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council, were MIAs (missing in action): Prime Minister Rushi Sunak of UK, President Emmanuel Macron of France, President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Xi Jinping of China.

The only P5 member present was US President Joe Biden. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, a country described as one of the world’s rising political and economic powers willing to lead the Global South, was also missing.

Picture: FP

Is there a hidden message here for the UN? And is the UN beginning to outlive its usefulness–politically?

Asked about the absence of four P-5 members of the Security Council, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was blunt when he told reporters: “I don’t think it is because we have or we have not a leader of a country that the high-level week is more relevant or less relevant. What’s important is the commitments that Governments are ready to make in relation to the SDGs, in relation to many other aspects of this week. So, this is not a vanity fair… What matters is not the presence of this or that leader. What matters is the commitment of the respective government in relation to the objectives of the summit.

Meanwhile, the reform of the UN – including the revitalization of the General Assembly, the increase in the number of permanent members of the Security Council and the lack of gender empowerment at the highest echelons of the UN hierarchy, with nine all-male Secretaries-General and only 4 women out of 78 presidents of the General Assembly – has been discussed for decades. But still these issues have never got off the ground. Or will they ever?

In an interview with IPS, Natalie Samarasinghe, Global Director, Advocacy, Open Society Foundations, said change is challenging at the UN. The organization is predicated on balancing principle with politics — and the former prevails only when it can be aligned with the latter. It has been subversive, supporting the fight against colonialism and apartheid, and helping the marginalized to advance their cause through development and human rights.

At the same time, it has helped to maintain the power structures of 1945. That is reflected in the UN’s priorities,programming and personnel. And this formula seems weaker now, with the UN now seemingly peripheral in the peace and security realm, and struggling to coordinate global responses to the shocks of recent years.

This does not mean the organization cannot change. Today’s UN would be unrecognisable to its founders: with its strong focus on sustainable development, nearly four times the number of member states, and bodies devoted to almost every dimension of human endeavour.

The UN’s charter does not mention the iconic blue helmets or UNICEF — perhaps the organization’s best-known ‘brand’, nor does it allude to the role of the Secretary-General as the world’s top diplomat. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change and GAVI, the multistakeholder vaccine alliance — inconceivable seven decades ago — are further examples of the UN’s ability to adapt to new realities.

A wide view of the General Assembly Hall at the start of the Assembly’s seventy-first annual general debate.

Yet, other parts of the organization seem frozen in time, most obviously the Security Council. So, is change possible? It is depressing that the prospect of a female Secretary-General still feels remote, or that only four of the 78 presidents of the General Assembly have been women. This should not be our ceiling for reform but our floor.

We have regional rotation for positions. Why not gender rotation? This is surely as achievable a change as it is necessary.

The Security Council, meanwhile, is probably the least likely area of movement. But its gridlock — on substance and reform — has increased the appetite for the General Assembly to act as a counterweight to exclusive clubs.

The closest thing we have to a world parliament, the importance of the Assembly has grown as lower-income countries become increasingly frustrated at shouldering the brunt of global shocks without any real say in solutions.

This is part of a broader trend. At the UN, it encompasses improvements to the Secretary-General selection process in 2016, Liechtenstein’s success in ensuring that a Council veto automatically triggers a debate in the Assembly, and the Syria investigative mechanism.

But the real action is likely to be outside the New York. Leaders like Biden and Macron seem to have taken up the calls of Mottley, Akufo-Addo and others to reform the international financial architecture. The G20 in New Delhi echoed language in the Bridgetown Initiative and V20 Agenda on issues such as debt and access to capital.

All of this shows that we may have finally reached a point where smaller, more vulnerable countries can no longer tolerate the status quo, and where larger, richer countries realise that interdependence is not just a concept.

Q: At a press conference last month, Barbara Woodward, Britain’s ambassador to the UN, emphasized the “UK’s ambition to drive forward reform of the multilateral system,” saying, “We want to see expansion of the Council’s permanent seats to include India, Brazil, Germany, Japan and African representation.” But even if this proposal is adopted by the GA and the UNSC, it has to be followed up with an amendment to the UN charter. How arduous and long-drawn-out is the process of amending the charter?

A: Even in 1945, the composition of the Security Council was a compromise, with permanent membership and vetoes intended to encourage the five powers of the time to serve as guardians of the international order. That illusion was shattered before the ink had dried on the charter, as the Cold War cut short the organization’s honeymoon.

Today, our multipolar and polarised world is better described as a hot mess. Longstanding conflicts such as Palestine and Kashmir remain intractable, while crises pile up: Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Haiti, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine.

Some commentators argue that Russia’s wanton aggression is not the first time one of the five permanent members (P5) has invaded a country. Others adopt a reductionist view of the Council’s role: preventing conflict between the P5 rather than maintaining peace and security. But after 18 months of genocidal acts, it’s hard not to see it as emblematic of the UN’s failures and constraints.

Even areas where the UN previously banked successes are flagging. Most people go back two decades to Liberia or Sierra Leone when asked to cite successful peace operations. Until its collapse, the Black Sea grain deal was a rare example of mediation gone right.

Invariably, debates on how to strengthen the UN’s peace and security capacity focus on the Security Council. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, states including the US have been more vocal on the need for change. Yet renewed interest has not made reform more likely.

Procedurally, reform requires amending the UN charter. This needs approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly’s members and ratification by their legislatures, including the all of the P5. It has happened only once in relation to the Council (in 1965, when the number of members was raised from 11 to 15, and the voting threshold increased accordingly). Politically, one of the biggest hurdles is the lack of agreement within regions on who should get a seat.

Council reform is a prize worth pursuing — and one that merits more creativity, on the role of regional organisations, for instance. But it may be better to channel this energy into how to leverage the collective power of the UN system as a whole.

From sanctions to investigations, there is much more the General Assembly could do on peace and security, including by building on Liechtenstein’s proposal. The Peacebuilding Commission, too, could become more central, for example by bringing in actors such as the international financial institutions. And it is worth looking at how mediation could be done differently, with more resources and a more diverse pool of negotiators.

Q: Civil society organizations (CSOs) have played a significant role in UN’s mandate to provide international peace and security, protect human rights and deliver humanitarian aid. Has the UN given CSOs, their rightful place?

A: Over 200 civil society organizations were at the birth of the UN. Their presence helped to secure references in the Charter to human rights, gender equality and social justice.

Seventy-eight years on, thousands will come to New York for the opening of the General Assembly. Even more work with the UN every day, as its development and humanitarian activities have mushroomed. These areas now account for over 70 percent of its funds and roughly two-thirds of its staff.

But many CSOs engage from the sidelines. Only a fraction will be allowed into UN Headquarters, while those on the ground often face steep barriers to cooperation. For all the talk about partnerships, a similar situation exists for other actors, from local governments to business.

This ignores that perhaps the most profound transformation of the ‘‘international community’ in recent decades has not been geopolitical realignment but the rise of non-state actors.

We live in a world where private sector profits eclipse GDP, where social movements can mobilise millions of people, and influencers can wipe out billions with a single post; and where a girl sitting outside her school with a sign can change the global conversation. And yet the international system remains stubbornly state-centric.

Instead, partnerships should be the norm. CSOs are critical to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and addressing climate change. They provide essential assistance in humanitarian crises and step into the breach in conflict zones. They stand up for those who are ignored and abused, serving both as the UN’s partners and its conscience.

Their contributions should be valued and harnessed, through a high-level champion for civil society, greater resourcing of grassroots groups; and an overarching strategy for engagement. As concerns around legitimacy and power grow, this strategy should include a gradual transfer of the UN’s development and humanitarian functions to local partners.

This would foster a greater sense of ownership, agency and accountability. It could also breathe new life into the SDGs. From the UN’s vantage point, it would help to alleviate the unsustainable growth in its workload, free up limited resources and mitigate the incompatibility on the ground of various functions it is expected to perform – political, humanitarian, development and human rights.

Such a move is likely to meet with considerable resistance, including from inside the UN. It is easier to cite the number schools built or refugees rescued as evidence of success, especially when geopolitical tensions make advances in areas such as norm-setting and mediation more challenging.

But it is precisely in those areas where the UN is most needed: functions that cannot easily be fulfilled by others — even with two regional organisations on board, the G20 is not the G193; and where it is uniquely placed to make a difference — from emergency coordination to global solidarity.

That should be the guiding spirit leading up to next year’s Summit of the Future: a realistic task list for the UN, greater responsibility for partners, and higher ambition for the world’s people.

(Natalie Samarasinghe has also served as CEO of the United Nations Association – UK, becoming the first woman appointed to that role; she was speechwriter to the 73rd President of the General Assembly; and chief of strategy for the UN’s 75th-anniversary initiative.

A frequent commentator on UN issues, she has edited publications on sustainable development, climate change and conflict; written for Routledge and OUP on human rights; and co-edited the SAGE Major Work on the UN. She has also supported a number of civil society coalitions, including the 1 for 7 Billion campaign to improve the Secretary-General selection process, which she co-founded. IPS UN Bureau Report)

G-20 Establish Mechanism to Monitor Incidents of Hate, Targeted Violence

The G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration, which was agreed on Saturday (9 September), reiterated the group’s commitment to promoting respect for all religions and condemned all acts of religious hatred, including those committed against holy texts and symbols.

The declaration noted the July 25 United Nations General Assembly resolution on “promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance in countering hate speech” and stated: “In this regard, we strongly deplore all acts of religious hatred against persons, as well as those of a symbolic nature without prejudice to domestic legal frameworks, including against religious and holy books.”

Narender Nagarwal, who teaches Law at the Delhi University, while speaking on the G-20 joint declaration, said, “I do believe that the G20 New Delhi declaration of September 9, 2023, which denounces all forms of discrimination, hatred, and violence towards vulnerable ethnic groups, is a remarkable accomplishment of the conference. The G20 countries have always been at the forefront in tackling global issues, and the New Delhi Conference of world leaders has reinforced its commitment to confronting targeted violence and hatred on the basis of religion, caste or language against minorities as a critical issue that demands immediate attention and action.”

He added, “This declaration is a clear indication of the Group of 20’s collective determination to combat all hate crimes, including Islamophobic violence, against minorities. I welcome this initiative of the leading players of global politics and treat the declaration as a powerful message to those who overtly or covertly instigate Islamophobic hatred and other sorts of bigotry against ethnic and vulnerable groups.”

On the way forward, Nagarwal urged the G-20 leaders by saying, “I would appreciate if the G-20 secretariat established an observatory commission to investigate reports of hate and targeted violence against ethnic and vulnerable groups and submit progress reports to member states on a regular basis. The adoption of collective action sends a powerful message of unity, solidarity, and hope to the people of Indian society who have endured the burdens of hate crimes, discrimination and Islamophobic violence for far too long.”

Michael Williams, founder and president of the United Christians Forum, said, “Religious tolerance has been a part of the UN Charter, the Indian Constitution, and now our Prime Minister has reiterated this in the G20 Joint Declaration. I only hope that Mr. Modi will ensure its speedy implementation akin to the Demonetisation urgency and will continue to see it through like the GST policy.”

Williams added, “Prime Minister must ensure that anyone who indulges in hate speeches, religious violence, and religious bullying are brought to account so that such Joint Declarations actually have meaning and impact on the lives of citizens. They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but, with true implementation, this intent of the Summit is something India needs right now.”

Dr. Prem Chand, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, ARSD College, University of Delhi, observed: “Unity in Diversity is not only a line but it is the virtue which is inherently reflected in each aspect of our great country India. Historically and culturally, India has been nurtured by different religions and cultures. The spirit of the Constitution of India is secular and secularism is being practised by the India Government. Religious freedom is one of the fundamental rights given by the Constituent Assembly of India to its Citizens. In this backdrop it’s a welcome step that G20 agenda has deplored the religious hatred and considered equality of all religions.”

Dr. Prem Chand added, “India is a multi-religious country but unfortunately some political parties are doing communal politics and they divide people only to grab power. In this scenario India should respect what is inherited and keep it to the values of the Constitution of India.”

John Dayal, a noted social and human rights activist, opined: “G-20 was sitting at a time when religious discord, sponsored mostly by ruling groups in India and in most other countries, have brought the world to the brink. Many Peoples Summits preceding G-20 had, in their call to put people first, highlighted the threat to the world leaders, it seems, successfully prevented any discussion on this issue. It was not high on the agenda anyway.”

Dayal said, “Big countries have lost whatever moral authority they ever had in naming and shaming regimes with a track record of religious bigotry and ill treatment of minorities. Apart from their own records in condoning the burning of the Qur’ān, for instance, in several European cities, the G-20 have turned a blind eye to infringements and absolute ignoring of the United Nations Charter and its focus on religious freedom and freedom of expression as the core values of a shared humanity.”

G20 Summit 2023 In India Discusses Sustainable Development and More

The G20, or Group of Twenty, is a coalition of nations that convenes regularly to deliberate on global economic and political matters. Together, these G20 countries contribute to a staggering 85% of the world’s economic output and over 75% of worldwide trade, housing two-thirds of the global population. Comprising the EU and 19 individual nations, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK, and the US, the G20 holds a unique position on the world stage.

Established in 1999, the G20 emerged in response to the Asian financial crisis with the primary goal of providing finance ministers and officials a platform to strategize methods for restoring economic stability. In 2008, the group elevated its stature, hosting its inaugural leaders’ summit as a response to the global financial turmoil that year, with the aim of promoting international cooperation.

In recent years, the G20 has widened its purview, incorporating subjects like climate change and sustainable energy into its discussions. Each year, one of the G20 member states takes on the presidency and sets the agenda for the leaders’ summit.

The 2023 G20 summit, presided over by India, will spotlight critical topics such as sustainable development, the pursuit of just and equitable global growth, and debt forgiveness for developing countries. Additionally, US President Joe Biden is expected to engage with leaders from developing nations to propose reforms for the World Bank, potentially unlocking more funds for infrastructure development and climate change mitigation.

Picture : AlJazeera

Crucially, much of the negotiation and diplomacy will occur behind the scenes, in one-on-one meetings between leaders held on the sidelines of the main summit hall. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi intends to use the summit as a platform to elevate his country’s global standing and establish himself as a significant world leader, particularly in the run-up to the spring 2024 general election. Modi is keen to ensure that the summit doesn’t get bogged down in disputes over the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which marred the 2022 summit in Bali, Indonesia. Discord around this issue even prevented the issuance of a joint statement following the G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in Delhi in March.

Remarkably, both Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping will be absent from the summit. Putin will be represented by his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, while China will send Premier Li Qiang in Xi’s stead.

Aside from the Ukraine conflict, other contentious matters could emerge at the summit. In May 2023, China and Saudi Arabia boycotted a G20 meeting on tourism held in Indian-administered Kashmir, as this region includes territory claimed by both Pakistan and India. Another source of tension has arisen between India and China after Beijing published a map asserting Chinese ownership of Arunachal Pradesh and the Aksai Chin plateau, both disputed territories. The US has urged China to put aside its differences with India and adopt a “constructive role” at the summit.

The G20 has experienced varying degrees of success since its inception. During the 2008 and 2009 leaders’ summits, held in the midst of the financial crisis, leaders reached consensus on numerous measures to salvage the global economic system. However, critics argue that subsequent summits have been less productive, often due to discord between rival global powers. Nevertheless, the one-on-one meetings between leaders have frequently yielded positive outcomes. For instance, at the 2019 summit in Osaka, then-US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping concurred to recommence talks to resolve a major trade dispute.

Security is always a paramount concern at G20 summits, given their propensity to attract anti-globalization protests. The Indian government has taken extensive security measures ahead of the Delhi event, including road closures around the venue and deploying 130,000 security personnel across the city. Unique measures have also been introduced to deter troublesome monkeys from disrupting the summit, as Delhi has a substantial monkey population that authorities wish to keep at bay.

The 2023 G20 summit promises to be a pivotal event, with India at the helm emphasizing sustainable development, equitable global growth, and debt relief for developing nations. While the specter of the Ukraine conflict looms, leaders will engage in discreet discussions to address a range of pressing issues, including World Bank reform and climate change.

The absence of key leaders like Putin and Xi adds an intriguing dimension to the proceedings. However, the G20’s track record, marked by both achievements and challenges, underscores the importance of these high-level diplomatic gatherings in shaping the global agenda. Amidst stringent security measures and innovative tactics to deal with local fauna, the world will be watching closely as the G20 nations convene to chart the course of the global economy and address pressing international concerns.

G20 In New Delhi, A Milestone For India, US Leadership

Xi Jinping’s decision to stay away from the Group of 20 summit may have been intended to deny India its moment. Instead, Prime Minister Narendra Modi — along with the U.S. and Europe — figured out how to more effectively counter China on the world stage.

Fellow G20 nations hailed India’s success in reaching an agreement on a joint communiqué that remained in doubt just days before world leaders gathered in New Delhi for their most significant annual diplomatic event. Apart from finding consensus on Russia’s war in Ukraine, the most difficult issue, they also elevated the African Union as a full G20 member and took action on issues like climate change and debt sustainability that are priorities of emerging markets.

The final outcome irked Ukraine, which saw the compromise on war language as weaker than what leaders produced just 10 months ago in Bali, Indonesia. But for the U.S. and its allies, criticism of a communiqué that on substance was similar to Bali and has little impact on the ground is a small price to pay for giving Modi a win that bolsters India’s status as a rising power capable of blunting China’s global influence.

U.S. President Joe Biden led the charge, seeing in India his administration’s best hope of isolating China and Russia — and providing a booster shot to the U.S.-led world order. The result showed that Washington is finally learning the language of the so-called Global South, with India as its principle guide.

“Some commentators are pointing to watered-down language on Russia-Ukraine as a sign of Western ‘climbdown,’” said Milan Vaishnav, director of the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “But there’s another way of looking at it: The West is also invested in making sure India got a win. A lack of consensus would have been a huge disappointment for India.”

If there was a moment that illustrated the summit dynamics, it was Biden’s meeting on Saturday to discuss White House-led efforts to deliver more financing to developing nations.

Along with World Bank President Ajay Banga, the first Indian American to hold the role, Biden was pictured with Modi, Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa — key members of the BRICS grouping, minus China and Russia. That bloc expanded earlier this month, posing a challenge for the Group of Seven advanced economies.

Earlier in the day, U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer swiped at China by referring to those nations as “the three democratic members of the BRICS,” saying they and the U.S. were all committed to the G20’s success. “And if China is not, that’s unfortunate for everyone,” Finer said. “But much more unfortunate, we believe, for China.”

And the U.S. didn’t stop there. It separately announced a deal with India, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other Middle Eastern countries to develop an ambitious rail and maritime network across the region. Biden hailed it as a “game-changing regional investment,” cementing the deal with a three-way handshake that included Modi and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who the U.S. president had cast as a “pariah” ahead of the last American election.

That kind of pronouncement is more likely to appeal to Middle East interests than badgering over human rights, even if the project’s time line and funding remains vague. The U.S. denied it was meant to counter China’s growing influence in the Gulf, but a French official acknowledged it was designed to provide competition for Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), saying that wasn’t a bad thing.

“I want to see China succeed economically,” Biden told reporters Sunday in Hanoi, Vietnam, where he flew after the G20. “But I want to see them succeed by the rules.”

Xi’s move to skip the G20 summit for the first time since he became president in 2013 marked a shift in behavior from last November, when he cast himself as a statesman with a responsibility to “get along with other countries.” China’s negotiators also risked appearing petty in looking to thwart India’s progress, taking a stand on minor issues like Modi’s use of a Sanskrit phrase and the U.S.’s bid to host the G20 gathering in 2026. The Global Times, a newspaper affiliated with the Communist Party, called the U.S. “just a copycat” for its Mideast infrastructure plan.

In a further blow to Beijing, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni told Premier Li Qiang on the sidelines of the summit that her nation plans to withdraw from the BRI while still looking to maintain friendly relations, according to a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be named. At a press conference after the G20, Meloni said she spoke to Li, representing China in Xi’s absence, about the BRI but a decision had yet to be made.

Going into the summit, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak accused China of acting as a brake on progress toward a joint statement. At one point in the deliberations behind closed doors, Beijing raised the issue of access to semiconductors in a discussion of climate action, people familiar with the talks said. That prompted National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan — a leading advocate of U.S. export controls on chips and chip technology to China — to decry “the idea of holding climate hostage” to unrelated issues.

China’s Li told leaders that the G20 “needs unity instead of division, cooperation instead of confrontation,” the official Xinhua News Agency reported. That followed a commentary posted hours earlier by a Chinese think tank affiliated with the country’s top spy agency, which criticized India for having “sabotaged the atmosphere for cooperation” at the G20 by pushing its own agenda.

But China relented on its opposition to the communiqué, and India drew praise from all camps for negotiating a compromise. People familiar with the discussions said the breakthrough occurred after India, Indonesia, Brazil and South Africa jointly put forward a proposal on language describing the war.

“This consensus itself shows the cemented role of India as a trustworthy fulcrum of a world bitterly divided on geopolitical issues like the Ukraine war,” said Swasti Rao, an associate fellow at the Europe and Eurasia Center at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses. “There is little doubt that middle order powers wish to keep the global economic order multipolar and not fall into the Chinese game of dominating it.”

While the final language on Ukraine made some U.S. allies uneasy, supporting the compromise presented a bigger opportunity to align more closely with major democracies in the Global South that ultimately serve as key swing nations when it comes to Russia’s war and other world issues. G7 leaders publicly praised the outcome, with Sunak insisting that the language adopted was “very strong” and that “Russia is completely isolated.”

‘Just and durable’

For the U.S., any move that bolsters India and amplifies other democracies in the Global South helps to counter China and Russia’s influence, particularly when it comes to bringing about the G20’s call for a “comprehensive, just and durable peace” in Ukraine. Back in May at the G7 summit in Japan, the U.S. and its allies struggled to convince Modi, Lula and Indonesia’s Joko Widodo to side with them on Ukraine, even after President Volodymyr Zelenskiy made a surprise appearance. Zelenskiy wasn’t invited to address India’s G20.

A senior European Union official said the agreement effectively saved the G20 as the last global forum bringing together the world’s major powers. Moreover, the official said, it helped bridge the gap between the G-7 and emerging markets, who would now be partners in holding Russia to account if it doesn’t follow through on seeking a just peace in line with UN principles.

Other senior European officials said China shot itself in the foot by staying away from the summit, allowing India to cement its leadership of the Global South and providing the U.S. and Europe a clear path to strengthen ties with emerging markets.

Even Russia, represented by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after Vladimir Putin stayed home, saw the agreement as a win. Moscow was pleased that BRICS democracies served as interlocutors with the G7, according to a person familiar with the situation, underscoring China’s status as an outsider looking in.

The U.S., of course, could yet stumble in its bid to appeal more to the Global South. Ahead of the G20, Biden skipped a summit in Indonesia hosted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a move that appeared like a snub to Widodo. The U.S. president sought to do damage control in Delhi, meeting the Indonesian leader briefly and pledging to meet him at the White House in November, when world leaders head to the U.S. for the APEC summit.

More significantly, however, was India’s ability to grasp the moment to assert a global leadership role. Modi — who is on pace to extend his decade in power next year — declared that “history has been created” while his chief negotiator, Amitabh Kant, called India “the spokesperson of all the Global South.”

“More than anything else, it has amplified the voice of Global South,” Kant said of the summit outcome. “It has also demonstrated that India has a huge capacity of bringing the world together and leading the world. (TIME.COM)

US Praises India For Unanimous G20 Joint Declaration Balancing North South Interests

The US conceded space to the host India in the wording of the final Delhi Declaration of G20 on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and lauded Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s diplomatic skills that virtually represented a coup as the final document came out despite fractures in the group.

The declaration earned the praise of the US.

US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan called the statement a “significant milestone for India’s chairmanship and a vote of confidence that the G20 can come together to address a pressing range of issues.”

“The G20 statement includes a set of consequential paragraphs on the war in Ukraine. And from our perspective, it does a very good job of standing up for the principle that states cannot use force to seek territorial acquisition,” Sullivan  told newspersons.

Still, the language differed from last year’s G20 declaration, which stated “most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine.” So, in a way, it was a diplomatic coup for India as the host country took a softer line than the Bali G20 one by not calling it a war but saying,  “All states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition.”

US and western nations wanted stronger language to condemn the aggression on Ukraine as they succeeded in the Bali G20 conference. The Russian invasion was described as a war in the declaration then.

Picture : Sakshi Post

The softer tone in the Delhi declaration showed that US and western allies yielded space to India, the host country, to word it differently which still had the same effect but also gave India the leverage with its long term ally Russia, whose leader Vladimir Putin did not attend, balancing its equations with US and Russia at the same time – a feat pilled of by the foreign office officials under foreign minister S Jaishankar along with trusted allies .

Russia, as a member of the G20, would have to agree on any consensus statement on Ukraine. Russia and China had resisted stronger language in a final statement, making any kind of agreement difficult. No G20 summit has concluded without a joint declaration of some type, media reports said.

Leaders gathered here for the annual Group of 20 summit managed to agree on a joint statement laying out shared views on climate change and economic development but showed the fractures within the group by stopping short of explicitly condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, CNN reported .

Diplomats virtually burnt the midnight oil to sort out what sort of language and phraseography the final draft  joint statement required in the lead-up to the summit . Anticipating snags, Indian foreign office officials along with its allies managed to play down the Ukraine situation as a war.

The eventual compromise statement amounted to a coup for the summit’s host, Prime Minister Modi, but still reflected a position far softer than those the US and its Western allies have adopted individually, CNN reported.

US President Joe Biden’s hopes of convincing the world’s largest economies to rally behind Ukraine during his two-night stay in India for the summit did not bear fruit in the way he wanted, but he still liked the final wording. He also pressed his case for American investment in the developing world.

Even as the summit was midway through on Saturday, the leaders agreed to the joint declaration acknowledging the situation in Ukraine while not papering over the group’s major divides on the issue.

“All states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition,” the declaration read, without explicitly singling out Russia for its invasion. The document also stated opposition to the use of nuclear weapons and highlighted the economic effects of the war in an indirect reference to Putin’s threat of using nuclear weapons if NATO allies intervened militarily to help Ukraine.

In a reflection of the deep fractures among the G20 nations, the statement acknowledged “there were different views and assessments of the situation”, US media reports noted.

Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oleg Nikolenko however criticised the declaration. Kiev was not invited by India to the G20 summit.

“Ukraine is grateful to its partners who tried to include strong wording in the text,” he wrote on Facebook. “At the same time, the G20 has nothing to be proud of in the part about Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Obviously, the participation of the Ukrainian side would have allowed the participants to better understand the situation. The principle of ‘nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine’ remains as key as ever,” media reports said.

The absence of Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin – US President Biden’s arch rivals –  provided opportunities for Biden to make a more affirmative case at the summit, White House officials said during the summit.

Biden said Saturday he would have welcomed the presence of his Chinese counterpart at the summit, but that positive outcomes were still possible. “It would be nice to have him here but, no, the summit is going well,” Biden said when questioned about the impact of Xi’s absence.

Biden hoped to leverage on the two leaders absence at the summit to portray the US as a credible counterweight to China’s economic outreach.He announced new plans partnering Europe, the Middle East and Asia to construct a major new transit corridor connecting the regions, thus challenging Beijing’s own efforts at expanding global trade with its belt road initiatives.

“India calls upon the world to come together to transform the global trust deficit into one of trust and reliance. This is the time for all of us to move together,” Prime Minister Modi said as the gathering got underway.

“Be it the divide between North and South, the distance between the East and West, management of food and fuel, terrorism, cyber security, health, energy or water security, we must find a solid solution to this for future generations,” he emphasised. It was a message of unity at a markedly fractured moment for the grouping, the US media observed.

While Biden enjoyed success at other summits convincing European leaders and NATO allies to step up their military support for Ukraine and tighten their punishment of Russia, many nations, particularly in the Global South, weren’t  convinced. They viewed the billions of dollars in Western assistance pouring into Ukraine sceptically, and sought a more balanced relationship with Moscow, CNN said.

Biden’s aides claimed the president welcomed the opportunity to make the case for Ukraine, including to audiences that aren’t necessarily on the same page. “Part of what makes the G20 an appealing format for the United States is it gives us a chance to interact with and work with and take constructive steps with a wider range of countries, including some, frankly, that we don’t see eye to eye with on every issue,” US deputy national security adviser Jon Finer told reporters on Saturday.

G20 Leaders Declaration adopted in New Delhi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing the second session of the G20 Leaders Summit, announced that the leaders declaration has been officially adopted by the member states at the New Delhi Summit.

“There is good news. With everyone’s cooperation, consensus has been reached on New Delhi G20 Leadership Declaration…I announce the adoption of this declaration,” PM Modi told the gathering amid loud applause.

The official document contains 112 outcomes on various developmental and geo-political issues. It mainly focuses on Strong, sustainable, balanced, and inclusive Growth; Accelerating progress on SDGs; Green development pact for a sustainable future; Multilateral institutions for the 21st Century and Reinvigorating multilateralism.

“The #NewDelhiLeadersDeclaration has been officially adopted at the #G20India Leaders’ Summit! Today’s era must be marked as the golden age of human-centric globalisation & India’s G20 Presidency under the leadership of PM @narendramodi has worked tirelessly towards this goal,” G20 Sherpa Amitabh Kant wrote on X.

In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, the declaration reads, “Concerning the war in Ukraine, while recalling the discussion in Bali, we reiterated our national positions and resolutions adopted at the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly and underscored that all states must act in a manner consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter in its entirety. In line with the UN Charter, all states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition against the territorial integrity and sovereignty or political independence of any state. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.”

Drawing on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s earlier statement that ” Today’s era must not be one of war,” the declaration states that all member states will work together to mitigate the war’s negative impact on the global economy and welcome all relevant and constructive initiatives that support a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in Ukraine.

Canada PM Justin Trudeau To Visit India For G20 Summit

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.”

Biden Arrives In India For G20 Summit

US President Joe Biden will travel to India on Thursday to attend the G20 summit. He will also have a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on the sidelines of the summit, the White House has announced.

India, President of G20, will host global leaders at the summit, which will take place on September 9 and 10 in New Delhi. On Thursday (September 7), the US President will travel to New Delhi to attend the G20 Leaders’ Summit, the White House said in a statement.

On September 8, he will participate in a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Modi. On Saturday and Sunday, Biden will participate in the G20 summit, where the US President and G20 partners will discuss a range of joint efforts to tackle global issues, including clean energy transition and combating climate change.

Picture : The Guardian

They will also discuss ways to mitigate the economic and social impact of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine and increase the capacity of multilateral development banks, including World Bank, to better fight poverty and address global challenges.

The President will participate in the G20 Summit on Saturday and Sunday where he and G20 partners will discuss a range of joint efforts to tackle global issues which include clean energy transition and combating climate change.

They will also mitigate the economic and social impacts of Russia’s war in Ukraine and boost the capacity of multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, to better fight poverty, including by addressing global challenges, the White House said.

“While in New Delhi, the President will also commend Prime Minister Modi’s leadership of the G20 and reaffirm the US commitment to the G20 as the premier forum of economic cooperation, including by hosting it in 2026,” it added.

Earlier, amid the reports of Chinese President Xi Jinping skipping the G20 Summit in New Delhi, Biden had said that he hoped that Xi would attend the meeting in India.

While in New Delhi, the US President will reaffirm the United States’ commitment to the G20 as the premier forum of economic cooperation. The G20 or Group of 20 is an intergovernmental forum of the world’s major developed and developing economies.

The United States will host the summit in 2026.

Will BRICS Create A New Balance In The Global Order?

If BRICS can truly identify issues of larger common interest and move forward on the basis of consensus, it can become the new leader of the post-Western world order where the NDB will be the primary competitor of the World Bank and IMF.

The collapse of the Soviet Union brought about a dramatic social and economic restructuring that had numerous long-lasting impacts on both the global economy and the population. At that time, the nations that held the titles of “Great Power” and “Super Power” used different tricks to establish their own Shadow Governance over the undeveloped, least-developed, and developing nations. Radical institutionalism supported this neo-colonialism as well. Some international organizations have, by their policies and actions, used developing countries as pawns in imperialist geopolitics, where the sovereignty of weak governments was in jeopardy and their freedom of statehood was constrained.

Picture : China Daily

The BRICS ((Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) – which is having its 15th summit August 22-24 in Johannesburg – has emerged in this context with the goal of establishing a new global balance through leadership in a world torn apart by geopolitical conflict, inequality, and insecurity. The grouping’s primary and secondary goals are to create a sustainable and alternative financial lending system, with the potential to coalesce into a platform that echoes the concerns of the Global South. In the distant future, it might take on the role of promoting and regulating a more balanced world order.

Particularly impressive are the bloc’s integrated fiscal policies and strategies in the fields of trade and investment. The New Development Bank (NDB), which was established with an initial capital of $100 billion, heralds the financial potential of the BRICS. In 2021, the group contributed 31.5 per cent of the global GDP, amounting to $26.03 trillion, surpassing that of the G7 (30.7per cent). The bloc is expected to contribute more than 50% of the world’s GDP by 2030, and the bloc’s intended expansion will likely accelerate this trend.

The use of unilateral economic coercive measures like boycotts, embargos, and sanctions as well as the global economic depression brought on by the COVID pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war have increased the relevance of the BRICS, particularly for emerging economies. It is quite likely that the New Development Bank (NDB) will weaken the monopolistic dominance of the World Bank and the IMF as it finances infrastructure projects, regional connectivity initiatives, and sustainable development programs in member countries.

Economic decentralisation strategy

The bank’s smartest innovation, in my opinion, is the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), whose main function is to protect member countries from global liquidity stress and to provide liquidity support during challenging economic times.

Apart from the financial safety net, it is important to examine the member nations’ interconnected populations, vast territories, rapidly expanding economies, and capacity for strategic autonomy when evaluating the geopolitical possibilities of the BRICS. Anil Sooklal, South Africa’s top diplomat to the bloc, said more than 40 countries have expressed their interest in joining BRICS, including all the major Global South nations. If the new members are accepted, the total population of the BRICS countries—which currently stands at 3.42 billion, or 42 per cent of the world’s population—will increase to over 3.95 billion, or over 50 per cent of the world’s population.

The economic decentralization strategy to create a multipolar world has given BRICS salience and popularity. The alliance is understood to respect the economic independence of the member countries, as stated in the leaders’ initial statement and action plan. Additionally, the NDB will release at least 30 per cent of loans in the member states’ own currencies as opposed to US dollars, which will play a crucial role in safeguarding the countries’ reserves.

The BRICS members have access to the biggest market thanks to China, a crucial partner of this bloc. For instance, as consumer goods exporting countries, Russia and Brazil would sell their products to China, a consumer goods importing nation. A new BRICS-centered market system will emerge from this commercial interaction, and the adoption of its own currency will lessen the influence of the dollar in the global financial system.

In addition to their economic activity, the BRICS countries are working together on coordinated projects in the areas of climate change, defense, education, energy, and health security. Currently, BRICS countries are emphasizing the clean energy transition. The International Energy Agency reports that China and India are aggressively investing in solar and wind energy. As a result, they are able to simultaneously safeguard their international climate pledges while also reducing their reliance on imports and energy costs.

A new leader of post-Western world?

The collective aim is to create a more just and equitable global order, according to BRICS leaders. It is obvious that if member nations view one another as allies, they have a bright possibility of sharing expertise and mutual assistance in a variety of disciplines, including defense, education, health, and climate.

However, BRICS is facing certain challenges along the way, which could prove to be significant roadblocks to their success. Western scholars believe that the diverse financial and governance systems of the group’s members, historical geopolitical rivalry, and India’s perceived West-centric policies may create an unfavorable atmosphere for the alliance’s future cohesion and growth.

If BRICS can truly identify issues of larger common interest and move forward on the basis of consensus, it can become the new leader of the post-Western world order where the NDB will be the primary competitor of the World Bank and IMF. As a result, a balanced, autonomous, and libertarian global order can truly emerge.

Read more at: https://www.southasiamonitor.org/spotlight/will-brics-create-new-balance-global-order (The author is a strategic affairs analyst in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Views are personal. He can be contacted at kamalmazumderju@gmail.com)

Firearm-Related Deaths Concentrate In The Americas

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.

CDC

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.

BRICS Expands From 5 To 11 Nations

Leaders of the BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — decided last week to expand the grouping and admit six new members. Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia and Argentina will become part of BRICS with effect from January 1, 2024.

BRICS expands from 5 to 11, Modi says it’s a message to all global bodies

There are about 23 countries which have formally applied so far for membership of the grouping.

At a joint media briefing in Johannesburg, South African President and Summit host Cyril Ramaphosa, along with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, said, “We have consensus on the first phase of this BRICS expansion process…

“We have decided to invite Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to become full members of BRICS.  We value the interests of other countries in building partnership with BRICS and have tasked our Foreign Ministers to further develop the BRICS partnership model and list of prospective countries (which want to join the grouping),” Ramaphosa said.

FP

He said the decision on the new members was agreed upon after firming up the guiding principles, criteria and procedure for the expansion process. There are about 23 countries which have formally applied so far for membership of the grouping.

Prime Minister Modi, in a tweet, said, “On the occasion of the 15th anniversary of BRICS, we have taken the decision to expand this forum. India has always fully supported this expansion. Such an expansion will make BRICS stronger and more effective. In that spirit, India welcomes Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and UAE into the BRICS family.”

He said the “expansion and modernisation” of BRICS is a message that all institutions in the world need to mould themselves according to changing times.

“India has always fully supported the expansion of the BRICS membership. India has been of the view that the addition of new members will further strengthen BRICS as an organisation, and give a new impetus to all our common endeavours,” he said.

Modi said the decision to expand the bloc will further strengthen the faith of many countries in the multipolar world order.

The BRICS, in its declaration, said, “We have decided to invite the Argentine Republic, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to become full members of BRICS from 1 January 2024.”

The grouping was formed in September 2006 and it originally comprised Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). It was renamed as BRICS after South Africa was accepted as a full member in September 2010.

At present, the BRICS represents 41 per cent of the global population, 24 per cent of the global GDP and 16 per cent of the global trade.

Chinese President Xi described the expansion of BRICS as a “new starting point” for cooperation in the grouping. “It will bring new vigour to the BRICS cooperation mechanism, further strengthening a force for world peace and development,” he said.

Speaking via virtual mode, Russian President Vladimir Putin hailed the expansion.

Ramaphosa said, “Through this Summit, BRICS has embarked on a new chapter in its effort to build a world that is fair, a world that is just, a world that is also inclusive and prosperous.”

He said the BRICS is ready to explore opportunities for improving the “stability, reliability and fairness of the global financial architecture”.

This strategic move aims to bolster the economic prowess and global influence of the BRICS bloc, countering the influence of the United States and its Western allies. The expansion carries noteworthy implications in terms of augmenting trade participation and political representation for the member nations. Notably, India stands to gain from this expansion due to its escalating prominence within the group.

This expansion, however, raises pertinent questions about the bloc’s political aspirations and its capacity to effectively advocate for the interests of the Global South. The inclusion of the six new members underscores the BRICS’ evolving nature, potentially shifting its initial economic focus towards broader geopolitical ambitions.

Initially coined by British economist Jim O’Neill, the BRICS acronym underscored emerging investment opportunities rather than political objectives. The establishment of the BRICS in 2014, which later incorporated South Africa, centered on fostering economic engagement. However, the subsequent additions suggest a broader vision, which may divert the bloc from its original purpose.

While the expansion of the BRICS appears promising on the surface, it carries inherent complexities. The decision-making process within such a diverse coalition is fraught with challenges. Prior to this expansion, the bloc already grappled with differing foreign policy and economic goals among its founding members. The inclusion of nations with distinct economies and geopolitical stances could exacerbate these existing challenges.

For instance, India’s evolving relationship with Western powers and its well-known tensions with China highlight the disagreements within the group. Furthermore, while the intention to expand the BRICS is evident and several countries have expressed interest, the bloc’s overarching vision remains unclear. This lack of clarity poses a significant threat to the group’s ability to maintain unity and exert influence.

Projected to collectively account for $27.6 trillion in GDP, representing 26.3% of the global total, the initial BRICS members are set to welcome the new entrants, elevating the anticipated GDP to $30.8 trillion, with a 29.3% share of the global market.

The strength of the BRICS alliance has traditionally rested on its significant share of the world’s population, largely attributed to China and India, the only two countries with populations exceeding one billion. Notably, the alliance’s demographic weight will increase further with the inclusion of Ethiopia, boasting a population of 126.5 million, and Egypt, with 112.7 million residents.

A prominent question surrounds the potential for the BRICS to achieve “de-dollarization.” Despite claims of reducing dependence on the US dollar, the BRICS’ own New Development Bank, established to rival Western institutions like the IMF, remains significantly tied to the dollar. A comprehensive shift away from the dollar would necessitate a radical transformation of the entire financial ecosystem, which has relied on the dollar for decades.

While some member nations, such as Russia, have initiated trade in alternative currencies, a complete overhaul seems distant. Additionally, while the integration of affluent oil-producing nations contributes financial assets, a cohesive economic strategy demands more than just monetary input. Achieving cohesion involves sharing a vision, purpose, and compatible economic strategies, elements that the BRICS alliance has historically struggled to unify.

Despite the apparent benefits of BRICS’ rapid expansion, challenges accompanying such growth should not be overlooked. While attaining supremacy in the global commodities market holds promise, it does not automatically translate into geopolitical significance or an immediate shift away from the US dollar. Many of the participating countries maintain substantial economic ties with the West, making a swift separation difficult and potentially detrimental to their own economies.

Furthermore, although there is growing public interest in commodities, as evidenced by increased Google searches, this doesn’t always correlate with a genuine comprehension or willingness to deviate from existing trade norms. Hastily altering global economic institutions without well-defined strategies can result in economic instability.

The expanded membership of the BRICS alliance undoubtedly has the potential to reshape global economic discourse. However, this potential is countered by inherent challenges arising from the diverse economic objectives, geopolitical affiliations, and historical conflicts among the member nations. To truly challenge Western dominance and the supremacy of the US dollar, the BRICS bloc requires not only expansion but also cohesion, a clearly defined vision, and time.

According to a Reuters report, more than 40 nations have expressed their interest in joining the BRICS alliance. Among them, a subset of 16 countries has formally submitted applications for membership, including Algeria, Cuba, Indonesia, Palestine, and Vietnam.

China Slides Into Deflation as Consumer and Factory Prices Drop

China entered a period of deflation in July, intensifying the pressure on policymakers to enhance both monetary and fiscal support. This imperative arises despite indications that the decline in prices may be transitory, potentially limiting the effectiveness of any stimulus measures.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, the consumer price index experienced a 0.3% decrease last month compared to the previous year, marking its first descent since February 2021. The forecast by economists surveyed by Bloomberg had anticipated a 0.4% drop in prices. In parallel, producer prices continued to decline for the tenth consecutive month, contracting by 4.4% in July year-on-year, slightly worse than anticipated. This is the initial occurrence since November 2020 in which both consumer and producer prices have experienced contractions.

The National Bureau of Statistics attributed the decrease in consumer prices to a high base of comparison with the previous year, emphasizing that this contraction is expected to be temporary, and consumer demand improved during July. Dong Lijuan, the chief statistician at the NBS, stated, “With the impact of a high base from last year gradually fading, the CPI is likely to rebound gradually.” However, these comments are noteworthy as Chinese authorities have recently discouraged economists from discussing deflation to bolster positive narratives about the economy.

China, which initially experienced an upsurge in consumer and business demand following the lifting of pandemic restrictions, is now grappling with an unusual period of declining prices. Factors such as a prolonged downturn in the property market, diminished export demand, and subdued consumer spending are impeding the nation’s economic recovery. Robin Xing, the chief China economist at Morgan Stanley, commented, “China is in deflation for sure… The question is how long. It’s up to the policymakers — will they react with coordinated fiscal and monetary easing.”

Picture : Reuters

In response to the weak inflation data, the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index and the onshore benchmark CSI 300 Index experienced slight declines. Investors are anticipating that the People’s Bank of China may increase monetary stimulus, including interest rate cuts. However, the central bank faces several constraints, including a weaker yuan and elevated levels of debt in the economy. Fiscal support has been relatively restrained due to financial pressures confronting local governments.

To overcome these challenges, Xing emphasized the necessity of accelerating government spending, increasing government debt, and implementing coordinated monetary and fiscal easing measures. However, concerns persist about the effectiveness of releasing money into the banking system, as some companies appear hesitant to expand production amid softening profit expectations.

Chinese regulators have attempted to downplay deflation risks, instructing analysts and companies not to publicly discuss the matter. PBOC officials have asserted that China will steer clear of deflation in the second half of the year, with consumer price growth anticipated to approach 1% by year-end.

The decline in prices also implies a rise in real financing costs within the economy, a factor that some economists argue should intensify the urgency for the PBOC to take action to prevent further weakening of growth momentum. Bruce Pang, head of research and chief economist for greater China at Jones Lang LaSalle Inc., indicated that addressing reserve requirements (RRR) might be more necessary than reducing interest rates in the short term, as various structural monetary policy tools and policy bank financing tools remain available.

The core inflation measure, which excludes volatile food and energy costs, saw an increase to 0.8% from 0.4%, indicating underlying albeit subdued demand in the economy. Within the consumer inflation data, prices for household goods, food, and transportation experienced contractions, while prices for service spending, such as recreation and education, climbed.

“We expect CPI will be negative only for the short term, like for one to two months,” said Ding Shuang, chief economist for Greater China and North Asia at Standard Chartered Plc. “Food and energy prices are more likely to go up instead of going down in the second half of the year. That means the drag on CPI seen in the first half from food and fuel will like ease.”

While PPI has likely bottomed out, “it will be rather hard to emerge from deflation in the rest of the year,” he said.

Tharman Shanmugaratnam Qualifies To Contest Singapore Presidential Election

Indian-origin former minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and two others have been issued the certificates of eligibility for Singapore’s presidential election slated to take place on September 1, the Elections Department said in a statement on Friday.

At the close of applications for a Certificate of Eligibility on Thursday, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) received a total of six applications.

Out of these, the PEC qualified 66-year-old Tharman, former GIC investment chief Ng Kok Song, 75, and former National Trades Union Congress Income chief Tan Kin Lian, 75.

The committee, headed by Public Service Commission chairman Lee Tzu Yang and two Supreme Court judges, found that all three men were of integrity, good character and reputation.

“Based on the information available to the Committee, it is satisfied that Mr Tharman is a man of integrity, good character and reputation,” the Election Department said in a statement.

“The Committee is also satisfied that Mr Tharman has met the public sector service requirement under Article 19(3)(a), having held office for a period of 3 or more years as Minister,” the statement added.

Tharman, who had formally launched his presidential campaign last month with a pledge to evolve the country’s culture, filed his application for a certificate of eligibility on August 7.

In Singapore, candidates must apply for the Certificate of Eligibility if they wish to enter the presidential contest.

It is given to those who meet public or private sector requirements, among other criteria.

In addition, there is a community declaration, which allows candidates to declare if they are from the Chinese, Malay, Indian or “Other Minority” communities.

The ELD said it has notified all individuals on the outcome of their applications, and also told the unsuccessful applicants the reasons for rejecting them.

However, it added that the PEC will not publish the names of the unsuccessful candidates and the reasons for rejecting them.

The decision was taken after concern was expressed in the Report of the Constitutional Commission 2016 that potential applicants may be dissuaded from stepping forward to contest the elections for fear of embarrassment.

Tharman announced his intent to run in the city-state’s presidential election in June, after giving 22 years to active politics.

Prior to joining politics, Tharman was an economist and a civil servant at the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

Singapore will hold its first Presidential Election since 2011, after eighth and first female president, Halimah Yacob, announced this year that she will not seek a second term. (IANS)

Parliament Of The World’s Religions Hopes To Harness Faith To Address World’s Ills

(RNS) — Thousands of religious leaders — from Buddhists to Zoroastrians — gathered at Chicago’s cavernous McCormick Place conference center on Monday, August 14th for the opening day of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, a historic and influential gathering.

Picture : RNS

More than 6,500 religious leaders from 95 countries who had gathered in Chicago, urged attendees to appreciate both the uniqueness of their own spiritual traditions as well as the traditions of their neighbors — and to work together to address the world’s biggest problems.

The Rev. Vance Henry, the chief of faith engagement for Chicago’s mayor, told attendees that the world remains filled with darkness and division. But that darkness, he said, can be overcome if people of faith work together.

He drew on a story from his childhood and from a parable of Jesus to make his point — saying it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. “If we decided to put our lights together — we can force the darkness away,” he said.

The Rev. Asayo Horibe, president of the Buddhist Council of the Midwest, described the Parliament as both a spiritual event and a gathering of friends. Horibe, who greeted attendees in English, Spanish and Hawaiian, said she first attended a Parliament gathering in 1993, the last time it was held in Chicago. The Parliament traces its history to an event in 1893, also in Chicago, which is credited with inspiring the interfaith movement in the United States.

“I am so grateful for the friendships that have come my way since the beginning of this journey,” Horibe said. She urged attendees to learn from each other — and to share what they learn. Talk to everyone,” she said. “Greet everyone. And go home with the treasures you have received at this gathering.”

The Rev. Selena Fox of Circle Sanctuary greets another participant in the Parade of Faiths in downtown Chicago on Aug. 13, 2023. The parade preceded the Parliament of the World’s Religions, which began Aug. 14. Photo by Lauren Pond for RNS

Eboo Patel, the founder of Chicago-based Interfaith America, told Religion News Service that much of the nation’s interfaith movement, including the organization he leads, was inspired by the work of the Parliament.  “This week it gives a profound gift to the world: demonstration that faith is a source of inspiration, not domination; a bridge of cooperation, not a barrier of division,” he said.

As of Monday afternoon, more than 6,500 attendees from 95 countries, representing 212 spiritual traditions, had registered for the Parliament, with more attending online.

Along with plenary sessions about climate change and defending human rights, the Parliament’s meeting offers hundreds of workshops and panels — as well as networking opportunities.

In her remarks during the Parliament’s opening session, Barbara Abrajano, president of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago, reminded attendees of the power of interfaith cooperation.

“No single community of faith working alone can resolve the challenges that all of us face together,” she told attendees. “But if we stand together for all we believe, then our diversity is our greatest strength. We show people that there is another, better way.”

Rashad Hussain, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, echoed the idea that religious diversity is a source of strength. “We don’t seek uniformity,” he told attendees. “But we must have a unity in purpose.”

Hussain, who is Muslim, also stressed the importance of protecting religious freedom for all. During his comments, he pointed out that he succeeded former Ambassador Sam Brownback, who is Christian, and Rabbi David Saperstein, who is Jewish.

In an interview after the opening session, Hussain said he continues to work with his predecessors on matters of religious freedom, which remains a bipartisan issue. Their collaboration and their differing faith backgrounds serve as an example of interfaith cooperation.

“It sends a powerful signal to the world that we will stand up for the rights of all people,” Hussain said. He also said the Parliament can be an example of the way religious communities can help address global challenges.

“Religion can be such a powerful force for good all around the world in bringing us together and addressing some of the challenges that we face,” he said. “And it should always be a force for good. It should never be used to harm people or oppress people.”

Speakers at the Parliament’s opening sessions spoke openly about the ways religion can be viewed with suspicion or used to harm others. That makes the Parliament’s work all the more important, said the Rev. Paul Raushenbush, president of the Interfaith Alliance.

Raushenbush, who was to give a plenary address on Tuesday, told RNS the Parliament’s focus on both religious freedom and human rights is essential, especially at a time when authoritarian forms of organized religion are on the rise.

“The reason the interfaith movement was born was because people decided they were not going to kill each other because they believe different things,” he said. “And we still have people killing each other for believing different things.”

In his address later this week, Raushenbush said, he plans to challenge attendees to put their beliefs and their cooperation into action to counter authoritarian political and religious groups. 

“We are really focusing on the rise of authoritarianism and the rise of the threat of a certain elevation of one religious tradition over others,” he said. “And this is happening around the world working in concert with political and other kinds of power.”

Questions about the role of religion in the world drew a small group of students and staff from Queens University in Charlotte, North Carolina, to the Parliament.

“We’re here to really ask some serious questions about working together to build a thriving world community,” said Queens University chaplain Adrian Bird.

Katie Pittman, a senior religion major at Queens, said the Parliament was a chance for her to experience a wide range of religious diversity in person. “I’m really here to just soak everything up and learn.”

Prioritizing Southeast Asia in American China Policy

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.

Picture : RAND Corporation

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.

‘War No Longer An Option,” Pakistan PM Wants Talks With India

Pakistan and India cannot be “normal neighbours” if they do not communicate, said Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said the country is ready to hold “peaceful and meaningful discussions” with India to address all serious and outstanding issues. The PM made the comments at the inaugural session of the Pakistan Minerals Summit in Islamabad on August 1, 2023.

Sharif expressed that communication was key if Pakistan and India were to be “normal neighbours”. His comments come a little over a month since India’s External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar said India couldn’t have normal relations with Pakistan until they shun the policy of cross-border terrorism.

“We are prepared to talk with everyone, even with our neighbour, provided the neighbour is serious to talk serious matters on the table because war is no more an option,” the Prime Minister said, in a discernible reference to India, as per media reports.

Bilateral relations between India-Pakistan have remained strained since August 5, 2019, when the Narendra Modi government bifurcated the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories. Sharif said relations would not become normal until the “abnormalities” are removed and “serious issues are understood.”

T​he Pakistani leader also spoke about the history of war between India and Pakistan saying it impacted the overall well-being of both countries and the people. India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, with the latter having a larger arsenal. While the countries have not engaged in nuclear warfare with each other yet, experts have predicted that the ongoing tensions could reach a point where things are escalated beyond the use of conventional weapons.

India has declared a No First Use policy meaning it will never use nuclear weapons first if a conflict arises. While Pakistan has not declared the same, in his recent address, “War is no longer an option,” Sharif said stressing that “Pakistan is a nuclear power, not for aggression but for our defence purposes.”​

How India’s Economy Will Overtake U.S. Economy?

Angus Maddison, the esteemed economic historian, estimated that India held the position of the world’s largest economy for an astonishing period of one and a half millennia. However, by 1820, China surpassed India, and the two countries continued to dominate the global economy until 1870 when the Industrial Revolution in the West and European colonization began to take effect. Consequently, Britain emerged as the leading economic power, but by 1900, the United States took over this mantle. Nevertheless, with the growing discussion about Asia’s rise, there is speculation that the world economy might be returning to its historical norm.

The potential for such a shift cannot be underestimated. China, with an economy already at 70% of the U.S. and a growth rate more than double that of the latter, is poised to become the world’s largest economy between 2035 and 2040. Yet, the focus now shifts to whether India’s economy will also surpass that of the U.S. and when this might occur.

Several factors work in favor of India. To begin with, its GDP per capita is currently less than 20% of China’s and merely 5% of the U.S.’s. However, this productivity gap presents significant opportunities for India to catch up. By accumulating capital and imparting skills to its workforce, the country can achieve substantial productivity increases simply by deploying existing superior technologies.

Picture : India CSR

India’s young and sizable population provides a dual advantage. Firstly, a larger workforce translates into potentially higher output per capita. Secondly, as the young tend to save for old age, this leads to higher savings and consequently increased investment. These factors not only contribute directly to output but also facilitate the adoption of advanced technology. Additionally, a younger population injects more energy and dynamism into the nation, fostering innovation.

To fully leverage its young population, India must focus on raising its labor participation rate, particularly among women. Currently, less than one-quarter of women aged 15 and above are part of India’s workforce, whereas in China and the U.S., three-fifths of women participate. Improving education at all levels will play a crucial role in achieving this objective.

Population size is another advantage for India, which likely surpassed China to become the world’s most populous country. This population advantage leads to economies of scale in the provision of public goods. For instance, India’s digital payments infrastructure built on the Aadhaar biometric identity system and the UPI platform benefits from a larger user base, reducing the per-capita cost of building the infrastructure. The same principle applies to other sectors like transportation, electricity, and water supply.

The larger population also aids in creating supply chains, allowing for agglomeration and cost efficiencies. With increasing risks in China, multinational corporations are adopting the “China+1” strategy, seeking an alternative, less risky, and cost-effective location for investments. India stands out as a strong contender for this strategy due to its substantial single market size, enabling smoother movement of components without customs barriers. Moreover, the large internal labor market enhances the potential for a better match between required skills and available workforce.

To realize its potential, India needs to reduce trade protectionism, which remains relatively high. Sustaining growth rates of at least 8% to overtake the U.S. economy requires embracing globalization. Lowering tariffs, engaging in more free trade agreements with major economies and trade blocs, and reducing the use of anti-dumping measures are crucial steps.

Additionally, India must address certain areas of concern. Swift privatization of public sector enterprises, particularly banks with a history of low or negative returns, is essential. Tax reform is another priority, as businesses, especially small- and medium-sized ones, have voiced complaints about overzealous tax authorities and a complex system.

Ultimately, India should hark back to the spirit of its economic reforms in 1991, which emphasized liberalization, privatization, and globalization, and have already contributed to accelerated growth. If India aims to regain its position among the world’s top two economies in the next 50 years, it must deepen and broaden the reforms initiated three decades ago.

Violence and State Inaction in Manipur Condemned Across the World

The ongoing ethnic/religious violence in the northeastern Indian state of Manipur and the lack of adequate response from the state have been condemned by people and organizations around the world.

The violence erupted on May 3 after the Kuki-Zomi community protested against the Meitei demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status. The majority Meiteis account for about 53 per cent of Manipur’s population and live mostly in the Imphal Valley, while tribals, which include Nagas and Kukis, constitute 40 percent and reside mostly in the hill districts.

Reports of tribal Kuki attacks on ethnic Meiteis circulated immediately after the protest, which in turn plunged the Imphal Valley which accommodates 90% of Manipur’s population into an outburst of violence against Kuki tribal Christians. At the same time, ethnic Meitei settlements in the Kuki-dominated hills surrounding the valley also were the targets of violence.

While the official death count now totaling around 150, with the overwhelming majority of the victims being Kuki Christians, human rights observers estimate the figure to be underestimated.

Nearly 60,000 people, most of them Kuki Christians, now have fled their homes to the Kuki-dominated hills and to other states to escape the arson attacks, and more than 300 churches have been burned and destroyed.

According to multiple media reports, a clear anti-Christian political agenda is in play in the strife, with the Hindu nationalist BJP state government condoning the targeted violence by Meitei groups.

The unprecedented attacks on Christian targets in Manipur have galvanized Christians across the country to participate in the street protests, including at the parish level in the southern Christian heartland of Kerala, where Hindu nationalists led by Modi have been trying to woo Christians to support the BJP by assuring them of “security.”

The situation in Manipur has also provoked international concerns. On July 13, the European Union parliament passed a resolution urging India to “take all necessary measures and make the utmost effort to promptly halt the ongoing ethnic and religious violence, to protect all religious minorities, such as Manipur’s Christian community, and to pre-empt any further escalation.”

The US is “shocked and horrified” by the video of an extreme attack on two women in Manipur and supports the Indian Government’s efforts to seek justice for them, Vedant Patel, Deputy Spokesperson of the State Department. a senior Biden administration official said.

The video showing two women being paraded naked and molested by a group of men on May 4 in Kangpokpi district surfaced on July 19, attracting condemnation countrywide.

“We were shocked and horrified by the video of this extreme attack on two women in Manipur. We convey our profound sympathies to the survivors of this act of gender-based violence and support the Indian Government’s efforts to seek justice for them,” Vedant Patel, Deputy Spokesperson of the State Department, told reporters at his daily news conference on Tuesday, July 25th.

Picture : Prokerala

The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association of India has expressed its deep concern and condemnation regarding the several incidents of violence in Manipur, including the recent incidents involving women being paraded naked by a group of armed men. “Such incidents in Manipur, which have been taking place, since have not only brought suffering among the people of Manipur, but also have led to the loss of several lives,” a statement issued by the SC Bar Association led by its President Dr. Adish C. Agarwala, Sr., stated. “The Executive Committee expresses its deep concern over the incidents which have tarnished the humanitarian ethics to its core. We categorically condemn the gender-based violence and humiliation as it has far-reaching consequences on the victims’ physical and psychological well-being.”

It is noteworthy to state that from its very inception, the Supreme Court Bar Association has been in the vanguard of the movement for upholding, maintaining and consolidation of the constitutional values of democracy, the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary. In its meeting dated 4th May 1951, the Executive Committee of the Bar Association consisting of legal luminaries like M. C. Setalvad, C. K. Daphtary and K. M. Munshi spoke of their deep concern against the first amendment of the Indian Constitution.

The prestigious and top Bar Association in the nation also condemned “the inaction of the state police in bringing the culprits to book for a long period of two months and the inability to generally tackle the debilitating violence in the state of Manipur. We call upon the state government and the central government to immediately take action to punish the perpetrators and prevent other acts of violence in the state, which are still continuing,” the statement signed by Rohit Pandey, Honorary Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Indian Americans and allies have held protests in the US states of California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts throughout the past weekend to condemn the ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur, which has left hundreds of people dead and thousands displaced. The protests were in part a response to a horrific video last week, showing two young tribal women being paraded naked while being molested by a group of men in the violence-hit state.

Other protest rallies and prayer vigils have been planned across several states including infront of the United Nations, condemning the government’s inaction and in solidarity with the suffering Manipuri people.

Pieter Friedrich, a well-known freelance journalist, has been on hunger strike since July 25 with a call on Representative Ro Khanna to speak about the Manipur issue in US Congress.  ‘One thing I know about Ro is that he’s passionate about human rights. It’s close to his heart and he has always been swift to speak about it, even on international issues, except when it comes to India. I want to stand in solidarity with Ro’s grandfather, Amarnath Vidyalankar, who struggled for the freedom of India. I hope that Ro chooses to follow his grandfather’s example by taking this one very small, easy step of speaking on the House floor against the anti-Christian violence which is still happening in Manipur,’ Friedrich told the media. “What is happening in Manipur is far more awful than my experience of not eating. I hope and pray Khanna speaks out,” he said.  Two other people have also joined the fast in solidarity as of the 25th, he said.

“The Prime Minister’s reaction has come too late. He should have spoken out when the bloodshed started but just kept quiet all through,” Archbishop Dominic Lumon of Imphal, who heads the Catholic Church in the strife-torn state, told the media. “Fear is pervasive even now [after 79 days] and peace remains a dream for us. Everyone is living in fear as violence keeps erupting in the [Imphal] Valley and its peripheries frequently,” added Archbishop Lumon, who heads the 100,000-member local Catholic Church in the tiny state in northeast India, which has a total population of less than four million people.

U.S. Dependence on Taiwan For Critical Semiconductor Presents Strategic And Economic Risks

A new report from the Asia Society Center on U.S.-China Relations and the Hoover Institution identifies U.S. dependence on Taiwan for semiconductors as “a considerable strategic and economic risk,” and states that “mitigating this risk must be an urgent priority for U.S. policy.”

As Taiwan comes under increasing pressure from China to come under its direct control, Silicon Triangle: The United States, Taiwan, China, and Global Semiconductor Security lays out how the United States and its allies can reduce risk while also protecting Taiwan’s autonomy.

Taiwan produces most of the world’s semiconductors, which run everything from mobile phones to advanced weapons system. “Semiconductors link our geopolitics, our ongoing economic prosperity, and our technological competitiveness,” the report states.

The report offers recommendations for how the United States and its allies can ensure a reliable supply of semiconductors. “It is not enough to simply constrain China,” the report says. “It is not even enough to innovate in design. The United States must run faster, harder, and with longer-term vision.”

Drawing on the shared thinking of a working group of senior former U.S. government officials and military leaders, technologists, economists, military strategists, industry players, and regional policy experts that met together over 18 months, the report’s recommendations include that the U.S. increase domestic capability to manufacture semiconductors and:

  • Invest in education on semiconductors within the United States, starting in K-12.
  • Increase Research & Development funding in both basic and applied research.
  • Set immigration rules that welcome and retain top scientists and engineers in this field.
  • Use a market-oriented, government-led industrial policy to strengthen the semiconductor sector within the United States.

The working group is co-chaired by the Arthur Ross Director of the Asia Society Center on U.S.-China Relations Orville Schell, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Larry Diamond, and retired U.S. Navy Admiral Jim Ellis, Hoover Institution Annenberg Distinguished Fellow. A Foreign Affairs article by the co-chairs, lays out the report’s key recommendations.

Some highlights from the report:

“Restoring U.S. leadership requires close cooperation with reliable partner countries. It also requires an international talent pool of scientists and engineers from around the world, with immigration rules that welcome and retain this talent.”

“Taiwan is one of Asia’s most prosperous and successful liberal democracies, the world’s leading innovator in and producer of semiconductors, and a trusted partner in critical supply chains.”

“We believe it is in the interest not only of Taiwan’s twenty-four million people, but also of the United States and the entire Indo-Pacific region to deter PRC aggression against the island.”

“The United States should pursue comprehensive, market-oriented industrial policy measures as part of a long-term critical-technology global competitiveness agenda.”

“The United States should ensure that its imports of finished semiconductors and key inputs in the supply chain come from reliable and broadly ideologically compatible trading partners, such as current foreign industry leaders Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.”

“The United States should increase federal R&D funding in basic and applied research that spans established fields such as conventional semiconductors as well as frontier fields.”

“The long-term solution to the critical shortage of home-grown science and engineering talent in the United States must include substantial enhancements of K–12 education. Students should be exposed to high-tech industries, including semiconductors, at an early age.”

“We urge corporations, government agencies, universities, and society at large to make the pursuit of engineering and careers in critical technologies as rewarding, well compensated, and esteemed as pathways as possible. Put simply, we must retain our own talent once they are trained, while attracting as much international talent as we can.”

Lack Of Consensus on Ukraine at G20 Meet in India

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.

Narendra Modi Receives France’s Highest Honor, the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been awarded the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour, the highest civilian and military honor in France. The prestigious award was presented to Modi by President Emmanuel Macron during a private dinner at the Élysée Palace in Paris. This marked the final engagement on the first day of Modi’s two-day visit to France.

Modi’s reception of the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour is a historic moment as he becomes the first Indian Prime Minister to receive this distinction. The honor has previously been bestowed upon notable global leaders and eminent personalities, including Nelson Mandela, Angela Merkel, and Boutros Boutros-Ghali. This recognition further solidifies the strong partnership and camaraderie between India and France.

The dinner at the Élysée Palace was a significant occasion where President Macron and his wife warmly hosted Prime Minister Modi. The External Affairs Ministry spokesperson, Arindam Bagchi, described the award as a “warm gesture embodying the spirit of India-France partnership.” Bagchi’s statement emphasizes the significance of this honor in strengthening the bond between the two nations.

Prime Minister Modi’s recognition by France adds to the list of prestigious awards and honors he has received from various countries. In June, Egypt bestowed upon him the Order of the Nile, highlighting his contributions to international diplomacy. Additionally, Bhutan awarded him the Order of the Druk Gyalpo in 2021, the United States honored him with the Legion of Merit in 2020, and Russia presented him with the Order of St. Andrew in 2019. Moreover, the United Arab Emirates conferred the Order of Zayed in 2019, and Saudi Arabia granted him the Order of Abdulaziz Al Saud in 2016.

Modi’s international recognition through these honors reflects his significant contributions and influence on the global stage. These awards not only acknowledge his diplomatic efforts but also demonstrate the respect and admiration he has garnered from various countries. As India’s Prime Minister, his leadership and commitment to strengthening bilateral relations have played a pivotal role in forging alliances and partnerships worldwide.

In conclusion, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s receipt of the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour from France signifies a momentous occasion in India-France relations. The honor, conferred during a private dinner hosted by President Emmanuel Macron, serves as a testament to the strong partnership between the two nations. Modi’s recognition as the first Indian Prime Minister to receive this prestigious distinction highlights his significant contributions to international diplomacy. Furthermore, his collection of awards and honors from various countries further solidifies his stature as a respected global leader.

World Population Day Reflects on the Global Dynamics of Rapid Growth and Shrinking Concerns

World Population Day, an annual designation by the United Nations, serves as a moment to acknowledge the ever-evolving world around us. The global population has recently surpassed 8 billion people, with India surpassing China as the most populous country. However, amidst these milestones, concerns about the “Great People Shortage” have emerged, with countries like China, Japan, Germany, and the US potentially facing population decline by 2100, which could have significant economic implications.

“In just the past 12 months, the world’s population topped 8 billion people for the first time,” highlighted UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “It’s a chance to take stock at just how rapidly the world around us is shifting.”

While some nations grapple with the possibility of an aging and shrinking population, other regions are poised for significant population growth. Nigeria stands out as one of the most prominent examples. Just four decades ago, Nigeria’s population was under 80 million, ranking outside the top ten most populous countries. Since then, its population has nearly tripled to 225 million, propelling it to sixth place.

“Nigeria will nearly double its population again by 2050 to an estimated 377 million,” according to the most recent UN projections, noted Guterres. “That’s incredible for a country that is just a bit bigger than the area of Texas.”

This remarkable growth reflects the broader expansion of the African continent. According to UN estimates, five out of the eight countries expected to account for half of the world’s population growth over the next 27 years are in Africa. The Deputy Director of the Africa Programme Chatham House in London, Tighisti Amare, highlights that Africa is the fastest-growing and youngest continent, with 70% of the population being under 30.

“The population growth is, of course, partly explained by improvement in level and access to public health,” stated Amare. “That has led to a decrease in child mortality. And that by itself is good news.”

Amare also pointed out that Africa’s young population offers advantages, as most African nations do not face the burden of a large elderly population reliant on taxes and pensions. This demographic advantage can be beneficial for the economy as well.

“The other good news is that also by having a young population, most African nations do not have the burden of a large elderly population that relies on taxes and pensions, which can be a strain on the economy as well,” Amare explained.

She further emphasized that the youth demographic fosters the production of more workers in the tech industry. This development increases the likelihood of domestically-driven solutions to issues like climate change, benefiting Africa as a whole.

“Because of such a young population, countries like Nigeria are producing more workers in the tech industry,” Amare stated. “This increases the possibility that the solutions for issues that impact Africa, such as climate change, are developed domestically.”

While these population dynamics present advantages, rapid population growth also brings challenges. Michael Herrmann, an economic adviser with the United Nations Population Fund, warned about the need for proper planning to address the needs of a rapidly expanding population.

“They have decided to meet the needs of people in terms of education, of health care, housing, food, water, energy, security,” Herrmann explained. “They want to create full employment for the people, and a growing population can raise the stakes in these efforts.”

Herrmann emphasized that meeting these objectives to achieve social progress becomes more difficult with a growing population. Furthermore, it may lead to growing pressures on the environment, necessitating comprehensive planning and efforts.

“It makes it harder to achieve these objectives, to achieve social progress, and also it might come with growing pressures on the environment,” Herrmann cautioned.

Regardless of how Nigeria and other fast-growing African nations handle their explosive growth, World Population Day gives us a chance to reflect on the dramatic human shifts that will reshape our globe in the decades to come. These shifts include both opportunities and challenges, highlighting the need for sustainable and inclusive approaches to ensure a prosperous future for all.

“France An Important Partner In Make In India”

Modi welcomed the bilateral agreements finalized in defense, digital technology visas, and other sectors during his trip. France is an important partner in Make in India and Aatmanirbhar Bharat, Prime Minister Modi said on July 14 in a joint press briefing with French President Emmanuel Macron. The Indian leader who was on a state visit to France thanked Macron for his cooperation and hospitality during the visit.

Sharing the outcomes of his visit, Modi said that both countries have agreed on the importance of enhancing cooperation in diverse fields such as renewable energy, artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductors, and digital technology. He welcomed the agreement signed between Indian Oil and France’s Total for export of LNG and the agreement to launch India’s Unified Payment Interface (UPI) in France.

Hailing France as a natural partner in India’s developmental journey, the PM said, “We are celebrating 25 years of our strategic partnership. We are making a roadmap for the next 25 years on the basis of the strong foundation of the previous 25 years.”

In his address, President Macron mentioned the agreement on visa regulations. “We will work on our visa policies so that more students from India can study in France,” he said adding “By 2030, we want to send 30,000 French students to India.” PM Modi reiterated that all conflicts should be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy. “India and France have a special responsibility to ensure peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region,” he said and highlighted that both countries are working together for peace and believe that stringent measures should be taken to counter cross-border terrorism.

Further, the PM highlighted the strong people-to-people ties that bind India and France. He welcomed the decision to set up a new Indian consulate in Marseille and France joining as a partner for the upcoming National Museum in New Delhi. Concluding his address, Modi extended his best wishes to the President for the 2024 Paris Olympics and invited him to attend the G20 summit in India.

While in Paris, PM Modi met with Leena Nair, the global CEO of fashion brand Chanel, Thomas Pesquet, a French aerospace engineer, pilot, European Space Agency astronaut and actor and Charlotte Chopin, renowned French yoga teacher.  He invited Nair and Pesquet to explore investment opportunities and collaboration potential in India in the area of their expertise.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted the strong “people-to-people connect” between India and France during his hour-long speech to the Indian diaspora at the La Seine Musicale in Paris on July 13. “Wherever we go, we create a “mini-India”,” the Prime Minister said thanking the community for the warm welcome that made him feel like he is in India.

Sharing the importance of his visit Modi said that the world is moving towards a new world order. “Be it climate change, supply chains, counter-terrorism or counter-radicalism, the world is looking to India,” he maintained.

During his speech, the Indian leader made significant announcements, including the extension of India’s Unified Payment System (UPI) to France. “In the coming days, UPI will begin from the Eiffel Tower, which means Indian tourists will now be able to pay in rupees,” he said.

The move will simplify financial transactions for Indian travelers in France, eliminating the need to carry foreign currency or forex cards. France joins the UAE, Nepal, and Bhutan as countries that have already adopted India’s UPI.

The Prime Minister further announced that Indian students pursuing master’s degrees in France. will be granted a five-year post-study work visa, an increase from the previous two-year visa. “The last time I came to France, it was decided that Indian students studying here would be given a two-year post-study work visa. Now, it has been decided that Indian students pursuing a Master’s degree will be given a long-term study visa of five years,” he said amid loud applause.

In a move to strengthen diplomatic ties and facilitate services for the Indian community, Modi announced the opening of a new consulate in Marseille, France. Addressing concerns regarding the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cards, he informed the audience that the issues in Reunion Island have been resolved, and OCI cards are now being issued there. Similar efforts will be made in Martinique and Guadeloupe.

In his speech, the Prime Minister also urged the Indian community residing abroad to invest in India, which is rapidly progressing toward becoming a developed nation. He stated, “Today, every rating agency is saying that India is a bright spot. You invest in India now. This is the opportune time. Those who invest early will reap benefits.” He also invited the diaspora to visit India.

During his state visit to France, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was conferred with the Grand Cross of the Legion of  Honour, the country’s highest award by President Emmanuel Macron. With this honour, PM Modi becomes the first Indian state head to receive the highest French honour in military or civilian orders.

“It is with great humility that I accept the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor. This is an honour for the 140 crore people of India. I thank President @EmmanuelMacron, the French Government and people for this gesture. It shows their deep affection towards India and resolve for furthering friendship with our nation,” Modi tweeted on receiving the honor.

President Macron said, “India and France are celebrating 25 years of strategic partnership made of trust and friendship, which are only getting stronger with time. “

The award ceremony took place at the Elysee Palace in Paris, where President Macron welcomed Modi and hosted a dinner in his honor, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said in a statement. In the past, this highest honour has been received by few prominent leaders from across the world including former South African President Nelson Mandela and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel among others.

UN Chief Calls Delhi G20 Summit An Opportunity To Reform Global Financial System

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has denounced the international financial system as a relic of the colonial past and said that the G20 Summit in India offers an opportunity to start moving on reforming it.

The debt crisis faced by 40 per cent of the developing is because of the “inequality built into our outdated global financial system, which reflects the colonial power dynamics of the era when it was created”, Guterres said on Wednesday.

He referred to the recent international initiatives on dealing with the crisis and said, “The upcoming G20 Summit is an opportunity to take these ideas forward”.

The summit in September in New Delhi the G20, which is made up of industrialised and major emerging economies will be presided over by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Setting the tone ahead of the summit at a meeting of the G20 finance ministers earlier this year, Modi called urgent action to reform the international financial institutions asserting that trust in them was eroding.

Picture : Mint

Even though India itself is not facing a debt crisis, it has taken up the cause of countries affected by it during its leadership of the G20 and was reported to be preparing a proposal in the context of the group to help the countries facing the worst debt crisis by taking drastic actions, including lenders taking “haircuts” or forgiving substantial portions of the loans.

The main international financial institutions were created in the aftermath of World War II.

Guterres, who was speaking at the release of the report on the international debt problem by the UN Global Crisis Response Group (GCRG), said, “Half our world is sinking into a development disaster, fuelled by a crushing debt crisis”.

The markets may not be feeling the impact of the crisis “because most of these unsustainable debts are concentrated in poor countries [and] they are not judged to pose a systemic risk to the global financial system,” he said.

But that is a “mirage” and even if markets aren’t, the 3.3 billion people are, Guterres said.

Explaining how the debt burden affects the development programmes of countries, the GCRG showed that the burden of interest payments for India was 1.2 times what the country spent on education and 5.2 times what it spent on health.

Highlighting the inequalities in the global financial system, the GCRG report said that developing countries have to pay much higher interest rates compared to developed countries.

Rebecca Grynspan, the coordinator of the GCRG, said that credit rating agencies made the problems worse for developing countries that receive lower ratings, which translate to higher interest rates.

Without reference to the fundamental indicators of the economies, credit rating agencies are “punishing” developing countries, said Grynspan, who is also the secretary-general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Asked about what can be done by the G20 to help deal with the crisis, she suggested increasing the capitalisation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB).

She noted that the size of the WB’s capital was now one-fifth of what it was in 1960 in relation to the size of the global GDP.

Asked about the need for debts for development and the risk of their non-productive use, Grynspan said that to make up for their lack of capital, countries have to incur debts for the investments they need.

“When the debt is well used to expand the productive capacity of the countries the infrastructure and the basic needs of its people”, she said, and it “has a very high return”.

“The problem is, when you have done that, and suddenly that [interest rate] has become much more expensive and so you are no longer in a sustainable path because you have to dedicate a lot of your revenues inside the country or the revenues from export to pay your debt”, she said.

But “if it is ill-used, you can be in trouble”, she said adding that it was not the case for most countries and they “are in trouble because of systemic shocks, not because of the of the country’s individual decisions”.

“The Covid pandemic, climate change and the cost of living crisis have put a very heavy burden on the sustainability of the debt of the developing countries”, she said.

The conditions for the loans also matter and the private sector is reluctant to finance loans for development that require long periods, according to her.

“And that’s why we are insisting that the development banks have to be recapitalised and they have to use the resources to scale up the support for developing countries”, she added.

India’s Growing Role in America’s China Strategy Fueled by Mistrust of Beijing

India’s position in America’s China strategy is growing as a result of mistrust of Beijing. In the meantime, the relationship between the United States and India has become fueled by cooperation on technological and geoeconomic issues.

For India’s part, public outrage has been sparked by China’s salami-slicing strategies to seize territory along the long Himalayan border between the two countries. New Delhi’s natural partner to counter China’s military advantages is the United States.

India has the potential to be a useful partner for the United States in the fight against China’s efforts to drive Washington out of the Indo-Pacific region and in restoring strategic equilibrium there.

As a result, pragmatism is in charge. Technological cooperation has benefited greatly from the easing of inhibitions between the United States and India that existed during the Cold War. Washington and Delhi have begun to collaborate on a comprehensive partnership that includes semiconductors, supply chains, defense coproduction, and digital public goods.

Given the growing landscape of geoeconomic rivalry between major powers, such cooperation is essential. China and Russia have intensified their geoeconomic ties ever since the Ukraine conflict began. New Delhi naturally feels constrained by the fusion of Eurasian energies to its north, given its historical reliance on Russian defense technologies and border issues with China.

India and the United States see each other as important players in their respective geopolitical and economic strategies.

Washington is establishing a new economic system based on cutting-edge technologies with countries like India and others who share its values. In the coming years, technology appears to be going to be the driving force behind relations between the United States and India. This will lead to enormous economic opportunities, increased national security for both countries, and the formation of a new geoeconomic global order.

The “new Washington consensus” was outlined by Jake Sullivan, the U.S. National Security Advisor, in April.

Restructuring supply chains through “friend-shoring” and “de-risking,” creating economic frameworks to avoid dependence on individual nations, and forming advanced technology coalitions are all essential components of this initiative.

“The Biden administration’s international economic vision is centered on a deeper partnership between the U.S. and India,” Sullivan stated to an Indian newspaper last month.

In May 2022, the U.S. and Indian efforts in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, space, telecommunications, biotechnology, defense, and semiconductors were announced as part of the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies.

During Top state leader Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington last month, he joined an “India-U.S. Greetings Tech Handshake” occasion to encourage associations between the startup biological systems of the two nations. The importance of the relationship to young entrepreneurs is demonstrated by the fact that Zerodha’s co-founder, Nikhil Kamath, was invited to the prestigious White House state dinner for Modi.

Another area in which the partnership is reaching its peak is semiconductors. India is seen as a crucial counterweight as the United States blocks the flow of technology that China needs to support advanced chipmaking.

While Modi was in Washington, U.S. chipmaker Micron Innovation reported that it would contribute $825 million to construct a semiconductor gathering and test plant in Gujarat, the top state leader’s home state. By the year 2020, the brand-new facility should be operational. Applied Materials, another key American chip tech organization, said it would set up a designing place in Bengaluru zeroed in on growing new advances for semiconductor fabricating hardware.

India was also welcomed into the Minerals Security Partnership, a crucial minerals coalition that included Australia, Japan, South Korea, and seven Western allies to support supply line diversification and security. In order to facilitate private investment and public financing, the purpose of this group is to share information on crucial opportunities in the mineral sector.

Several Indian businesses made investments in support of Washington’s efforts to increase domestic production of green technologies while Modi was in Washington. Epsilon Carbon will invest $650 million in a battery component factory in the United States for electric vehicles. VSK Energy said it would put up to $1.5 billion in sunlight based charger producing in Colorado and other U.S. areas. The Ohio foundry of JSW Steel will be upgraded for $145 million to support the production of offshore wind energy platforms.

Strangely, Modi likewise endorsed on to the Artemis Accords, a U.S.- drove astropolitical alliance to advance space participation. India attempted to reconcile the Artemis Accords with the China and Russia-led International Lunar Research Station effort for some time.

A lot of technical talent is required for the rapid advancement of advanced technology. Anecdotal evidence indicates that Silicon Valley is largely supported by Indian-born tech professionals and executives. India is a treasure trove of such talent. Modi and U.S. President Joe Biden have subsequently been coaxing the Indian American people group to get a sense of ownership with coordinating the tech areas of California and Bengaluru.

India and the United States are becoming increasingly entwined on a geopolitical and economic level. By building tough innovative establishments, the two nations can each propel their plans for Indo-Pacific security.

Time for the US to Hold China Accountable for Sovereign Debt

Every nation ought to settle its sovereign debt. We are informed that default is not an option. Yet, has anybody told China? The People’s Republic of China owes the United States approximately $850 billion in interest. However, American bondholders hold China’s sovereign debt, which is currently in default.

This fact has been ignored by subsequent administrations in the United States, allowing normal trade and business with China to continue. Policymakers ought to reconsider this appalling failure of justice now that the relationship with China has soured and the People’s Republic of China has emerged as the greatest adversarial threat to Western and American security.

It’s time for some history. Prior to 1949, the Republic of China (ROC) issued a large quantity of long-term sovereign gold-denominated bonds to private investors and governments for the construction of infrastructure and financing of governmental activities. These bonds were secured by Chinese tax revenues. Set forth plainly, the China we realize today could never have been conceivable missing these bond contributions.

The ROC defaulted on its sovereign debt in 1938, during the conflict it was having with Japan. The ROC government fled to Taiwan after the communists won their military victory. In the end, the People’s Republic of China gained international recognition as China’s new government. The “successor government” doctrine holds that the current Chinese government, led by the Chinese Communist Party, is responsible for repaying the defaulted bonds in accordance with established international law.

These gold-denominated bonds are held by a small group of private Americans. The American Bondholders Foundation (ABF), a group led by citizens, is the trustee with power of attorney for around 20,000 bondholders whose bonds are worth well over $1 trillion.

A British settlement agreement on the same Chinese bonds was reached in 1987 as a result of Margaret Thatcher, the then-prime minister of the United Kingdom,’s tough negotiation stance regarding the return of Hong Kong to China. Thatcher stated that China needed to honor the Chinese sovereign debt held by British subjects that had defaulted in order to gain access to the capital markets in the United Kingdom. China agreed when presented with that stark choice.

Sadly, the United States did not adopt such a sensible stance. Despite publicly rejecting its sovereign debt obligations to American bondholders, China continues to have access to U.S. capital markets today.

It doesn’t matter how old these bonds are, just in case anyone is curious. The fact that this is a sovereign obligation is what matters. In 2015, Great Britain made payments on bonds issued in the 18th century, and the German government made its final payment for World War I reparations in 2010.

The Biden administration and the Congress of the United States have a one-of-a-kind opportunity to uphold the internationally recognized principle that governments must pay their debts. The United States must view the repayment of China’s sovereign debt as essential to its interests in national security, just as the United Kingdom did in 1987. The United States government ought to take one, both, or neither of the two actions that are currently being discussed by members of Congress.

The first would be to acquire the Chinese bonds held by the ABF and use them to offset (partially or completely) China’s ownership of more than $850 billion in U.S. Treasury securities, thereby lowering the amount of daily interest paid to China by up to $95 million. The national debt would be reduced, and the United States’ financial situation would improve globally.

The second is pass regulation that expects China to keep worldwide standards and rules of money, exchange and business. This would include adhering to the rules governing capital markets and exchanges’ transparency, ending its practices of exclusionary settlement, discriminatory payments, selective default, and rejecting the doctrine of settled international law that the successor government has adopted. All U.S. dollar-denominated bond markets and exchanges would be closed to China and its state-controlled entities if those obligations are not met.

Again, this is just common sense, and the Chinese government would do exactly this if the situation were reversed. Throughout the course of recent many years, there has been repetitive bipartisan help in Congress for bondholders to address China’s default with a few legislative goals. Notwithstanding this, progressive U.S. organizations have been quiet on this issue, deciding to put the issue off indefinitely, expecting that China would ultimately change and embrace Western standards and values.

This inaction must end immediately.

This issue can finally be addressed by both Congress and the Biden administration due to the deterioration of relations with China and the consensus among both parties regarding the threat posed by China. Not only is it right and just for bondholders to get a settlement for this defaulted debt, but if done correctly, it could also be a huge win for the taxpayers of the United States.

China and US Are Talking. That’s a Good Start

During her visit to China, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen expressed the hope that the United States and China could rekindle a relationship that had been in decline for a number of years and had recently veered off course due to significant points of tension, such as the conflict in Ukraine, a Chinese spy balloon that flew over U.S. territory and was shot down by the American military, and the escalating exchange of trade restrictions between the two countries.

Ms. Yellen stated at a news conference on Sunday that she believed the United States and China were on a steadier footing despite their “significant disagreements” after meeting for ten hours over two days in Beijing. “We accept that the world is large enough for both of our nations to flourish,” Ms. Yellen said.

Ms. Yellen said that the two sides would try to talk to each other more often at the highest levels. She said that better communication would stop mistrust from growing in a relationship that she called “one of the most consequential of our time.” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken made a similar excursion a few weeks earlier. Also, not long from now, John Kerry, the exceptional official emissary for environmental change, will visit China to restart a worldwide temperature alteration talks.

However, a significant decrease in economic tension may not be possible. On Sunday, when Ms. Yellen returned to Washington, she did not make any announcements about any breakthroughs or agreements to close the ever-widening rifts that exist between the two countries. Additionally, Ms. Yellen made it abundantly clear that the Biden administration has serious concerns regarding a number of China’s commercial practices, including the country’s treatment of foreign businesses and policies that the United States regards as attempts at economic coercion.

On her outing, the first by a U.S. Depository secretary in four years, Ms. Yellen met with four of the most remarkable Chinese pioneers engaged with financial policymaking under President Xi Jinping, who is toward the beginning of his third term in office: China’s No. 1 leader, Premier Li Qiang two official Ms. Yellen’s partner, Bad habit Chief He Lifeng; Liu Kun, the minister of finance; what’s more, the recently introduced party head of Individuals’ Bank of China, Skillet Gongsheng.

Xinhua, China’s official news agency, published a report on Ms. Yellen’s visit a few hours before her news conference. The report praised the talks as productive while also reiterating China’s key points of contention. The report communicated China’s proceeded with issues with the Biden organization’s accentuation on saving American public safety through exchange limitations.

According to Xinhua, “China believes that generalizing national security is not conducive to normal trade and economic exchanges.” The Chinese side communicated worry about U.S. sanctions and prohibitive measures against China.”

The U.S.- China relationship is immensely noteworthy. Together, their economies, the two largest in the world, account for 40% of global output and remain important partners in many ways. They sell and purchase basic items from one another, finance each other’s organizations, and make applications and motion pictures for crowds in the two nations.

Chinese authorities raised their own interests with Ms. Yellen. The secretary of the Treasury claimed that they discussed the still-in-place tariffs that the Trump administration imposed on Chinese imports. While Ms. Yellen has reprimanded duties as ineffectual, she proposed that the organization wouldn’t arrive at any conclusion about the tolls until a continuous inside audit of them was closed, emphasizing the place of the organization since President Biden got down to business.

She additionally recognized Chinese worries about approaching U.S. limitations on interest in China and said that she attempted to make sense of that such measures would be barely focused on at specific areas and wouldn’t be planned to comprehensively affect China’s economy. Experts and officials in China are also concerned that the administration’s efforts to restrict China’s access to certain technologies may impede the growth of high-potential industries like quantum computing and artificial intelligence.

Ms. Yellen stated on Sunday’s episode of CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “I explained that President Biden is examining potential controls on outbound investment in certain very narrow high technology areas.” She added that such restrictions “should not be something that will have a significant impact on the investment climate between our two countries.”

Since 2015, China has imposed additional, more stringent restrictions on foreign investment. The country has been encouraging Chinese households and businesses to invest abroad in strategic value sectors like aircraft production, heavy manufacturing, and cybersecurity rather than in overseas real estate speculation.

Wu Xinbo, the senior member of global examinations at Fudan College in Shanghai, forewarned that Ms. Yellen’s outing wouldn’t bring about a meaningful improvement in relations except if it was joined by changes in the Biden organization’s strategies toward China.

“Up to this point, we haven’t seen any sign that Biden will reexamine his financial approach toward China,” he said. Some analysts saw the desire for more dialogue as a significant development, with both nations finally discussing their disagreements after months of silence.

He Weiwen, a previous authority at China’s Service of Trade who is presently a senior individual at the Middle for China and Globalization in Beijing, invited Ms. Yellen’s remark that both China and the US could flourish. ” Because of the profound differences that exist between China and the United States, regular, open exchanges are not only beneficial but of crucial importance, he stated.

The Treasury Department, which has historically valued China as a significant investor in American bonds and as a potential market for American financial services, has a long history of working more closely with Chinese economic policymakers. The Business Division and the Workplace of the US Exchange Agent, with their more noteworthy accentuation on encouraging business and modern independence, have would in general have more peevish associations with their Chinese partners.

This was especially true during the time that Trump was in charge. Before he took over as vice premier four months ago, Liu He was in charge of international economic policy. He made numerous attempts to compromise with Steven Mnuchin, who was the Treasury Secretary under former President Donald J. Trump. In any case, Mr. Mnuchin couldn’t convince Mr. Trump, who wound up monumental levies on a large number of Chinese commodities as reprisal for what he said were unreasonable strategic policies.

Numerous U.S. organizations with binds to China, alongside Chinese authorities, had expected more amicable relations under Mr. Biden. Instead, since the spy balloon incident in February, tensions between the United States and China have only intensified over the past two years.

While Ms. Yellen’s visit was viewed as a positive step, numerous specialists in both China and the US forewarned against anticipating that a ton should change.

According to Mark Sobel, a former longtime Treasury official, “Yellen’s trip will likely turn down the temperature on the economic relationship for a bit and remind the U.S. and China that they share some commercial interests, even if they are waning, and they need to talk through thick and thin — perhaps business conditions will improve at the margins.”

Yet, given public safety worries in the two nations, a discernment in China that the U.S. looks to contain its financial progression and hawkish political language on the two sides, he said, “Yellen’s outing will scarcely adjust the basic dynamic and direction of the monetary relationship.”

Regardless of the conflicts between the U.S. what’s more, China, Ms. Yellen was welcomed energetically during her most memorable visit to Beijing as Depository secretary.

He mentioned that a rainbow had appeared overhead upon her arrival during a meeting with China’s second-highest official, Premier Li Qiang, and suggested that it was a sign of hope that ties between the two countries could be repaired.

After Ms. Yellen was spotted feasting at an eatery that serves food from the territory of Yunnan, Chinese state media expounded on her noteworthy utilization of chopsticks and revealed that appointments at the café were up after she was seen eating mushroom dishes via virtual entertainment.

Ms. Yellen also had lunch with a group of Chinese women who are economists and business owners and met with Chinese experts on climate finance. She recommended that there are numerous regions where the US and China can track down understanding.

Ms. Yellen stated at the lunch that “our people share many things in common — far more than our differences.”

India Urges Quick UNSC Reforms

The UN General Assembly passed a draft oral decision to continue the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform at the 78th session

India has expressed its disappointment in the United Nations General Assembly’s (UNGA) decision to roll over the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform to its next session. Terming it as‘yet another wasted opportunity’, India’s permanent representative to the UN, Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj said the process could well go on for another 75 years without achieving genuine progress.

Concluding Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) for the current 77th session, The UN General Assembly passed a draft oral decision to continue the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform at the 78th session, that will commence in September 2023, an official release stated.

Picture : TheUNN

Kamboj emphasized that the roll-over decision of the IGN simply cannot be reduced to a mindless technical exercise. Highlighting development over the UN Security Council reforms, the Indian envoy added, “Even with these so-called changes, there has been no breakthrough whatsoever that may be described as progress. This state of affairs is clearly in the interest of those who seek a status quo, to keep this process frozen in repetitive cycles.”

The Ambassador maintained that as a responsible and constructive member of the United Nations, India will continue to engage in the process alongside reform-minded partners, and make continued efforts to move from repetitive speeches to text-based negotiations.

In her address, Kamboj praised the proactive and consultative approach demonstrated by the UNGA Co-Chairs on its functioning. She concluded, “However, for those of us who truly wish to fulfill our leaders’ commitment towards an early and comprehensive reform of the UN Security Council, looking beyond the IGN looks increasingly to us as the only viable pathway to a future UN Security Council that would better reflect the world of today.”

Narendra Modi and Joe Biden Foster Cooperation and Strengthen US-India Ties

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Joe Biden held a series of high-level meetings with American and Indian technology CEOs during Modi’s four-day visit to the United States. The leaders convened at the White House and later attended a luncheon at the State Department hosted by Vice-President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. As part of his visit, Modi also addressed business leaders at the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts, emphasizing his “Make in India” initiative.

The meetings between Biden, Modi, and the CEOs aimed to strengthen cooperation on various fronts, including artificial intelligence, semiconductor production, and space exploration. Both leaders emphasized the significance of the “Innovation Handshake” initiative, which seeks to address regulatory challenges hindering collaboration between the two countries and foster job growth in emerging technologies.

During the discussions, President Biden expressed his optimism about the future of technological advancements, stating, “We’re going to see more technological change … in the next 10 years than we’ve seen in the last 50 years.” Modi echoed this sentiment and highlighted the importance of merging talent and technology for a brighter future. He stated, “The coming together of talent and technology guarantees a brighter future.”

Modi had the opportunity to interact with prominent figures in the technology and business world, including Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, NASA astronaut Sunita Williams, Mahindra Group chairman Anand Mahindra, Reliance Industries chairman and MD Mukesh Ambani, and Zerodha & True Beacon co-founder Nikhil Kamath. Modi commended President Biden for recognizing India’s potential and expressed confidence in the future of the bilateral relationship.

At the luncheon hosted by Vice-President Harris and Secretary Blinken, Modi acknowledged the strengthened trust between India and the United States in the field of emerging technologies. He expressed his gratitude to the American leadership for the warm welcome he received during his visit. Modi also took the opportunity to appreciate Vice-President Harris and her family’s connection to India, recounting the story of her mother, Dr. Shyamala Gopalan, who maintained her ties with India despite being thousands of miles away.

In response, Vice-President Harris expressed her appreciation for Prime Minister Modi’s commitment to strengthening US-India ties. She acknowledged the significant contributions of Indian Americans across various sectors in the United States, remarking on their extraordinary impact. Harris also shared her personal connection to India, mentioning her mother’s roots in Chennai and her own deep ties to the country.

Secretary of State Blinken highlighted the indispensable partnership between the United States and India, emphasizing their mutual influence on each other’s cultures. He cited examples such as the popularity of Indian-American comedian Mindy Kaling’s work and the enthusiasm for Indian musician Diljit Dosanjh’s performances at events like Coachella.

In conclusion, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States culminated in productive discussions and engagements with American and Indian technology leaders. The meetings underscored the commitment of both countries to deepen cooperation in critical areas of innovation and technology. The exchanges between the leaders and CEOs have laid the groundwork for future collaborations, fostering a stronger relationship between India and the United States in the ever-evolving digital age.

U.S -India Ties Represent The ‘Defining Partnership Of This Century: Modi During Address To US Congress

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi received a rousing welcome as he delivered a speech to Congress on Thursday, June 22, 203 celebrating the growing ties and shared ambitions of the world’s two largest democracies.

Modi made the rare address to a joint meeting of Congress on the same day President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden hosted him for a state dinner, an honor reserved for the closest allies of the U.S.

Picture : TheUNN

“Now, when our era is at a crossroads, I am here to speak about our calling for this century,” Modi told lawmakers, drawing applause in the House chamber. “I can relate to the battles of passion, persuasion and policy. I can understand the debate of ideas and ideology. But I am delighted to see you come together today to celebrate the bond between the world’s two great democracies: India and the United States. I agree with President Biden that this is a defining partnership of this century,” he said. “Because it serves a larger purpose. Democracy, demography and destiny give us that purpose.”

While Modi has faced criticism from some U.S. lawmakers and advocates over human rights and his country’s reluctance to break with Russia in its war in Ukraine, the Biden administration and leaders of both major parties are unified in their belief that India is a vital ally for Washington’s top foreign policy goal — containing the rise of China — and a partner on defense, technology and energy.

Modi — who has dealt with violent clashes with China on the border it shares with India — visited at a time of rising U.S.-China tensions. “The dark clouds of coercion and confrontation are casting their shadow in the Indo-Pacific,” he told Congress. “The stability of the region has become one of the central concerns of our partnership. We share a vision of a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific.

Picture : TheUNN

“Now, the United States has become one of our most important defense partners,” he said to a standing ovation from lawmakers. Modi alluded to the “millions” of Americans of Indian origin, including Vice President Kamala Harris, who sat on the dais with him alongside House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. Others in attendance were Indian American members of Congress such as the Progressive Caucus chair, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a Biden surrogate; and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., the ranking member of the House’s select committee on China.

Before the speech, Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, the co-chairs of the Senate India Caucus, introduced a bill to add India to the list of favored nations for U.S. arm sales under the Arms Export Control Act, alongside NATO members and Australia, Japan, Israel, New Zealand and South Korea.

“In the face of rising global authoritarianism, it is more important than ever for our countries — as the world’s two largest democracies — to respect and reaffirm the shared values that are the foundation of both of our countries, and to bolster democracy, universal human rights, tolerance and pluralism, and equal opportunity for all citizens,” Warner said in a statement.

Part of their goal is to cultivate closer U.S.-India ties that would help New Delhi break its dependence on Moscow for military equipment. The senators hope to add it to the annual defense authorization bill.

“We need to continue to encourage India to align itself with the democracies in the world and not the autocracies,” Cornyn said. “And obviously, history is a big influence here, because since — what, 1947? — the United States has been more aligned with Pakistan, and India was then forced in the arms of Russia. And obviously, they’re very dependent, still, on Russian weapons.”

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and ranking member Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, called on Biden to “prioritize the elimination of India’s significant barriers to U.S. trade and investment on the Indian subcontinent.”

The invitation for Modi to speak on Capitol Hill was signed by the top Democrat and the top Republican in both the House and the Senate, who mounted a show of bipartisanship to praise “the enduring friendship between the United States and India.”

Modi told the Congress members who gave multiple standing ovations: “Today, we stand at a new dawn in our relationship that will not only shape the destiny of our two nations, but also that of the world.”

India Rejects Joining NATO, Insists on Countering Chinese Aggression Independently

India has clarified that it has no plans to join the Western-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Speaking at a press conference in New Delhi marking the completion of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar stated that the military alliance is “not suitable for India.” NATO is an intergovernmental military alliance comprising 31 member states – 29 European and two North American – with its primary objective being the protection of its members’ freedom and security through political and military means.

India’s critical stance comes just weeks after a prominent Congressional Committee suggested enhancing NATO Plus by incorporating India into the group. Currently consisting of NATO Plus 5, this security arrangement unites NATO with five aligned nations – Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, and South Korea – in an effort to strengthen global defense cooperation. Including India would enable smooth intelligence sharing among these countries, allowing India to access cutting-edge military technology more quickly.

Despite these potential benefits, Jaishankar dismissed the proposal, stating, “NATO template doesn’t apply to India.” Notably, this suggestion from the United States emerged shortly before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s scheduled visit to the country.

Why India should join NATO?

As per the US perspective, India should join NATO to protect its borders from neighboring China and bolster global security by countering the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) aggressive actions in the Indo-Pacific region.

The Select Committee emphasized that “winning the strategic competition with the Chinese Communist Party and ensuring the security of Taiwan demands the United States strengthen ties to our allies and security partners, including India.” By incorporating India into NATO Plus security arrangements, the US and India could build upon their close partnership to enhance global security and deter CCP aggression across the Indo-Pacific region.

What does India believe?

India, on the other hand, believes that it does not need to join the alliance, as it is capable of countering any Chinese aggression on its own. This is currently possible given the separation between the two countries by the Himalayan region.

Furthermore, China is presently grappling with a looming economic crisis. Recent datashowed a decline in China’s exports and imports, suggesting an economic rebound following the end of anti-virus controls is slowing due to weakened global demand and higher interest rates. China’s global trade surplus has also narrowed.

The US Congressional Committee recommends that the United States “should strengthen the NATO Plus arrangement to include India” and “strengthen diplomatic deterrence by supporting Taiwan’s participation in international organizations.” Additionally, they suggest amending the TAIPEI Act to ensure the US and its allies publicly oppose any attempts by the CCP to manipulate the status of Taiwan’s sovereignty through the misuse of UN Resolution 2758 or the US’ One China Policy.

Ireland Unveils Scheme to Revitalize Idyllic Islands with Grants up to €84,000 for Home Refurbishments

The Irish government has launched a scheme to revive more than 20 islands off the country’s western coastline, including Inis Mór and 10 Irish-speaking Gaeltacht islands. Grants of up to €84,000 will be offered to those who are willing to restore and live in derelict or vacant homes.

A team of Vacant Home Officers has already begun identifying eligible properties. Though there are no restrictions on who can purchase property in Ireland, owning a home is not enough to ensure one’s right to live on the island.

The government’s website provides information on the Our Living Islands policy as well as the existing refurbishment scheme. The program aims to attract residents to the islands and support local communities.

Inis Mór’s rugged landscape was featured in the film “The Banshees of Inisherin.” The Irish government hopes this initiative will provide new opportunities for those seeking to reside in peaceful, rural communities. Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Josepha Madigan, believes the scheme will “enhance the social, cultural and economic development of island communities.”

Why India And The U.S. Are Closer Than Ever?

Défense deals and tech ties underpin Modi’s visit to Washington.

“My dream is that in 2020, the two closest nations in the world will be India and the United States,” then-Sen. Joe Biden said on a visit to New Delhi in 2006. They may not be quite there yet, but Biden is doing everything to ensure they end up much closer—especially economically and militarily—after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits next week.

Washington is rolling out the red carpet for Modi, hosting him for a state dinner, the Biden administration’s third such visit after welcoming French President Emmanuel Macron and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol within the past year. Modi will also address a joint session of Congress, his second time doing so as Indian prime minister.

It’s not just pomp and symbolism, however. The United States wants to bring India deeper into its manufacturing and defense orbit, with the added benefit of helping wean New Delhi’s military off Russia and U.S. supply chains off China. Although both sides have been tight-lipped on planned announcements, a number of expected agreements on semiconductor chips and fighter jet engines have been in the works for months, bolstered by visits to New Delhi by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in the weeks leading up to Modi’s trip. This week, the two sides reportedly sealed a deal for India to buy more than two dozen American drones.

“While I will not spill the beans, I can tell you that the ceremonial and substantive parts of the visit will fully complement each other and will be unparalleled,” Taranjit Singh Sandhu, India’s ambassador to Washington, said at a recent event.

The India-U.S. relationship hasn’t always been smooth sailing, and potential frictions remain, but the two countries have increasingly zeroed in on an arena where they can achieve symbiosis. “If you ask me what I would bet on the most, what is that one force multiplier for this relationship, it is tech,” Sandhu said. “It is the master key to unlock the real potential in the relationship.”

Officials from both sides have spent months laying the groundwork—and acronyms. An initiative on critical and emerging technology (iCET), launched in late January by Sullivan and his Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval, commits to cooperation in areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, space exploration, semiconductors, and defense technology. There has been more movement on the last two in particular: U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo and Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal inked a bilateral semiconductor supply chain partnership in New Delhi in March, while Austin’s visit to New Delhi earlier this month yielded INDUS-X, or the India-U.S. Defense Acceleration Ecosystem, described by the Pentagon as a “new initiative to advance cutting-edge technology cooperation” between the two militaries.

The most significant developments are likely to take place on the defense front, particularly if recent discussions on jointly producing jet engines, long-range artillery, and military vehicles come to fruition next week, product of a yearslong rapprochement on sharing defense technology with India. “This is not just manufacturing in India, this is genuine tech transfer,” said Rudra Chaudhuri, director of New Delhi-based think tank Carnegie India. “That’s a big deal.”

In some ways, it is an opportunity for a marriage of convenience. About half of India’s military equipment is Russian-made, and although New Delhi has spent years trying to diversify that supply, Russia’s protracted war in Ukraine has increased the urgency of finding new bedfellows. Washington sees an opening.

“The one relationship which the U.S. has traditionally been wary of in closer defense ties with India has been the India-Russia partnership,” said Aparna Pande, director of the India Initiative at the Hudson Institute. “This is one chance where if India can be weaned away because of a lack of supply parts, problematic equipment, or Russia getting closer to China, [you can] maybe convince India to purchase more from the United States and U.S. partners and allies.”

China is another major source of mutual concern pushing Washington and New Delhi closer together. India’s relationship with China deteriorated earlier and far more dramatically, with military clashes on their shared border leading to an Indian purge of Chinese technology (including, notably, a TikTok ban) nearly three years ago. Chinese naval expansion into the Indian Ocean has also spooked India and reinforced the importance of the so-called Quad group of countries. The United States and its allies, meanwhile, are urgently trying to reorient and “friendshore” global tech supply chains to reduce dependence on China, which has spent years establishing itself as the world’s factory floor.

India presents a ready replacement in many ways, much of it stemming from its new status as the world’s most populous country. That means a large (and youthful) labor force, millions of whom are skilled engineers, and relatively low manufacturing costs that the Modi government is further bolstering with tax incentives under its signature “Make in India” program. Like China, India’s sheer size also presents a huge potential domestic market for U.S. companies, an advantage over other alternatives such as Vietnam and Mexico. If for decades dollars and cents determined the landscape of global technology production, geopolitics have become supreme.

“There’s a sense of Balkanization taking place” in the global tech supply chain, said Mukesh Aghi, CEO of the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum, a Washington-based business advocacy group. “Geopolitical stress points are driving the tech agenda.”

There are still hurdles that need to be overcome, including India’s history of protectionism and red tape that has burned U.S. companies in the past and made it difficult to create the kind of manufacturing infrastructure required to rival what China has built. One large semiconductor push, a $19 billion joint venture between Indian conglomerate Vedanta and Taiwanese manufacturer Foxconn, has reportedly already been stymied by a denial of government incentives.

And while companies will ultimately have to vote with their checkbooks, Biden and Modi are sending nothing but boosterish signals.

“Remember the old saying that trade follows the flag—I think the two governments are waving the flag very mightily to show which direction industry and business ought to be going,” said Atul Keshap, a former diplomat who heads the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s U.S.-India Business Council. “The two governments tried for a long time to figure out what government-to-government interaction would look like, and now I think they’re realizing the value of letting the private sector collaborate,” he added.

But one casualty of the Modi visit and his newfound status will likely be U.S. willingness to call out concerns about the health of India’s democracy, at least publicly. The Biden administration has been increasingly reluctant to call out Modi’s crackdowns on free speech and violence against minorities, and experts say the strategic imperatives are too great to afford antagonizing a vital partnership.

“There is a desire to emphasize the strategic and the national security imperative over the domestic imperative,” Pande said. “In the current context, India is important, and so what the U.S. is preferring to do is convey a lot of what it wants to say in private and not in public.”

(Rishi Iyengar is a reporter at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @Iyengarish)

US Suggests India For NATO Plus Membership: Balancing Global Influence And Regional Relations

The United States is keen to woo India ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington. US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti has hailed New Delhi as “one of Washington’s closest allies” and highlighted the need to deepen defence cooperation. However, some experts suggest that the US is more interested in shaping public opinion in favour of its own Indo-Pacific security architecture.

Furthermore, they warn that if India were to lean towards NATO membership, it would have a detrimental impact on its strategic autonomy and its relations with neighbouring countries.

Although India’s official stance on NATO Plus membership remains unknown, the US House Committee has passed a policy proposal to include India in NATO Plus in order to “deter China’s aggression” towards Taiwan. The alliance aims to strengthen defence and intelligence ties between NATO and five aligned nations: Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel and South Korea.

Qian Feng, Director of the Research Department at the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University, has suggested that the US wants to replicate its confrontation with Russia through the NATO framework in the Asia-Pacific region, using India as a crucial link in its Indo-Pacific strategy. India may want to increase its influence through the use of the US and NATO framework. However, India is wary of being pushed into direct confrontation with China by the US, even though relations between China and India are currently strained due to a border standoff.

The US’ moves to woo India come ahead of Modi’s state visit to Washington on 22 June. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will also meet with his Indian counterpart Rajnath Singh in New Delhi on 5 June in order to “further deepen” defence partnership between the two nations. Although the possibility of closer India-NATO cooperation is not to be ruled out, India may be reluctant to become involved in a direct confrontation with China by aligning itself with a US-led alliance.

Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, has suggested that the US is attempting to create a favourable political environment ahead of a possible establishment of a closer relationship between India and the NATO mechanism in the future. However, it is in India’s best interests to maintain a moderate balance among the great powers in order to maintain strategic autonomy and not take sides.

Moreover, if India were to become part of the US entourage by leaning towards the NATO mechanism, it would have a significant impact on India’s global leadership ambitions, its position as a major power, and its diplomatic manoeuvring.

All eyes will be on Modi’s visit to Washington and the potential for further cooperation between India and the US. However, it remains to be seen whether India will choose to become part of the US-led NATO alliance or whether it will maintain its strategic independence.

Rahul Gandhi Criticizes Modi, Calls for Stronger US-India Alliance in US Speech

Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has continued his criticism of the country’s leadership, calling for Indians in the US and back home to stand up for democracy and the Indian constitution. Speaking at the Indian Overseas Congress USA event, Gandhi accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharativa Janata Party (BJP) of dividing the country and failing to focus on critical issues such as unemployment and education. He called for a stronger partnership between India and the US to offset China’s influence, saying, “One of the things we have to think about is the bridge between India and the United States. How do we compete with the challenge that the Chinese have placed on the table?”

Gandhi has been on a three-city tour of the United States, which included speaking engagements at Stanford University in California and the National Press Club in Washington, DC. He has been calling for India to stand up against what he sees as dangerous policies of the BJP, including the divisive Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). “To be nasty to people, to be arrogant, to be violent, these are not Indian values,” he said.

Gandhi, who is a member of the Indian National Congress party, said: “Modern India cannot exist without our constitution and our democracy”. He is considered to be Modi’s main challenger in the upcoming 2024 elections. However, Gandhi suffered a significant setback in March when a court convicted him in a criminal defamation case for mocking Modi’s surname, a decision that led to him being expelled from parliament. The conviction came in connection with a speech he gave in 2019. He could lose his eligibility to run for a parliamentary seat for the next eight years if an appeals court doesn’t overturn his conviction.

Despite this setback, the Congress Party has shown some strength recently, defeating the BJP in state elections in the Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka states. The wins came after a series of state election defeats since Modi became India’s prime minister in 2014. While Gandhi now holds no official position in his party, his supporters hope the more recent results will impact the country’s 2024 national elections, which are likely to be held before May.

US congressional leaders have invited Modi to address a joint meeting of Congress later in September. The House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and other leaders announced the address as an “opportunity to share your vision for India’s future and speak to the global challenges our countries both face”. It is unclear whether Modi will accept the invitation, as it comes at a time when relations between India and the US have been strained over trade and diplomatic issues.

Gandhi’s speeches have focused on the need to preserve democracy in India. He believes that the country is moving towards an authoritarian state where individual freedoms and rights are being eroded. This sentiment resonates with many Indians who feel that Modi’s policies are threatening their religious, social and economic freedoms. Amid concerns over a declining economy and rising unemployment, Gandhi is urging Modi to refocus his efforts on creating jobs and improving access to education.

Speaking about the recent train derailment in eastern India that killed 275 people and injured hundreds more, Gandhi expressed his condolences and observed a minute of silence. He also invoked the name of the assassinated Indian leader, Mahatma Gandhi, several times during his speech, praising his model of non-violence. “To be nasty to people, to be arrogant, to be violent, these are not Indian values,” he said.

Gandhi’s speeches in the US are seen as a platform to highlight some of the issues he has with the Modi government. The BJP rejects his accusations, saying they are baseless and that Modi’s policies have brought significant change to the country. As India continues its journey towards becoming a global superpower, the upcoming 2024 national elections will be critical in determining what kind of political future the country wants. For now, Gandhi’s message is clear: preserving democracy and individual freedoms is essential to India’s progress.

Rahul Gandhi’s US Speech Attracts Former Modi Supporters and Highlights Indian Unity

As Rahul Gandhi concluded his tribute to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) at New York’s Javits Convention Center, the enthusiastic audience of over 2,000 people responded with affection, reciprocating the Congress leader’s sentiment. In a lighthearted moment, Gandhi asked, “Do you ever hear anyone say ‘I love you’ at BJP rallies?”

Gandhi’s speech aimed to appeal to NRIs by connecting their success in the US to the ongoing ideological clash in India. He attributed the accomplishments of Indian immigrants in the US to their humility, lack of arrogance, and willingness to embrace the diverse culture of their host country, declaring them ambassadors of India.

According to Gandhi, the current conflict in India can be summarized as a struggle “between Gandhi and Godse.” He praised Mahatma Gandhi, saying, “Gandhiji was an NRI like you, humble, simple, one who believed in India, in her future… That’s the ideology we follow.” Conversely, he described Godse as “angry, violent, unable to face reality,” and someone who targeted “the man who represented the essence of India.”

Rahul Gandhi, in his speech, highlighted the humility and simplicity of India’s greatest leaders, mentioning figures from various states such as Basavanna from Karnataka, Narayana Guru from Kerala, and Guru Nanak from Punjab. He also discussed the significant role of NRIs in India’s history, including leaders like Nehru and Patel, and claimed that the “Indian independence movement started in South Africa.”

Gandhi criticized the BJP and RSS for being “incapable of looking at the future” and continually blaming the Congress for past issues. Using an analogy, he asked, “Would you be able to drive if you constantly looked at the rearview mirror?” He contrasted this approach with the Congress party’s willingness to take responsibility for mistakes.

Expressing a desire to visit more cities in the US next time, Gandhi emphasized the importance of maintaining a relationship with the NRI community and understanding their concerns. He stated, “I’m not interested in doing mann ki baat,” which was met with laughter from the audience.

Addressing the issue of violence in India, Gandhi claimed it was not an Indian value but had become a new trend to “express Indianness by being hateful, by beating others.” However, he remained optimistic, citing the thousands who still believed in the idea of India and the support he witnessed among NRIs.

The diverse audience at the Javits Center represented a microcosm of India, with people from various backgrounds expressing their hope that Rahul would become the next prime minister and restore the country’s secular character. One attendee, Tom George Kollath, shared his perspective: “If someone prevents me from worshipping my god and eating what I like in my own country, I see it as a violation of my fundamental rights.”

Many attendees at the event were traditional Congress supporters, like Amrik Singh Pehowa, who identified himself as a “3rd generation Congressi.” Others, such as Vijay Reddy, acknowledged the Congress’s role in India’s independence and technological development under Rajiv Gandhi, which enabled numerous Indians to come to the US.

Interestingly, several individuals at the gathering revealed that they had once been Modi supporters. What changed their minds was the perceived centralization of power. Jagadeeshan from Telangana humorously recalled chanting “Modi, Modi” during the Prime Minister’s visit to the USA, but now believes, “A democracy cannot mean the rule of just two people.”

Vijay Reddy also shared his disappointment with Modi’s policies, viewing them as anti-farmer and feeling “cheated” by the sale of Indian assets. Anirudh Parupalli, a master’s student from Telangana, expressed concern about the growing privatization of public sector enterprises, mounting debt, and increasing poverty under the current government.

Ganesh Gandam, another attendee, highlighted unemployment as a significant issue that the present administration is not addressing. Interestingly, none of these Hindu attendees were enthusiastic about the rising saffronization of Indian politics. Reddy emphasized the importance of constitutional equality, stating that Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra demonstrated his ability to achieve unity and inclusiveness in India.

India Backs Diplomacy and Dialogue to Resolve Ukraine Conflict At BRICS Meet

India has expressed its support for efforts aimed at bringing an end to the conflict in Ukraine, emphasizing the importance of diplomacy and dialogue, according to Arindam Bagchi, the spokesperson for the external affairs ministry. This statement comes as the Brics nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) showed their backing for mediation proposals during a meeting of their foreign ministers in Cape Town.

The joint statement issued after the meeting appreciated “relevant proposals of mediation and good offices” that aim for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. When questioned about whether this statement endorsed a specific peace plan put forth by China, Bagchi responded, “I would not be sure whether to characterize the peace plan you have referred to as a mediation effort or not.” He went on to say that India has consistently supported mediation efforts and believes in “finding a way forward through diplomacy and dialogue.” He also mentioned, “Any mediation effort that works in that direction would be welcome.”

In the joint statement, the Brics foreign ministers discussed their individual stances on the Ukraine situation, as expressed at international forums like the UN Security Council and General Assembly. They emphasized the need for “full and effective implementation” of initiatives such as the Black Sea Grain Initiative and a memorandum of understanding between Russia and the UN Secretariat to promote Russian food products and fertilizers in global markets.

In addition to advocating for UN reforms, the statement highlighted the significance of allowing grains and fertilizers to reach those most in need. The Brics foreign ministers also condemned terrorism in all forms, stressing the necessity for a comprehensive approach to effectively curb terrorist activities and rejecting double standards in countering terrorism and extremism.

As the G7 aims to address Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at the G20, the Brics foreign ministers underscored the importance of the G20 acting as the primary multilateral forum for economic cooperation and joint problem-solving on a global scale.

India Calls For Immediate Reform Of UNSC

India’s permanent representative to the UN, reiterated the need for a Council that represents the changing reality and advocated for UNSC changes.

India’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Ruchira Kamboj, called for immediate reform of the UN Security Council, stating that the body’s existing makeup no longer reflects the reality of an interconnected and multipolar globe.

 

According to Khamboj, there is an urgent need for a Council that is more inclusive, effective, and representative in preserving international peace and security. She made the remarks during  a Roundtable on Security Council Reform at the UN’s headquarters hosted by the Permanent Missions of Brazil, India, South Africa, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. India has advocated for multilateralism on several occasions and asked for the UNSC to be more inclusive of all nations.

“We are reminded of the world’s evolving challenges and the pressing need for a Council that is more representative, more inclusive, and effective in maintaining global peace and security,” the envoy said. She stressed that it is important to acknowledge the contributions made by nations that have proven capable of fostering peace, advancing development, and addressing global issues.

India’s top diplomat maintained that the Security Council’s legitimacy, credibility, and efficacy might all be improved by enlarging its membership in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. “More voices at the table means a broader range of perspectives, experiences, and expertise to guide decision-making processes,” she added.

“The urgency of reform is also underscored by the unprecedented global challenges that transcend borders, climate change, terrorism, pandemics and humanitarian crises and require collective efforts and shared responsibilities,” she said. A reformed Security Council would enable a pool of resources, expertise and perspectives from a wider range of countries empowering us to confront these issues with greater effectiveness and unity.

India Emerges As Top Alternative To China For MNCs

IMA India recently disclosed through its 2023 Global Operations Benchmarking survey that nearly 80 percent of global CEOs choose India as their top destination over China.

The 2023 Global operations benchmarking survey, conducted by IMA India, showed the country as an emerging destination for MNCs. A poll of 100 CEOs who largely represent international B2B-focused companies stated that India is the top destination that multinational enterprises are looking for as an alternative to China.

As per the study, 88 per cent of CEOs who surveyed companies with a presence in India, chose India as their top option over China due to its growing geopolitical aggressiveness, dubious trade and commercial practices, and rising labour prices.

“In the last five years, foreign MNCs have increased their on-ground presence in India, partly as a result of diversification away from China. In particular, the IT & ITES companies are ramping up the share of their global workforce that is based in India,” said Suraj Saigal, Research Director, IMA India.

In the last three years, over 70 per cent of the companies, according to a study based on the poll, have seen significant changes in their business strategy based on-the-ground operations in China. Comparatively speaking, the industrial sector exhibits a more pronounced pullback than the services sector. The percentage of people making adjustments has declined in 41 per cent of cases, while 56 per cent have cut down on investments and sourced less from China.

While a handful of enterprises have quit the industry, 6 per cent have reduced their market participation. In addition, taking into consideration recent changes in commercial and geopolitical tactics, the study looked at how corporations are recognising and seizing India’s business possibilities.

India’s predicted worldwide workforce share climbed from 22.4 per cent to 24.9 per cent between FY18 and FY23 in mean percentage terms, while its revenue share increased from 14.8 per cent to 15.8 per cent. These numbers show India’s gradual rise in the world scene throughout this time.

However, even those that choose India listed infrastructure, legal restrictions, and skill-related problems as major obstacles. The study determined that the worldwide trend away from multilateral commerce towards bilateral trade connections was the cause for the rising popularity of friend-shoring. The emergence of ‘deglobalization,’ protectionism, and nationalism has forced governments to cooperate with nations with which they already have cordial bilateral connections rather than depending on international or regional trade accords.

Rahul Gandhi Advocates An “India With Love And Affection, Not With Anger And Hatred”

“We need to build a modern India with love and affection, not with anger and hatred,” said Rahul Gandhi during a reception attended by nearly 4,000 Non-Resident Indians at the Javits Center in New York. Currently on Sunday, June 4th, 20023.

“There is a fight going on in our country: a fight between two ideologies. One we represent, and the other is represented by the BJP. On one side is Mahatma Gandhi, and on the other is Nathuram Godse. Gandhiji was modern, forward-looking, and open-minded. However, Godse spoke of the past, never spoke about the future but was filled with anger and hatred and was a coward, who was unable to deal with his life.”

Rahu Gandhi was on a six-day tour of the United States, having visited San Francisco, Washington D.C, and attended this grand finale of the meeting of an enthusiastic crowd, who received him with thunderous applauses, during the reception organized by the Indian Overseas Congress of USA (IOCUSA).

Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi pressed his criticism of the country’s leadership in a speech Sunday, calling for Indians in the U.S. and back home to stand up for democracy and the Indian constitution.

“To be nasty to people, to be arrogant, to be violent, these are not Indian values,” Gandhi, 52, told an enthusiastic crowd at the Indian Overseas Congress USA event at the Jacob Javits Center in Manhattan. He spoke just after a minute of silence recognizing a massive train derailment in eastern India that killed 275 people and injured hundreds more.

Gandhi has been on a three-city tour of the United States, including speaking engagements at Stanford University in California and the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

“Modern India cannot exist without our constitution and our democracy,” he said Sunday. He also urged a stronger partnership between India and the U.S. to offset China’s influence.

“One of the things we have to think about is the bridge between India and the United States,” he said. “How do we compete with the challenge the Chinese have placed on the table,” he asked, specifically citing issues of mobility and the world’s energy supply.

“RSS and BJP are incapable of looking at the future. They are driving the ‘car of India’ and looking in the rear-view mirror. They will always find someone else to blame. They may even blame the British for a train crash. Instead of blaming, we must find solutions for issues like Youth unemployment. We need to build a bridge between India and the United States, focus on the partnership, and deal with the challenges we face from the Chinese. Are we focusing on the revolution that is taking place in the fields of mobility, data and connectivity, and transformation in the energy sector”? he asked.

“There is a full-scale attack on the democratic structure and institutions in India, including the judiciary and the media, and that is an attack on the very idea of India. Modern India cannot exist without its constitution and democracy. It is our job to defend it, and one thing that excites me when I meet thousands of you is that you, too, believe in that very idea of India where people would love each other.” he added.

Gandhi concluded by saying that Indian values aren’t nasty, arrogant, or violent. I intend to build an affectionate relationship with you all where you can tell me what you think and effectively interact with while promoting a nation where we can live with love and affection.

George Abraham, Vice-Chairman of the IOCUSA, opened the meeting by lauding Rahul Gandhi as a profile in courage. “When others remain silent, he is willing to stick his neck out despite threats or intimidation even at the cost of his esteemed positions or even his own dwelling. He is indeed a ray of hope for all of us who are yearning for peace and harmony for our mother land.”

Mohinder Singh Gilzian, President of the IOCUSA praised Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra and said, “It has inspired millions and once again provided hope for all of us who aspire for democracy and freedom. Yatra has indeed bridged gaps between communities and promoted mutual understanding”. He expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to host him today and wished him great success in the future.

Sam Pitroda, the global chairman, spoke about the need to awaken and work with vigilance for a better future for India. He said, “IOC is in 30 countries now. We will continue to talk to the global community despite the misinformation, propaganda, and lies emanating from the other side. Future belongs to science, and efforts by the Government to remove evolution and periodic tables are not in the best interests of our next generation”. He also led the meeting to observe a minute of silence in memory of those who perished in the Odisha train collision.

Pradeep Samala, who was the General Convenor of the meeting, thanked Rahul Gandhi along with all the dignitaries who were present on the dais. He expressed special gratitude to all the IOC officials and volunteers who made the meeting successful. He especially thanked John Joseph, who was the Chairman of the Hospitality committee for the grand reception accorded to Rahul Gandhi on June 3rd at the Terrace on the Park in Flushing meadow in Queens, New York.

The meeting was further enriched by the presence of many Congress leaders from India who also spoke at the event, including Deependar Hooda, Mani Shankar Iyer, Revanth Reddy, Vijender Singh, Rudra Raju Guduru, Madhu Yakshi, Amarinder Singh Warring, Venkat Reddy, Komati Reddy, Arathi Krishna, Punnala Lakshmaya, Neelima Kota, Alka Lamba. Dilip Chouhan, the Deputy Commissioner of New York City, also spoke.

IOC leaders John Joseph, Phuman Singh, Leela Maret, Thomas Mathew, Rajeshwar Reddy, Ram Gadula, Peter Kothari, Harkesh Thakur, Amar Singh Gulshan, Gurpeet Singh, Kulraj Grewal, Baljinder Singh Kundu, Gurmeet Singh Gill, Gurmit Singh Buttar, Rajinder Dichpally, Nikhil Thagadur, Pawan Darsi, Kawaljit Kaur and Sandeep Vangala, Sharath Chandra Vemuguti, were also present on the dais. Sophia Sharma, General Secretary of IOCUSA, was the Emcee.

Narendra Modi To Address Joint Session of U.S. Congress

During his upcoming state visit to the United States, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress on June 22. The bipartisan invitation was extended by the leaders of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, who have asked Mr. Modi to discuss his vision for India’s future as well as the global challenges confronting both nations.

This will not be the first time Mr. Modi addresses the U.S. legislative bodies; he previously did so in June 2016 during an earlier trip to Washington. The current invitation was co-signed by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Republican), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (Democrat), Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

The letter from the U.S. lawmakers states, “Your historic address to a Joint Meeting of Congress seven years ago left a lasting impression and greatly deepened the friendship between the United States and India.” They also emphasize that the growing bilateral partnership is based on the two countries’ “shared values and commitment to global peace and prosperity.”

The letter expresses the lawmakers’ eagerness to continue collaborating, saying, “We look forward to continuing to work together to build a brighter future for our countries and for the world.”

Blinken and Jaishankar Discuss PM Modi’s Upcoming US Visit in June at G7 Summit

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar met in Hiroshima on Sunday to discuss plans for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s upcoming visit to the United States in June. The discussions included possible plans for a “short retreat” outside Washington. While there is no clarity on whether a large diaspora event on the lines of the 2018 “Howdy Modi” address in Houston would be included, the Prime Minister is expected to address a large gathering of U.S. CEOs and Chambers of Commerce, and attend a reception for the Indian diaspora organised by the Indian Embassy.

During their meeting, Secretary Blinken wrote in a tweet, “We look forward to hosting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in June, whose visit will celebrate the deep partnership between the United States and India,” which Mr. Jaishankar thanked him for. U.S. President Biden also reportedly referred to the upcoming visit during the Quad meeting held on the sidelines of the G-7 summit on Saturday. According to reports from media agencies, President Biden had joked that he should seek PM Modi’s “autograph” because there is a “huge demand from people across U.S. to attend the State dinner next month.” However, neither the Ministry of External Affairs nor the U.S. Embassy in Delhi confirmed these remarks.

While the state visit will include a ceremonial welcome at the White House and a state banquet, the visiting dignitaries are also often accorded a lunch at the State Department to meet with the Vice-President and Secretary of State. Moreover, the two governments are discussing a short trip outside Washington by Mr. Biden and Mr. Modi, where officials have discussed the possibility of the two leaders travelling to the U.S. Presidential retreat for hosting foreign dignitaries at Camp David, or Mr. Biden’s private vacation home at Rehoboth beach.

Sources say that a number of possible plans for the visit are still being finalized, including a possible “short retreat.” Mr. Modi has previously shared such “retreat” sojourns with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Schloss Meseberg palace outside Berlin, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron in Chequers, Russian President Vladimir Putin at his Dacha in Sochi, and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Wuhan.

India Caucus co-chair Ro Khanna also confirmed that he was writing to the U.S. Speaker to request that PM Modi also address the U.S. Congress. The Prime Minister is expected to reach Washington on June 22, ahead of the official events on June 23.

Furthermore, President Biden is set to visit India in September this year for the G-20 summit and in 2024, when it will be India’s turn to host the next Quad Summit. PM Modi will be the third State Guest that U.S. President Biden will host during his presidency, after French President Emmanuel Macron in December 2022 and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol.

Regarding the U.S. State Department report on international religious freedom that criticised the Modi government for the “continued targeting of minorities” in India, India had sharply rejected the report a week earlier. When asked on Thursday, MEA officials had sidestepped a question on whether the issue would be raised during the India-US bilateral meeting as well.

In conclusion, the visit of Prime Minister Modi to the United States in June is expected to include a number of possible plans and events, including a state banquet, a lunch at the State Department, a large gathering of U.S. CEOs and Chambers of Commerce, and a reception for the Indian diaspora. While details are still being finalized, a possible “short retreat” outside Washington is also being discussed, which could include travelling to the U.S Presidential retreat at Camp David or Mr. Biden’s private vacation home at Rehoboth beach. The visit is expected to celebrate the deep partnership between the United States and India.

G20 Tourism Meeting Held in Kashmir Amid High Security

The G20 tourism conference is taking place in the Indian-controlled region of Kashmir under heavy security measures, drawing criticism from both China and Pakistan for hosting the event in the contentious area. The ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan over the Himalayan territory of Kashmir has lasted 75 years since their independence, with both nuclear powers claiming the entire region but only governing parts of it. Two out of the three full-scale wars fought between these nations have been over this territory.

The Indian-administered part of Kashmir, which is the nation’s sole Muslim-majority region, has experienced an armed uprising for decades as rebels demand either independence or unification with Pakistan. This conflict has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, soldiers, and Kashmiri insurgents. Authorities mentioned that security was heightened last week “to avoid any chance of terrorist attack during the G20” meeting, marking the first diplomatic event in the disputed area since New Delhi abolished its limited autonomy and assumed direct control in 2019.

Taking place on the banks of Dal Lake in Srinagar, the main city of the region, the three-day event commences Monday at a highly secured and expansive venue. Officials have prepared the area to demonstrate what they describe as “normalcy and peace returning” to the region by resurfacing roads leading to the site and illuminating electricity poles with the colors of India’s national flag.

On Monday, Srinagar seemed peaceful, with most security checkpoints either removed or disguised using G20 signage to create cubicle-like stations for security personnel. Authorities have also trained hundreds of officers in what they refer to as “invisible policing” for the event.

‘Graveyard calm’

However, officials closed the primary road leading to the convention center for civilian traffic and shut down numerous schools in the city. The security measures on Monday were in stark contrast to those implemented in the days preceding the event. A large security perimeter was established around the venue by the Dal Lake, with elite naval commandos patrolling the water in rubber boats.

Picture : TheUNN

India has been advocating for tourism within its part of Kashmir, attracting over a million visitors last year. Indian authorities hope that the G20 meeting will demonstrate how the 2019 alterations brought “peace and prosperity” to the region. Delegates will explore topics such as sustainable tourism and destination management. Additionally, side events focusing on ecotourism and the role of films in promoting tourist destinations are planned.

Harshvardhan Shringla, India’s chief coordinator for the G20, told reporters on Sunday, “We have the making of a unique meeting.” He highlighted that the event would feature the highest number of foreign delegates compared to previous tourism meetings held in West Bengal and Gujarat earlier this year.

However, Dr. Sheikh Showkat Hussain, a political analyst based in the region, told Al Jazeera that the G20 meeting would only hold significance for the people of Kashmir if there were a sense of normalcy. He stated, “Now, normalcy does not mean normalcy of a graveyard where you have restrictions on media, restrictions on people and people languishing in jails.” He added, “And at the same time you want to project to the world that everything is normal.”

China opts out No Chinese representatives will be present at the event. India and China are currently engaged in a military standoff along their mostly undefined border in the Ladakh region. Beijing lays claim to the entirety of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as part of its Tibet province and regards Kashmir as a disputed territory. “China firmly opposes holding any form of G20 meeting in disputed territory and will not attend such meetings,” foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin informed reporters on Friday.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia are also reportedly unlikely to participate, according to an AFP news agency report. India, which holds the G20 presidency for 2023, has scheduled over 100 meetings across the nation. China has already abstained from attending events in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh.

Pakistan, a non-G20 member that governs a smaller portion of Kashmir, argued that hosting the tourism meeting in the territory contravenes international law, United Nations Security Council resolutions, and bilateral agreements. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari stated last week that India was showcasing its “arrogance to the world” and that “it shows their pettiness,” eliciting a strong response from New Delhi. India accuses Pakistan of training and supporting armed insurgents in Kashmir, which Islamabad refutes.

Since India’s 2019 constitutional amendments, the rebellion in Kashmir has been largely suppressed, although young men continue to join the cause. However, dissent has been criminalized, media freedoms restricted, and public protests limited, leading critics to argue that India has severely curtailed civil liberties. Last week, UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, Fernand de Varennes, said that New Delhi was attempting to use the G20 meeting to “portray an international seal of approval” on a situation that “should be decried and condemned.” India dismissed those remarks.

The increased security measures have caused frustration among residents, with hundreds detained in police stations and thousands, including shopkeepers, receiving calls from officials warning them against any “signs of protest or trouble.”

Zimbabwe is World’s Most Miserable Country, Switzerland Claims Least Miserable Title

Zimbabwe has earned the unfortunate distinction of being the globe’s most miserable nation, according to Hanke’s Annual Misery Index (HAMI). This southern African country has been grappling with soaring inflation rates, which reached 243.8 percent in the previous year.

The index reveals that President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s policies and those of his ZANU-PF party have significantly contributed to the immense suffering experienced by Zimbabwe’s population.

Economist Steve Hanke determined the 2022 rankings for Hanke’s Annual Misery Index by considering factors such as unemployment, inflation, bank lending rates, and the percentage change in GDP. Out of the 157 countries assessed, Switzerland was deemed the least miserable nation worldwide.

The 15 most miserable countries included Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Argentina, Yemen, Ukraine, Cuba, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Haiti, Angola, Tonga, and Ghana. India was ranked 103rd on the list of the world’s most miserable countries, with unemployment identified as the primary cause of misery in the country.

India performed better in terms of misery compared to countries like Brazil (ranked 27th), Pakistan (35th), Nepal (63rd), and Sweden (88th).

Finland, which has consistently topped the World Happiness Report as the happiest country for six consecutive years, was placed 109th on the misery index. Meanwhile, the United States secured a position among the least miserable nations, ranking 134th.

Rahul Gandhi Arrives In San Francisco For 10-Day US Visit

Former Congress chief Rahul Gandhi arrived in the United States (US), landing in San Francisco on May 30th where he was received by Sam Pitroda, who handles the party’s overseas affairs. Pitroda is credited to be the father of India’s telecom revolution.

Rahul Gandhi is on a 10 days visit to the US. Gandhi is scheduled to interact with students at the prestigious Stanford University in San Francisco. He will address a press conference and have meetings with lawmakers and think tanks in Washington DC.

He is also likely to address Indian Americans and interact with Wall Street executives and university students during his week-long tour of the USA. He is slated to conclude his trip with a public gathering in New York on June 4. The interaction would take place at the Javits Center in New York.

The Congress leader is slated to meet technology executives from Silicon Valley to discuss artificial intelligence, as per The Quint report.

He will also deliver a lecture at California’s Stanford University on ‘The New Global Equilibrium’.

Gandhi will also interact with venture capitalists, academics, intellectuals and activists during his San Francisco trip, the report added.

On the first two days of June, the 52-year-old former Wayanad MP will be visiting Washington DC.

Speaking about how the idea for the six-day trip was conceived, Praveen Chakravarty, Congress’ Data Analytics department chairman and Rahul Gandhi’s close aide, told The Quint that it started when the Gandhi scion received an invitation from Stanford University last month to deliver a lecture.

Chakravarty said while the origin of the visit was an invitation for an “intellectual discussion,” it became “more about diaspora outreach, as well as meeting local think tanks, thinkers and academics – to discuss global affairs.”

Notably, Gandhi’s trip has come just weeks before Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to arrive for a state visit to the White House.

Last week, Indian Overseas Congress chairperson Sam Pitroda said Gandhi’s visit is aimed at promoting shared values and a vision of “real democracy”. “The purpose of his (Gandhi’s) trip is to connect, interact and begin a new conversation with various individuals, institutions, and media, including the Indian diaspora that is growing in numbers in the United States and abroad to promote the shared values and vision of the real democracy with a focus on freedom, inclusion, sustainability, justice, peace, and opportunities world over,” Pitroda said in a statement.

Rahul Gandhi received a new ordinary passport on Sunday, two days after a local court granted its no objection to the issuance of the same, the news agency PTI reported citing sources. The passport office had assured Gandhi in the morning that the passport would be issued to him on Sunday and he got it in the afternoon, the report said. The former Congress chief had applied for an ordinary passport after surrendering the old diplomatic passport issued to him when he was a member of parliament.

Modi Advocates for Humanity and Human Values Amid Ukraine Crisis at G7 Summit

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken out on the conflict in Ukraine, describing the situation as an issue of humanity and human values, rather than politics or economics. Speaking at a G7 Working Session in Hiroshima, Modi called for a collective raising of voice against attempts to change the status quo, saying that all tensions and disputes should be resolved peacefully through dialogue. Modi’s comments came after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the previous day and hearing him seeking global support against Russian aggression. The war in Ukraine had been the focus of the three-day summit.

The Indian Prime Minister said that India would do anything possible to help resolve the conflict, including strong advocacy for dialogue and diplomacy. Modi also called for all countries to respect the international law, territorial integrity of nations, and the UN Charter. He also referred to the border row between India and China in Eastern Ladakh and to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The Prime Minister sought to address the issue of the profound effects of the food, fuel and fertilizer crisis on developing countries, which have limited resources. He said that global peace, stability and prosperity must be a common objective for all nations. Modi also referred to Lord Buddha and his teachings, saying that there was no problem in the modern age that Buddha’s teachings could not resolve, echoing his call for peaceful resolution and rejecting any attempts to change the status quo unilaterally.

The G7 countries represent the richest democracies of the world, and the summit held in Japan invited India and seven other countries. As part of his contribution to the summit, Modi set out India’s view on the Ukraine conflict, believing that it should be seen in a broader context of humanity and human values, rather than political or economic self-interest.

India has consistently pursued a diplomatic solution to conflicts. Following its independence in 1947, India became a leader in the non-aligned movement, which advocated neutrality in international affairs. It has been involved in many peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the UN, sending over 200,000 soldiers and providing aid to countries in need. Modi’s emphasis on peaceful resolution and respect for international law and the UN Charter reflects India’s long-held commitment to global peace and stability. “In India, and here in Japan too, Lord Buddha has been followed for thousands of years. There is no problem in the modern age, whose solution we cannot find in the teachings of Buddha,” said Modi.

The G7 countries discussed various issues at the summit, including the impact of Covid-19 on the global economy, climate change, and partnerships between the member nations on global issues. Japan invited India and seven other countries to the summit, as part of its effort to engage with the wider world and promote cooperation between nations. The G7 Presidency rotates annually among the member countries. Japan hosted the summit in 2016 and will do so again in 2021.

The Ukraine conflict remains unresolved, and Modi’s speech at the G7 highlights the need to address the issues underlying the conflict in a broader context of international relations and human values. By calling on all countries to respect international law and territorial integrity, Modi echoed India’s long-held commitment to peaceful resolution and global cooperation. The speech marks India’s contribution to tackling one of the world’s most pressing conflicts. “We have said from the beginning, that dialogue and diplomacy are the only way. And to solve this situation, we will try as much as possible, whatever can be done from India,” said Modi.

World Leaders In Hiroshima When Nuclear Tensions Are On The Rise

On August 6, 1945, following President Harry Truman’s orders, the Enola Gay, a B-29 aircraft, released an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. This event led to the deaths of over 100,000 people, the city’s devastation, and accelerated the conclusion of World War II. As the 75th anniversary of the bombing approached, Joe Biden, who was campaigning for the presidency at the time, reflected on the horrifying images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stating that they “still horrify us.”

He emphasized that these events serve as a reminder of “the hideous damage nuclear weapons can inflict, and our collective responsibility to ensure that such weapons are never again used.” Now-President Biden is set to visit Hiroshima during the G-7 summit, where he and other global leaders will address various issues, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, climate change, and the worldwide economy.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who represents Hiroshima in Japan’s legislature, expressed his hope that the summit’s location would draw attention to the nuclear weapons threat. In this context, the leader of the nation behind the bombing will undoubtedly play a significant role in any commemorative activities. Former President Barack Obama was the first sitting U.S. president to visit the city in 2016, speaking at its Peace Memorial.

Although he did not apologize for the use of atomic weapons, he honored the victims and highlighted the importance of human institutions’ progress alongside technological advancements. He said, “Hiroshima teaches us this truth.” Jon Wolfsthal, who worked on nuclear proliferation during the Obama Administration, shared his experience of planning Obama’s trip and its emotional impact on the people of Hiroshima.

Biden’s visit, though different due to the G-7 context, still holds symbolic importance. As Wolfsthal noted, “You have a sitting U.S. president, a man with control over the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal, going to the place where nuclear weapons were first used. That has impact.” This visit comes at a time when nuclear tension is at its highest since the Cold War. North Korea’s missile tests and threats towards South Korea have led Biden to reiterate the U.S.’ commitment to defending South Korea with nuclear weapons. Additionally, China is expanding its nuclear arsenal, Iran is pursuing nuclear weaponry, and Russia remains a significant concern.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the relationship between the U.S. and Russia has worsened, putting the future of the New START nuclear arms control treaty, set to expire in early 2026, in jeopardy. Furthermore, President Vladimir Putin and other high-ranking Russian officials have consistently threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, prompting Biden to warn Putin of severe consequences.

Nuclear experts are stunned by this ongoing nuclear posturing. Susan Burk, who worked on nuclear issues at the State Department for decades and is currently on the board of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said that even during the coldest days of the Cold War, the U.S. and Soviets maintained a substantive dialogue on nonproliferation issues. She finds it alarming that Putin frequently references Hiroshima and Nagasaki to highlight that the United States was the first to use nuclear weapons against another nation, stating, “The fact that it was done once doesn’t mean that it would be OK for someone to do it again.”

Burk is among those who have signed a letter urging Biden to seize the opportunity of his visit to Hiroshima to deliver a significant speech on nuclear threats. Jon Wolfsthal argued that regardless of when or where it occurs, Biden must soon outline a clear policy for de-escalating the various growing nuclear threats the world faces.  He questioned, “What is the policy that is going to tie these different pieces together? On China, on Russia, on North Korea, on Iran? On our own nuclear arsenal?”

A National Security Council spokesperson downplayed the possibility of a major nuclear speech during Biden’s visit, stating that he plans to “pay his respects to the innocent who lost their lives” and “reaffirm the U.S.’s commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.” However, they noted that the broader G-7 agenda remains the primary focus.

Is The End Of Dollar Supremacy Coming?

(IPS) – Half a century ago, the dominance of the United States dollar in the international finance and trade system was indisputable.

By 1977, the US dollar reached a peak of 85 per cent as the prevailing currency in foreign exchange reserves; in 2001, this position was still around 73 per cent. But today, it is at approximately 58 per cent.

The dominance of the dollar and the hegemonic position of the United States have for long been intertwined. And the recent global transformations are affecting American’s ability to sustain this: the gradual movement of the centre of gravity from the West to the East, the unravelling complexities of US domestic politics, the growing muscle of the international projection of China and an international assertiveness among the countries of the Global South have restrained the American dollar’s supremacy and status.

And yet, the currency still holds by far the largest share of global trade, foreign exchange transactions, SWIFT payments and debt issued outside the United States. In fact, Western financial agents, government officials and renowned experts tend to downplay the so-called de-dollarization arguing that a relatively debilitated dollar doesn’t necessarily mean its demise.

Notwithstanding controversial standpoints, it is undeniable that the world system faces more complex, diverse and plural challenges that involve currency competition and new inventive financial pathways.

Resistance against the US Dollar

The so-called de-dollarization in global finance has its landmarks. The launch of the Euro in 1999 was crucial since the European currency, by now, represents 20 per cent of the global foreign exchange reserves. By the dawn of the 21st century, an Asian Currency Unit came to life as well: it represented a salad bowl of 13 currencies from East Asian nations (ASEAN 10 plus Japan, China and South Korea).

Along with the successful spill overs of economic regionalisation, Western-led geopolitics also came to be a source of global financial novelties that affected the US dollar’s pre-eminence.

The growing recourse to a sanction regime against countries such as Iran, especially since 2006, and Russia after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, encouraged alternative currency arrangements. As of today, Washington’s sanctions policy punishes 22 nations.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 and the extension of sanctions hampering the use of the US dollar encouraged even more de-dollarized practices. In response to the decision to disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Moscow advanced bilateral fuel transactions with partial payment in Rubles.

Simultaneously, Russia and a group of African countries initiated talks to establish settlements in national currencies, discontinuing both the US dollar and the Euro. Meanwhile, China is trying to insulate itself from the West and is attempting to internationalise the Renminbi, even though it represents less than 3 per cent of the official reserves worldwide.

Moscow and Beijing are coming closer in terms of financial cooperation, France and Saudi Arabia agreed to use the Renminbi in certain oil and gas deals, while Bangladesh became the 19th country to commerce with India in Rupees.

Last but not least, a gold rush is also picking up. As Ruchir Sharma has recently observed, key buyers are now central banks, which are procuring ‘more tons of gold now than at any time since data begins in 1950 and currently account for a record 33 per cent of monthly global demand for gold […] and 9 of the top 10 are in the developing world.’

Besides, some African nations seem willing to trade in currencies backed by rare-earth metals. In the Global South, in fact, there is a growing perception that de-dollarization is a step towards a multipolar world in which new actors, interests and rules interplay. In that sense, it is becoming evident that a multi-currency trading regime is slowly emerging.

How Brazil ‘de-dollarizes’

De-dollarization has been included in Brazil’s foreign policy strategy. Since the inauguration of his third mandate, President Lula da Silva rapidly disclosed the intention of overcoming his discrepancies with Western rule-setting. An adjourned narrative that contests the Global North’s preponderance in the World Order has resurfaced.

Demands for inclusive reforms in global governance, the condemnation of geopolitical worldviews leading to securitised methods and military escalation, and the questioning of the Dollar’s dominance in international trade and finance have arisen. In the present context of tensions and rivalries between the Great Powers, Brazil strives to speak of an autonomous voice of the Global South.

And thus, Lula has tried to promote peace in Ukraine on the basis of negotiations that recognize the voices of all parties involved in the war.

Lula’s de-dollarization standing has been stimulated by Brazil’s association with the BRICS, as well as its expanded bilateralism with China. The continuously record-breaking Brazilian-Chinese trade relationship reached a peak of $150,5 bn in 2022 (while the Russia-China trade relationship for the same year was $190,2 bn).

As bilateral ties are expanding further, during Lula’s recent state visit to China, novel settlements are being negotiated, aiming to put trade and financial operations on track directly with Chinese Renminbi and Brazilian Reais.

Concurrently, the Brazilian government has decided to use the New Development Bank (NDB), the BRICS’ multilateral bank, as a platform to defend a de-dollarized trade system among its members and with the countries that benefit from NDB credit lines.

By positioning former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff as the head of the bank, Lula has upgraded the Brazilian political commitment to this frontline. Most certainly, this will become a reiterated pledge in Brazil’s performance in global governance arenas, with mention to its 2024 presidency of the G20.

It is remarkable how the Lula government has sought a prudent strategy balancing its anti-dollar hegemony signals among its BRICS partners with a constructive presence in a dollar-dominating terrain such as the Interamerican Development Bank (IDB).

By holding the presidency of the IDB since last December, supporting the candidacy of Brazilian ex-IMF official Illan Goldfajn, Brazil has stretched its footprint in international finance from Washington to Shanghai.

Beyond Brazil

Brazil has made a first attempt to bring in the de-dollarization card to its South American neighbourhood, particularly together with Argentina. Last February, bilateral talks took off to begin working on a common currency project that could reduce reliance on the US dollar. This could mean ingraining de-dollarization within the MERCOSUR area.

Following Brazil’s example, Argentina has started to consider the use of the Renminbi in its trade with Beijing. For Brazil, these are moves that could, step-by-step, lead to a regional financial terrain with relative distance from US dollar dominance. However, ongoing macroeconomic turbulences in Argentina, together with an extremely low level of foreign exchange reserves, will surely obstruct these plans in the short term.

Besides, more than two will be needed to tango. If a sustained economic recovery of Argentina takes place, Brazil will need to assure the support of extra-regional, heavyweight, non-Western actors, particularly China and India, in investment and trade flows to trigger a renewed insertion of MERCOSUR into the world economy.

De-dollarization could become a part, among others, of a dynamic reconfiguration of financial and productive intersections of Brazil and its neighbours with other regions and economic powerhouses of the global economy. Needless to say, this is a long-term strategy. The key consideration is the role of South America, that, in the near future, may play into the promotion of a multi-currency trading regime.

For now, while a strident flag of Lula’s presidential diplomacy, Brazilian ties with the US Dollar can be reduced but remain of unquestionable relevance. Decision-making in Brazil is conducted by a complex inter-ministerial web responsible for the states’ international sector that cannot avoid the influence of key production segments in the private sector.

Thus, transforming the Brazilian international financial modus operandi will depend on major accommodations that cannot overlook a broad domestic negotiation process, particularly if conjoined with the strengthening of democracy.

Monica Hirst is a research fellow at the National Institute for Science and Technology Studies in Brazil; Juan Gabriel Tokatlian is Provost at the Torcuato Di Tella University, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Source: International Politics and Society (IPS), published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin. (IPS UN Bureau)

India Hosts G20 Tourism Meeting in Kashmir

India has defended its decision to host a Group of 20 (G20) meeting in Jammu and Kashmir, despite criticism from human rights groups and expected boycotts from some countries. Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, is scheduled to host a tourism meeting for G20 members, which the Indian government has marketed as an opportunity to showcase the region’s culture. It is the first international event of this scale to be held in the disputed, Muslim-majority region since India revoked its special status and split the former state into two federal territories in 2019.

China has said that it will not attend the meeting, citing its opposition to “holding any kind of G20 meetings in disputed territory “, according to Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin. Ladakh, which was previously part of the state, was separated and turned into another standalone territory. Ladakh is a disputed region along the Line of Actual Control, a de-facto border between India and China. Both countries claim parts of it.

Picture : ET

Tensions along the de factor border have been simmering for more than 60 years and have spilled over into war before. In 1962 a month-long conflict ended in a Chinese victory and India losing thousands of square miles of territory. Other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, were also expected to boycott the event.

Kashmir is one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints. Claimed in its entirety by both India and Pakistan, the mountainous region has been the epicenter of more than 70 years of an often-violent territorial struggle between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. A de facto border called the Line of Control divides it between New Delhi and Islamabad.

In April, Pakistan criticized India’s decision to hold the tourism meeting in Kashmir, calling it an “irresponsible” move. Last week, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, Fernand de Varennes, said the Indian government was “seeking to normalize what some have described as a military operation by instrumentalizing a G20 meeting” in a region where fears of human rights violations and violence are rife.

India has been keen to position itself as a leader of emerging and developing nations since it assumed the G20 presidency. India, the world’s largest democracy with a population of more than 1.4 billion, has been pushing its international credentials, portraying Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a key player in the global order.

India’s tourism secretary, Arvind Singh, said the G20 meeting will not only “showcase (Kashmir’s) potential for tourism” but also “signal globally the restoration of stability and normalcy in the region.” India said the move to revoke Kashmir’s semi-autonomy was to ensure that the nation’s laws were equal for all citizens and to increase economic development in the region. India also alleged that separatist and terrorist groups were aided and abetted by Pakistan, and the move was to put an end to that.

However, rights groups and Pakistan claim that the Indian government’s unilateral move has resulted in human rights violations, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly. The region has been under a military lockdown since August 2019, with mobile internet services shut down for most of that period.

In a statement on Twitter, India’s permanent mission to Geneva rejected de Varennes’s criticism, calling the allegations “baseless and unwarranted.” Earlier this month, India said the G20 meeting in Srinagar “aims to strengthen economic growth, preserve cultural heritage, and promote sustainable development of the region.”

The Indian government’s decision to hold a major international event in Kashmir has raised concerns, especially as the region remains under military lockdown, with a significant military presence. Some countries are boycotting the event, citing the disputed nature of the region. Despite criticism, India maintains that the move is aimed at promoting tourism and economic growth in the region while also signalling the restoration of stability and normalcy. The world will be watching, waiting to see if India can successfully promote tourism and economic development while dealing with the challenges presented by the conflict in the region.

G-20 Tourism Meeting Held in Kashmir

The G20 tourism conference is taking place in the Indian-controlled region of Kashmir under heavy security measures, drawing criticism from both China and Pakistan for hosting the event in the contentious area. The ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan over the Himalayan territory of Kashmir has lasted 75 years since their independence, with both nuclear powers claiming the entire region but only governing parts of it. Two out of the three full-scale wars fought between these nations have been over this territory.

The Indian-administered part of Kashmir, which is the nation’s sole Muslim-majority region, has experienced an armed uprising for decades as rebels demand either independence or unification with Pakistan. This conflict has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, soldiers, and Kashmiri insurgents. Authorities mentioned that security was heightened last week “to avoid any chance of terrorist attack during the G20” meeting, marking the first diplomatic event in the disputed area since New Delhi abolished its limited autonomy and assumed direct control in 2019.

Picture : Indian Express

Taking place on the banks of Dal Lake in Srinagar, the main city of the region, the three-day event commences Monday at a highly secured and expansive venue. Officials have prepared the area to demonstrate what they describe as “normalcy and peace returning” to the region by resurfacing roads leading to the site and illuminating electricity poles with the colors of India’s national flag.

On Monday, Srinagar seemed peaceful, with most security checkpoints either removed or disguised using G20 signage to create cubicle-like stations for security personnel. Authorities have also trained hundreds of officers in what they refer to as “invisible policing” for the event.

‘Graveyard calm’

However, officials closed the primary road leading to the convention center for civilian traffic and shut down numerous schools in the city. The security measures on Monday were in stark contrast to those implemented in the days preceding the event. A large security perimeter was established around the venue by the Dal Lake, with elite naval commandos patrolling the water in rubber boats.

India has been advocating for tourism within its part of Kashmir, attracting over a million visitors last year. Indian authorities hope that the G20 meeting will demonstrate how the 2019 alterations brought “peace and prosperity” to the region. Delegates will explore topics such as sustainable tourism and destination management. Additionally, side events focusing on ecotourism and the role of films in promoting tourist destinations are planned.

Harshvardhan Shringla, India’s chief coordinator for the G20, told reporters on Sunday, “We have the making of a unique meeting.” He highlighted that the event would feature the highest number of foreign delegates compared to previous tourism meetings held in West Bengal and Gujarat earlier this year.

However, Dr. Sheikh Showkat Hussain, a political analyst based in the region, told Al Jazeera that the G20 meeting would only hold significance for the people of Kashmir if there were a sense of normalcy. He stated, “Now, normalcy does not mean normalcy of a graveyard where you have restrictions on media, restrictions on people and people languishing in jails.” He added, “And at the same time you want to project to the world that everything is normal.”

China opts out No Chinese representatives will be present at the event. India and China are currently engaged in a military standoff along their mostly undefined border in the Ladakh region. Beijing lays claim to the entirety of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as part of its Tibet province and regards Kashmir as a disputed territory. “China firmly opposes holding any form of G20 meeting in disputed territory and will not attend such meetings,” foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin informed reporters on Friday.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia are also reportedly unlikely to participate, according to an AFP news agency report. India, which holds the G20 presidency for 2023, has scheduled over 100 meetings across the nation. China has already abstained from attending events in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh.

Pakistan, a non-G20 member that governs a smaller portion of Kashmir, argued that hosting the tourism meeting in the territory contravenes international law, United Nations Security Council resolutions, and bilateral agreements. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari stated last week that India was showcasing its “arrogance to the world” and that “it shows their pettiness,” eliciting a strong response from New Delhi. India accuses Pakistan of training and supporting armed insurgents in Kashmir, which Islamabad refutes.

Since India’s 2019 constitutional amendments, the rebellion in Kashmir has been largely suppressed, although young men continue to join the cause. However, dissent has been criminalized, media freedoms restricted, and public protests limited, leading critics to argue that India has severely curtailed civil liberties. Last week, UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, Fernand de Varennes, said that New Delhi was attempting to use the G20 meeting to “portray an international seal of approval” on a situation that “should be decried and condemned.” India dismissed those remarks.

The increased security measures have caused frustration among residents, with hundreds detained in police stations and thousands, including shopkeepers, receiving calls from officials warning them against any “signs of protest or trouble.”

China’s Loans Crush The Poorest Countries

A dozen poor countries are facing economic instability and even collapse under the weight of hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign loans, much of them from the world’s biggest and most unforgiving government lender, China.

An Associated Press analysis of a dozen countries most indebted to China — including Pakistan, Kenya, Zambia, Laos and Mongolia — found paying back that debt is consuming an ever-greater amount of the tax revenue needed to keep schools open, provide electricity and pay for food and fuel. And it’s draining foreign currency reserves these countries use to pay interest on those loans, leaving some with just months before that money is gone.

Behind the scenes is China’s reluctance to forgive debt and its extreme secrecy about how much money it has loaned and on what terms, which has kept other major lenders from stepping in to help. On top of that is the recent discovery that borrowers have been required to put cash in hidden escrow accounts that push China to the front of the line of creditors to be paid.

Countries in AP’s analysis had as much as 50% of their foreign loans from China and most were devoting more than a third of government revenue to paying off foreign debt. Two of them, Zambia and Sri Lanka, have already gone into default, unable to make even interest payments on loans financing the construction of ports, mines and power plants.

In Pakistan, millions of textile workers have been laid off because the country has too much foreign debt and can’t afford to keep the electricity on and machines running.

In Kenya, the government has held back paychecks to thousands of civil service workers to save cash to pay foreign loans. The president’s chief economic adviser tweeted last month, “Salaries or default? Take your pick.”

Since Sri Lanka defaulted a year ago, a half-million industrial jobs have vanished, inflation has pierced 50% and more than half the population in many parts of the country has fallen into poverty.

Experts predict that unless China begins to soften its stance on its loans to poor countries, there could be a wave of more defaults and political upheavals.

“In a lot of the world, the clock has hit midnight,” said Harvard economist Ken Rogoff. “ China has moved in and left this geopolitical instability that could have long-lasting effects.”

HOW IT’S PLAYING OUT

A case study of how it has played out is in Zambia, a landlocked country of 20 million people in southern Africa that over the past two decades has borrowed billions of dollars from Chinese state-owned banks to build dams, railways and roads.

The loans boosted Zambia’s economy but also raised foreign interest payments so high there was little left for the government, forcing it to cut spending on healthcare, social services and subsidies to farmers for seed and fertilizer.

In the past under such circumstances, big government lenders such as the U.S., Japan and France would work out deals to forgive some debt, with each lender disclosing clearly what they were owed and on what terms so no one would feel cheated.

But China didn’t play by those rules. It refused at first to even join in multinational talks, negotiating separately with Zambia and insisting on confidentiality that barred the country from telling non-Chinese lenders the terms of the loans and whether China had devised a way of muscling to the front of the repayment line.

MORE ON THE LOANS

Amid this confusion in 2020, a group of non-Chinese lenders refused desperate pleas from Zambia to suspend interest payments, even for a few months. That refusal added to the drain on Zambia’s foreign cash reserves, the stash of mostly U.S. dollars that it used to pay interest on loans and to buy major commodities like oil. By November 2020, with little reserves left, Zambia stopped paying the interest and defaulted, locking it out of future borrowing and setting off a vicious cycle of spending cuts and deepening poverty.

Inflation in Zambia has since soared 50%, unemployment has hit a 17-year high and the nation’s currency, the kwacha, has lost 30% of its value in just seven months. A United Nations estimate of Zambians not getting enough food has nearly tripled so far this year, to 3.5 million.

“I just sit in the house thinking what I will eat because I have no money to buy food,” said Marvis Kunda, a blind 70-year-old widow in Zambia’s Luapula province whose welfare payments were recently slashed. “Sometimes I eat once a day and if no one remembers to help me with food from the neighborhood, then I just starve.”

A few months after Zambia defaulted, researchers found that it owed $6.6 billion to Chinese state-owned banks, double what many thought at the time and about a third of the country’s total debt.

“We’re flying blind,” said Brad Parks, executive director of AidData, a research lab at William & Mary that has uncovered thousands of secret Chinese loans and assisted the AP in its analysis. “When you look under the cushions of the couch, suddenly you realize, ‘Oh, there’s a lot of stuff we missed. And actually things are much worse.’”

DEBT AND UPHEAVAL

China’s unwillingness to take big losses on the hundreds of billions of dollars it is owed, as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have urged, has left many countries on a treadmill of paying back interest, which stifles the economic growth that would help them pay off the debt.

Foreign cash reserves have dropped in 10 of the dozen countries in AP’s analysis, down an average 25% in just a year. They have plunged more than 50% in Pakistan and the Republic of Congo. Without a bailout, several countries have only months left of foreign cash to pay for food, fuel and other essential imports. Mongolia has eight months left. Pakistan and Ethiopia about two.

“As soon as the financing taps are turned off, the adjustment takes place right away,” said Patrick Curran, senior economist at researcher Tellimer. “The economy contracts, inflation spikes up, food and fuel become unaffordable.”

Mohammad Tahir, who was laid off six months ago from his job at a textile factory in the Pakistani city of Multan, says he has contemplated suicide because he can no longer bear to see his family of four go to bed night after night without dinner.

“I’ve been facing the worst kind of poverty,” said Tahir, who was recently told Pakistan’s foreign cash reserves have depleted so much that it was now unable to import raw materials for his factory. “I have no idea when we would get our jobs back.”

Poor countries have been hit with foreign currency shortages, high inflation, spikes in unemployment and widespread hunger before, but rarely like in the past year.

Along with the usual mix of government mismanagement and corruption are two unexpected and devastating events: the war in Ukraine, which has sent prices of grain and oil soaring, and the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to raise interest rates 10 times in a row, the latest this month. That has made variable rate loans to countries suddenly much more expensive.

All of it is roiling domestic politics and upending strategic alliances. In March, heavily indebted Honduras cited “financial pressures” in its decision to establish formal diplomatic ties to China and sever those with Taiwan.

Last month, Pakistan was so desperate to prevent more blackouts that it struck a deal to buy discounted oil from Russia, breaking ranks with the U.S.-led effort to shut off Vladimir Putin’s funds.

In Sri Lanka, rioters poured into the streets last July, setting homes of government ministers aflame and storming the presidential palace, sending the leader tied to onerous deals with China fleeing the country.

CHINA’S RESPONSE

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a statement to the AP, disputed the notion that China is an unforgiving lender and echoed previous statements putting the blame on the Federal Reserve. It said that if it is to accede to IMF and World Bank demands to forgive a portion of its loans, so should those multilateral lenders, which it views as U.S. proxies.

“We call on these institutions to actively participate in relevant actions in accordance with the principle of ‘joint action, fair burden’ and make greater contributions to help developing countries tide over the difficulties,” the ministry statement said.

China argues it has offered relief in the form of extended loan maturities and emergency loans, and as the biggest contributor to a program to temporarily suspend interest payments during the coronavirus pandemic. It also says it has forgiven 23 no-interest loans to African countries, though AidData’s Parks said such loans are mostly from two decades ago and amount to less than 5% of the total it has lent.

In high-level talks in Washington last month, China was considering dropping its demand that the IMF and World Bank forgive loans if the two lenders would make commitments to offer grants and other help to troubled countries, according to various news reports. But in the weeks since there has been no announcement and both lenders have expressed frustration with Beijing.

“My view is that we have to drag them — maybe that’s an impolite word — we need to walk together,” IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said earlier this month. “Because if we don’t, there will be catastrophe for many, many countries.”

The IMF and World Bank say taking losses on their loans would rip up the traditional playbook of dealing with sovereign crises that accords them special treatment because, unlike Chinese banks, they already finance at low rates to help distressed countries get back on their feet. The Chinese foreign ministry noted, however, that the two multilateral lenders have made an exception to the rules in the past.

As time runs out, some officials are urging concessions. Ashfaq Hassan, a former debt official at Pakistan’s Ministry of Finance, said his country’s debt burden is too heavy and time too short for the IMF and World Bank to hold out. He also called for concessions from private investment funds that lent to his country by purchasing bonds. “Every stakeholder will have to take a haircut,” Hassan said.

One good sign: The IMF on Wednesday announced approval of a $3 billion loan for Ghana, suggesting it is hopeful a debt restructuring deal can be struck among creditors.

China has also pushed back on the idea, popularized in the Trump administration, that it has engaged in “debt trap diplomacy,” leaving countries saddled with loans they cannot afford so that it can seize ports, mines and other strategic assets.

On this point, experts who have studied the issue in detail have sided with Beijing. Chinese lending has come from dozens of banks on the mainland and is far too haphazard and sloppy to be coordinated from the top. If anything, they say, Chinese banks are not taking losses because the timing is awful as they face big hits from reckless real estate lending in their own country and a dramatically slowing economy.

But the experts are quick to point out that a less sinister Chinese role is not a less scary one. “There is no single person in charge,” said Teal Emery, a former sovereign loan analyst who now runs consulting group Teal Insights. Adds AidData’s Parks about Beijing, “They’re kind of making it up as they go along. There is no master plan.”

LOAN SLEUTH

Much of the credit for dragging China’s hidden debt into the light goes to Parks, who over the past decade has had to contend with all manner of roadblocks, obfuscations and falsehoods from the authoritarian government.

The hunt began in 2011 when a top World Bank economist asked Parks to take over the job of looking into Chinese loans. Within months, using online data-mining techniques, Parks and a few researchers began uncovering hundreds of loans the World Bank had not known about.

China at the time was ramping up lending that would soon become part of its $1 trillion “Belt and Road Initiative” to secure supplies of key minerals, win allies abroad and make more money off its U.S. dollar holdings. Many developing countries were eager for U.S. dollars to build power plants, roads and ports and expand mining operations.

But after a few years of straightforward Chinese government loans, those countries found themselves heavily indebted, and the optics were awful. They feared that piling more loans atop old ones would make them seem reckless to credit rating agencies and make it more expensive to borrow in the future.

So China started setting up shell companies for some infrastructure projects and lent to them instead, which allowed heavily indebted countries to avoid putting that new debt on their books. Even if the loans were backed by the government, no one would be the wiser.

In Zambia, for example, a $1.5 billion loan from two Chinese banks to a shell company to build a giant hydroelectric dam didn’t appear on the country’s books for years.

In Indonesia, Chinese loans of $4 billion to help build a railway also never appeared on public government accounts. That all changed years later when, overbudget by $1.5 billion, the Indonesian government was forced to bail out the railroad twice.

“When these projects go bad, what was advertised as a private debt becomes a public debt,” Parks said. “There are projects all over the globe like this.”

In 2021, a decade after Parks and his team began their hunt, they had gathered enough information for a blockbuster finding: At least $385 billion of hidden and underreported Chinese debt in 88 countries, and many of those countries were in far worse shape than anyone knew.

Among the disclosures was that China issued a $3.5 billion loan to build a railway system in Laos, which would take nearly a quarter of the country’s annual output to pay off.

Another AidData report around the same time suggested that many Chinese loans go to projects in areas of countries favored by powerful politicians and frequently right before key elections. Some of the things built made little economic sense and were riddled with problems.

In Sri Lanka, a Chinese-funded airport built in the president’s hometown away from most of the country’s population is so barely used that elephants have been spotted wandering on its tarmac.

Cracks are appearing in hydroelectric plants in Uganda and Ecuador, where in March the government got judicial approval for corruption charges tied to the project against a former president now in exile.

In Pakistan, a power plant had to be shut down for fear it could collapse. In Kenya, the last key miles of a railway were never built due to poor planning and a lack of funds.

JUMPING TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE

As Parks dug into the details of the loans, he found something alarming: Clauses mandating that borrowing countries deposit U.S. dollars or other foreign currency in secret escrow accounts that Beijing could raid if those countries stopped paying interest on their loans.

In effect, China had jumped to the front of the line to get paid without other lenders knowing.

In Uganda, Parks revealed a loan to expand the main airport included an escrow account that could hold more than $15 million. A legislative probe blasted the finance minister for agreeing to such terms, with the lead investigator saying he should be prosecuted and jailed.

Parks is not sure how many such accounts have been set up, but governments insisting on any kind of collateral, much less collateral in the form of hard cash, is rare in sovereign lending. And their very existence has rattled non-Chinese banks, bond investors and other lenders and made them unwilling to accept less than they’re owed.

“The other creditors are saying, ‘We’re not going to offer anything if China is, in effect, at the head of the repayment line,’” Parks said. “It leads to paralysis. Everyone is sizing each other up and saying, ‘Am I going to be a chump here?’”

LOANS AS ‘CURRENCY EXCHANGES’

Meanwhile, Beijing has taken on a new kind of hidden lending that has added to the confusion and distrust. Parks and others found that China’s central bank has effectively been lending tens of billions of dollars through what appear as ordinary foreign currency exchanges.

Foreign currency exchanges, called swaps, allow countries to essentially borrow more widely used currencies like the U.S. dollar to plug temporary shortages in foreign reserves. They are intended for liquidity purposes, not to build things, and last for only a few months.

But China’s swaps mimic loans by lasting years and charging higher-than-normal interest rates. And importantly, they don’t show up on the books as loans that would add to a country’s debt total.

Mongolia has taken out $1.8 billion annually in such swaps for years, an amount equivalent to 14% of its annual economic output. Pakistan has taken out nearly $3.6 billion annually for years and Laos $300 million.

The swaps can help stave off default by replenishing currency reserves, but they pile more loans on top of old ones and can make a collapse much worse, akin to what happened in the runup to 2009 financial crisis when U.S. banks kept offering ever-bigger mortgages to homeowners who couldn’t afford the first one.

Some poor countries struggling to repay China now find themselves stuck in a kind of loan limbo: China won’t budge in taking losses, and the IMF won’t offer low-interest loans if the money is just going to pay interest on Chinese debt.

For Chad and Ethiopia, it’s been more than a year since IMF rescue packages were approved in so-called staff-level agreements, but nearly all the money has been withheld as negotiations among its creditors drag on.

“You’ve got a growing number of countries that are in dire financial straits,” said Parks, attributing it largely to China’s stunning rise in just a generation from being a net recipient of foreign aid to the world’s largest creditor.

“Somehow they’ve managed to do all of this out of public view,” he said. “So unless people understand how China lends, how its lending practices work, we’re never going to solve these crises.”

Global Economies Seek to Break Free from US Dollar Dominance

Nations worldwide are embarking on an irreversible course to break away from the US dollar, according to seasoned investment expert Matthew Piepenburg. In a recent interview at the Deutsche Goldmesse conference with the Soar Financially YouTube channel, Piepenburg, partner at emerging markets-focused Matterhorn Asset Management, claims that major economies are now evidently trying to distance themselves from dollar dominance.

He asserts that the US Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes are driving countries like China and Russia to adopt settlement systems that don’t depend on the USD. In addition to China and Russia, both members of the BRICS coalition, Piepenburg reveals that 41 other nations are following suit, possibly concerned about how the US has treated Russia during its conflict with Ukraine.

Piepenburg explains, “So when that dollar gets higher, because Powell is raising the rates, that becomes more onerous and painful for the rest of the world and they begin to break ranks.” He further adds, “Asia in general, China and Russia in particular are very big rank-breaking nations. And, of course, they’re bringing 41 other countries alongside to have trade settlements outside the US dollar.”

The BRICS group, representing the economically-aligned nations of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is considering launching a global currency that does not rely on the US dollar. Several nations reportedly want to participate, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain, Indonesia, two unnamed East African countries, and one from West Africa.

While Piepenburg doesn’t foresee the yuan or any other currency replacing the dollar as the world reserve currency in the near future, he does identify a “clear trend” of countries worldwide bypassing the dollar as the primary, trusted medium of trade. He concludes, “The clear trend of breaking ranks with the US dollar as a trusted, reliable, dependable trade currency and payment system is now I think irrevocable.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) advises against using sugar substitutes for weight loss, as new guidelines reveal that non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) do not provide long-term benefits in reducing body fat for adults or children. Francesco Branca, director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition and Food Safety, stated, “Replacing free sugars with non-sugar sweeteners does not help people control their weight long-term.” The guidance applies to everyone except those with preexisting diabetes.

While the review identified potential undesirable effects from long-term sugar substitute use, such as a mildly increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, Branca clarified that the recommendation doesn’t comment on the safety of consumption. He added, “What this guideline says is that if we’re looking for reduction of obesity, weight control or risk of noncommunicable diseases, that is unfortunately something science been unable to demonstrate.”

Why There Were 8 More Seats At The Table This Year At G7 Summit

As the G7 summit approaches, imagine the host scrambling to find an extendable table and extra dining essentials to accommodate the growing guest list. This year, Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has decided to invite eight additional attendees to the meeting, which kicks off on Friday in Hiroshima. The expanded guest list signifies the challenging topics on the agenda, including the conflict in Ukraine and global food security, as well as the shifting international landscape with a focus on two absent nations: Russia and China.

The G7 comprises the world’s seven most affluent democracies—Japan, the United States, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, and Italy—with the European Union also sending representatives, although not officially a member. Host countries have recently begun inviting other nations at their discretion. However, the G7’s economic power has diminished; while they represented over half of the world’s GDP in 1990, they now account for just under 30%. Consequently, the G7 seeks to forge alliances with influential new partners.

In pursuit of a more global coalition, Kishida has welcomed Australia, India, Brazil, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Comoros (on behalf of the African Union), and the Cook Islands (representing the Pacific Islands Forum) to the table. Over the past 18 months, Kishida has embarked on 16 international trips to countries like India, Africa, and Southeast Asia, demonstrating that there are alternatives to Chinese and Russian influence. As he once said, he is trying to “prove to these regions that there is an alternative to Chinese and Russian money and power.”

His Hiroshima guest list mirrors these efforts to court the so-called “Global South,” encompassing developing nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, all of which maintain intricate political and economic relationships with both Russia and China.

Presenting a unified stance

Achieving one of Mr. Kishida’s primary goals—demonstrating a “united front” on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—will likely prove to be a significant challenge. The G7 is reportedly working on implementing further sanctions targeting the energy and export sectors that support Moscow’s war efforts.

However, many of the additional guests may not approve of this move. For example, India has not adhered to Western sanctions on Russian imports and has not explicitly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Apart from their long-standing relationship, India relies on energy imports and has defended its oil purchases, claiming it cannot afford higher prices.

India is not alone in this predicament. Emerging economies have been severely impacted by escalating costs, partially driven by the war in Ukraine. They are now concerned that additional sanctions could lead Moscow to cancel a Black Sea grain agreement, which allows crucial exports from Ukraine. Such a move could worsen food shortages and inflate prices even more.

For some countries, the issue goes beyond the personal cost of sanctions. Nguyen Khac Giang, a visiting fellow at the Institute of South East Asian Studies in Singapore, notes, “Vietnam has a historically close relationship with Russia, which supplies at least 60% of their arms and 11% of their fertilizer.” He adds that Indonesia, though not heavily reliant on Russia, is a significant importer of Russian weapons and maintains positive relations with Moscow.

Giang believes that Hanoi and Jakarta will neither explicitly object to nor support further sanctions on Russia due to the considerable economic and political risks involved, with little benefit in return.

Kishida hopes that the backdrop of Hiroshima, where the atomic bomb killed over 100,000 people, will focus attention on the nuclear threat posed by Russia. Tours around the city will serve as a constant reminder of the destruction such weapons can cause and emphasize the responsibility of the invited nations to prevent their future use.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, present virtually, will also pressure attendees with a heartfelt appeal on behalf of his people who have already suffered greatly. However, this may not be enough to resolve divisions over the extent of sanctions. Frustration is growing among non-G7 countries who feel their voices have often been overlooked by the West. Nonetheless, analysts believe that listening and treating these nations as partners is a step in the right direction.

Nguyen Khac Giang says that involving Vietnam and Indonesia “provides an opportunity to communicate their concerns with G7 leaders on a vast array of issues, from the war in Ukraine and the slowdown of the global economy, to security risks in East Asia, particularly regarding the South China Sea dispute and Taiwan.”

Addressing the China challenge

Taiwan and the surrounding tensions have emerged as one of the most significant crises in recent times. As the only Asian G7 member, Japan sees the summit as an opportunity to respond to China’s increasing military presence around the self-governing island. Tokyo’s message to the West is simple: your fight in Ukraine is our fight, and vice versa.

However, dealing with China, which is deeply embedded in global supply chains, may be even more challenging than addressing Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron recently cautioned Europe against getting “caught up in crises that are not ours,” sparking a minor dispute in the West and reigniting fears of abandonment in East Asia.

Analysts note that China’s voice is heard clearly because its position remains consistent, unlike Western democracies that experience changes following elections. While the US has unwaveringly supported Ukraine and Taiwan, the G7 is also concerned about Beijing’s “economic coercion” – retaliating against actions perceived as critical of China.

It remains uncertain what countermeasures the G7 will adopt or whether they can agree with their EU partners on a united approach. Persuading other countries to follow suit will be even more challenging, as many Global South nations have stronger economic ties to Beijing.

The Pacific Islands represent a region where the struggle for influence is still ongoing, explaining the Cook Islands’ presence on the guest list. These island nations, highly vulnerable to climate change, are using their strategic importance to engage both the US and China.

Kishida’s coalition-building efforts will hinge on the G7’s agreement to address climate change and energy security. This could reduce countries’ reliance on Russian oil and gas or Chinese aid. However, there may already be a weakness in this strategy. President Joe Biden was set to visit Papua New Guinea after the summit – the first sitting US president to do so – but had to shorten his trip due to a domestic crisis.

According to Richard Maud, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute and former Australian intelligence chief, this is a setback. He stated at a recent panel discussion, “Turning up is half the battle. China turns up all the time, and so the optics aren’t great.”

Pope Francis Meets with Zelensky, Prays for Peace and Stresses Aid for Innocent Victims

Pope Francis and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have discussed the humanitarian and political situation in Ukraine caused by the ongoing war, according to a statement from the Holy See. During a 40-minute meeting, they discussed the need to continue humanitarian efforts to support the population affected by the full-scale invasion of Ukraine launched by Russia last year. The Pope emphasised the urgent need to help “the most fragile people, innocent victims” of the conflict. Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reiterated support for a united Ukraine during a meeting with President Zelensky. The Ukrainian leader had talks with Italian President Sergio Mattarella before the working lunch with Meloni. Over 1,000 police were deployed, and a no-fly zone was implemented over Rome.

The Pope has assured President Zelensky of his constant prayers and continuous invocation to the Lord for peace since last February when Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion. Pope Francis has previously stated that the Vatican was ready to act as a mediator in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and is working on a peace plan to end the war. Ukraine’s relationship with the Vatican has been uneasy at times. A few months after the war in Ukraine began, the Pope commented in an interview that Moscow’s invasion was “perhaps somehow provoked”.

Earlier on Saturday, President Zelensky met with Ms Meloni and invited “all the Italian political leaders and representatives of civil society” to visit Ukraine to see first-hand the effects of the war. Ukraine’s ambassador to the Vatican criticised the Pope last August after he referred to Darya Dugina, the daughter of a Russian ultra-nationalist figure killed by a car bomb, as an “innocent” victim of the conflict. Meanwhile, Germany unveiled its largest military aid package for Ukraine yet, worth €2.7bn (£2.4bn).

The Ukrainian President’s visit came as Russia carried out a new wave of air strikes on Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities overnight, with more than 20 people injured in the western city of Khmelnytsky. Critical infrastructure, homes, and government buildings were also hit. Explosions were reported in the Russian-occupied city of Luhansk, about 56 miles behind the front line in eastern Ukraine. Russian-backed separatist forces in the region accused Kyiv of using Storm Shadow missiles, which the UK said it had supplied Ukraine with earlier last week. There were also reports of blasts in Luhansk on Saturday.

Despite Italy’s historic strong ties with Moscow, Meloni stressed that the war would only end when Russia stops its “brutal and unjust aggression” and withdraws from all Ukrainian territory. She also pledged Italy’s support for Ukraine for “as long as necessary”. The German government’s record aid package for Ukraine indicates that Russia is “bound to lose and sit on the bench of historical shame”, according to Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to President Zelensky. It was reported earlier this week that President Zelensky is planning to visit Germany following his trip to Italy, although it is yet to be confirmed.

In other news, a helicopter crashed in Russia’s Bryansk region on the border with Ukraine, injuring one woman. Videos circulating on social media appear to show an S-24 warplane crashing in the region on Saturday, although the footage has not been verified.

North Korea Funds Missile Program By Cyberattacks, Cryptocurrency Theft

North Korea’s missile program has received around 50% of its funding from cyberattacks and cryptocurrency theft, according to a White House official. The US federal government is looking into how “a country like [North Korea] is so darn creative in this space,” says Anne Neuberger, deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technology. Although US intelligence agencies are working to identify North Korean operatives and the Treasury is tracing stolen cryptocurrency, Neuberger says the Biden administration is “putting a lot of time and thought” into the problem. Neuberger’s estimate suggests that hacking and cybercrime are crucial to the North Korean regime’s ability to survive.

The announcement comes amid growing international concern over Pyongyang’s missile and nuclear weapons program. A new intercontinental ballistic missile tested in April could allow the regime to launch long-range nuclear strikes more quickly.

North Korean hackers have stolen billions of dollars from banks and cryptocurrency firms over the last several years, with reports from the United Nations and private firms identifying that US officials have long suspected that at least some of that money has been fueling Pyongyang’s quests for weapons superiority. North Korea’s cyberactivity is regular intelligence products presented to senior US officials, sometimes including President Joe Biden, a senior US official previously told CNN.

The issue of cryptocurrency helping raise funds for North Korea is not new. The US Treasury Department added two hackers linked to North Korea’s WannaCry attacks to its sanctions list back in September 2019. Tensions between North Korea and the US have been continuously rising during the past few years, and with North Korea’s regime showing a constant increase in aggression, there’s every reason to believe that its government will continue to leverage cryptocurrency to advance its weapons program.

A recent CNN investigation found a widespread endeavor by North Korean hackers to steal cryptocurrency and launder it into hard cash that might help fund dictator Kim Jong Un’s weapon programs. One entrepreneur unwittingly sent tens of thousands of dollars to a North Korean IT worker.

Neuberger’s states that, “North Korea uses cyber to gain up to a third of its funds to fuel its missile program” stating that hacking and cybercrime are key to the North Korean regime’s survival and its quest for weapons superiority.

The Biden administration has set its sights on this issue, taking great effort in scrutinizing such activities and monitoring the use of stolen funds. While the issue of cybercrime raising funds for North Korea is far from new, the Biden administration appears to have labeled this a significant priority. It remains to be seen what measures the US will take to combat the regime’s attempts to leverage cryptocurrency to achieve its weapons goals.

Narendra Modi’s First State Visit To The US In June

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to embark on an official state visit to the United States from June 21 to 24, where he will be welcomed by President Joe Biden at the White House. This marks Modi’s first state visit to the US during his nine-year tenure as prime minister, with the last Indian leader to make a state visit being former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from November 23 to 25, 2009. Although PM Modi has made several trips to the US, none have been classified as state visits, which hold the highest rank in diplomatic protocol.

State visits are characterized by a head of state or government traveling to a foreign country in their sovereign capacity. As such, they are officially referred to as a “visit of [name of state]” rather than “visit of [name of leader].” In the US, state visits occur only upon the invitation of the president, acting in their capacity as the head of state. These visits often span several days and consist of various elaborate ceremonies, depending on the visiting leader’s itinerary. For instance, in the US, these may include a flight line ceremony, a 21-gun salute White House arrival ceremony, a White House dinner, exchange of diplomatic gifts, an invitation to stay at the Blair House, and flag street lining. Modi’s visit will feature a state dinner on June 22.

Not every trip made by a foreign leader is considered a state visit. State visits hold the highest rank and ceremonial significance compared to other types of visits, and they symbolize the pinnacle of friendly bilateral relations. They are relatively rare in order to maintain their prestige and symbolic status. For example, under US diplomatic policy, the president can host no more than one leader from any nation once every four years.

Lower-ranked visits are classified as official visits, official working visits, working visits, guest-of-government visits, and private visits, according to US diplomatic policy. The key distinction between these visits and a state visit is that state visits are carried out in a sovereign capacity, with only the head of state allowed to make such visits. Other visits can be made by various high-ranking leaders, including crown princes, vice-presidents, and ceremonial heads of state. State visits also involve numerous elaborate ceremonies, whereas invitations for other visits are sent out more freely.

PM Modi’s previous trips to the US were categorized as a working visit (2014), working lunch (2016), and official working visit (2017). The US Department of State website describes his 2019 visit as one where he “Participated in a rally in Houston, Texas.”

Indeed, state visits hold the utmost prestige and ceremonial importance. However, when it comes to actual diplomatic work, the classification of the visit does not necessarily determine its effectiveness. Working visits can be just as successful in nurturing healthy relationships between countries as state visits. In fact, due to the infrequency of state visits and the numerous ceremonial events associated with them, most diplomatic work is often accomplished during other types of visits.

G-7 Finance Leaders Pledge Support for Ukraine and Sanctions Against Russia

The Group of Seven (G-7), comprised of the world’s top financial leaders, have pledged their allegiance to Ukraine while vowing to enforce sanctions against Russia for its aggression towards the country. The group issued a joint statement after three days of talks in Niigata, Japan, saying that they would bring inflation under control while aiding those who are suffering the most from surging prices. Moreover, they are committed to building more stable, diversified supply chains for developing clean energy sources and to “enhance economic resilience globally against various shocks.” However, their statement did not mention China’s economic coercion tactics, causing outrage from the country’s officials.

Given the immense stake most countries have in China’s rising power and economy, the Finance leaders were hesitant to overtly condemn their behaviours at the talks in Niigata, Japan. As the talks concluded, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida recorded that the international community is facing a historic turning point, with divisions and conflicts, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Sudan.

Picture : WAMU

At the upcoming summit of G-7 leaders in Hiroshima, which President Joe Biden is expected to attend despite a national crisis concerning the U.S. debt ceiling that could lead to a national default, the stakes for the global economy and the future look to be high. If not resolved, the situation would bring an economic catastrophe, destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs, and potentially disrupting financial markets across the globe. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned that no mention of the matter was made at the finance leaders’ statement.

Although the G-7 economies comprise only tenth of the world’s population, about 30% of economic activity, this was down from roughly half 40 years ago. Developing economies such as China, India, and Brazil have made huge gains, raising questions regarding the relevance and role that the G-7 plays in leading the world economy – which relies increasingly on growth in less wealthy nations.

 

China has criticized the U.S. and other G-7 countries for claiming to protect a “rules-based international order” against “economic coercion” from Beijing and other threats, dismissing their being accused of the ‘economic coercion’ term as hypocrisy. The group was expected to voice confidence in the global financial system despite recent turmoil in the banking industry and the potential of a U.S. national debt default.

The host of the G-7 this year, Japan, was also seeking support from the finance leaders for developing a “partnership” to strengthen supply chains to reduce the risk of similar disruptions to those seen during the pandemic when supplies of items from medicines to high-tech computer chips ran short in many countries.

Tensions with China and with Russia; the country’s war on Ukraine have been a focus during the talks in Japan, the only Asian member of the G-7. The finance ministers and central bank chiefs of the G-7 have said that they want to discuss ways to prevent what they call “economic coercion” by China, drawing sharp retorts from Beijing. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Wang Wenbin, said that China is a victim of economic coercion, and if any country should be criticized for economic coercion, it should be the United States.

China accuses the U.S. of hindering its rise as an increasingly affluent, modern nation through trade and investment restrictions. Yellen said these measures were narrowly targeted to protect American economic security. The G-7 finance ministers and central bank chiefs also pledged to work together within the G-7 and with other countries to enhance economic resilience globally against various shocks, notwithstanding standing firm to protect shared values and preserve economic efficiency in upholding the free, fair, and rules-based multilateral system.

Is China’s Influence Declining Globally

China’s Influence at the world body – a barometer of its global clout – measured by a recent secret electoral vote has shown a downward drift even as it maintains an iron grip on power at the UN Security Council because of its veto powers. China went head-to-head against India in elections at the 53-member UN Economic and Social Council for the UN Statistical Commission: India polled 46 votes, while China came in third with 19 votes, behind South Korea with 23.

And, in a second round of balloting for the second seat on the commission for the Asia Pacific region, China tied with South Korea with 25 votes each, and Seoul got the seat in a draw of lots. It was a big change for China pushing its goal of global dominance.

The difference between New Delhi and Beijing is stark in a changed situation where China’s largesse increasingly looks like a usurious power play while India is leading the efforts to restructure the crushing debts of the developing countries.

Beijing poured hundreds of billions of dollars into its web of One Belt One Road initiative across the world and the bills are coming due to the recipients.

As the president of the G20, India has positioned itself as the voice of the Global South, while avoiding strident anti-imperialist/anti-neocolonial rhetoric, and this has put India on the opposite side to China, which probably is the biggest direct lender, although other countries and multinational institutions are also in the ranks of lenders.

At the G20 finance ministers meeting in February, India pushed proposals for the big lenders — especially China — to take a “haircut” – write off portions of loans – to give relief to the debtor nations as they struggle from the economic crisis from the Covid pandemic and the Ukraine war.

At the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meetings in Washington this month, India again took centrestage as a co-chair with the heads of those organisations of the Global Sovereign Debt Restructuring Roundtable to find a solution to the debt crisis.

As global polarisation accelerates, China is the leading force on one side of the divide, and in a choice between India and China, especially if the ballot is secret, the preference appears to be to the sort of neutral country.

To counter China’s attempts to get elected to international bodies, especially in leadership positions, the foreign ministers of the Quad, made up of India, the US, Japan and Australia, declared their commitment last month to “independent” candidates.

After their meeting, they said in a joint statement, “We will support meritorious and independent candidates for elections in the UN and in international forums to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the international system”.

While China’s grip may loosen in anonymous elections, in open voting it still can use its position as a lender to advantage as it did at the UN Human Rights Council last October when a proposal to discuss China’s alleged human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Muslims in Xinjiang Province was voted down.

It has a steely hold on the most important body of the UN, the Security Council where it can wield its veto as a permanent member or like any member on its committees like the ones for terrorism sanctions.

China has blocked several times attempts to designate Pakistan-based operatives behind attacks on India as global terrorists, which would place them under international sanctions.

But it has had to relent in some cases under international pressure. Beijing agreed in January to designate Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) Deputy Chief Abdul Rehman Makki after having blocked it earlier.

In 2019, China lifted its block on Masood Azhar of the Jaish-e-Mohamme (JeM).

But it continues to block adding to the international terrorist list LeT leaders Sajid Mir and Shahid Mahmood, and JeM leader Abdul Rauf Azhar.

In the long range, Beijing can also block the expansion of the Security Council’s permanent membership, although it is already facing pressure from the African nations, a constituency it has sought to cultivate.

Organisationally, China uses the power of the purse for influence. It is the second largest contributor to the UN’s budget sending $438 million last year.

It gets it a measure of deference from UN officials.

The former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet admitted that she had been under “tremendous pressure” over a report on China’s human rights violations against the Uyghurs. She published the report only on her last day in office after delaying its release for several years.

Read more at: https://www.southasiamonitor.org/indo-pacific-china-watch/chinas-global-influence-wane

UNSC Is Not Inclusive If That Excludes World’s Largest Democracy

A UN Security Council (UNSC) that denies permanent membership to the world’s largest democracy cannot be considered inclusive and the first step to “future-proof” the world organisation would be to reform the Security Council, according to India.

“The reform of the UNSC is the fundamental starting step towards ‘Futureproofing Trust for Sustaining Peace’,” India’s Permanent Representative Ruchira Kamboj said on Wednesday.

“Is the UNSC in its present form — which denies permanent representation to entire continents of Africa, Latin America and the world’s largest democracy — can it be deemed to be ‘inclusive’,” she asked at an open debate at the Council.

If the Council “is to continue to engender trust and confidence” in its ability to lead the world, it must better represent the developing countries, Kamboj said.

With the interminable inter-governmental negotiation, as the reform process is called, set to meet on Thursday, she asked if it can be credible and effective without a time frame to conclude the discussions, she asked.

The open debate on “future-proofing” the UN to ensure its credibility and effectiveness, was convened by Switzerland, which is holding the Council presidency for the first time.

Switzerland’s Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis who presided over the meeting said that “we have to admit that we have not sufficiently taken account the frustrations and changes taking place on both sides of our planet” with the UN.

He said that it was necessary “to consider how this Council can strengthen the foundations of a broader peace architecture, which “must be inclusive and include those whom the population has designated as democratically legitimate”.

In addition to the Council, Kamboj said: “Multilateral institutions must be made more accountable to their membership, they must be open and welcoming to a diversity of viewpoints, particularly from the global South.”

Drawing attention to India’s role as the president of the G20 — the group of major developed and emerging economies — Kamboj said that New Delhi “is committed to forging consensus through the G20 process in the effort to find solutions to global challenges”. (IANS)

20,000 Russian Soldiers Killed In Ukraine Fighting Since December

According to newly declassified intelligence, more than 20,000 Russian soldiers have been killed and 80,000 wounded in the ongoing fighting in Ukraine since December. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby confirmed these figures, stating that half of the dead were from the Wagner mercenary company, who have been attacking the eastern Bakhmut city. Russia has been attempting to take the small city in a grinding war of attrition for the past year, and Moscow currently holds most of Bakhmut. However, Ukrainian troops still control a small portion of the city in the west.

This fierce battle has taken on huge symbolic importance for both sides, with Ukrainian officials claiming that they are using it to wear down Russia’s reserves and kill as many of their troops as possible. “Russia’s attempt at an offensive in the Donbas [region] largely through Bakhmut has failed,” Mr Kirby told reporters. “Russia has been unable to seize any real strategic and significant territory. We estimate that Russia has suffered more than 100,000 casualties, including over 20,000 killed in action.” He added that he was not giving estimates of Ukrainian casualties because “they are the victims here. Russia is the aggressor.”

The capture of Bakhmut would bring Russia slightly closer to its goal of controlling the whole of Donetsk region, one of four regions in eastern and southern Ukraine annexed by Russia last September following referendums widely condemned outside Russia as a sham. However, analysts say that Bakhmut has little strategic value, but it has become a focal point for Russian commanders who have struggled to deliver any positive news to the Kremlin.

The Wagner mercenary group has taken center stage in the Russian assault on Bakhmut, with its leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, staking his reputation and that of his private army on seizing the city. In a rare in-depth interview to a prominent Russian war blogger, he vowed to withdraw Wagner fighters if they were not provided with much-needed ammunition by the Russian defense ministry. Wagner fighters could be redeployed to Mali, he warned. He has often clashed with Russia’s defense ministry during the war, accusing officials of not providing his fighters with enough support.

Mr. Prigozhin also called upon the Russian media and military leadership to “stop lying to the Russian population” ahead of an expected Ukrainian spring counteroffensive. “We need to stop lying to the Russian population, telling them everything is all right,” he said. He praised the Ukrainian military’s “good, correct military operations” and command.

A top Ukrainian general said on Monday that counterattacks had ousted Russian forces from some positions in Bakhmut, but the situation remained “difficult”. New Russian units, including paratroopers and fighters from Wagner, are being “constantly thrown into battle” despite taking heavy losses, Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi, the commander of Ukraine’s ground forces, said on Telegram. “But the enemy is unable to take control of the city,” he said.

Pope Francis Offers Help in Returning Ukrainian Children Taken to Russia During War

Pope Francis has expressed his willingness to help facilitate the return of Ukrainian children who were taken to Russia during the war. During an airborne press conference on Sunday, the Pope said the Vatican had already assisted in mediating some prisoner exchanges and would do “all that is humanly possible” to reunite families. He stressed the importance of humane gestures and added that “gestures of cruelty don’t help”.

In addition, the Pope disclosed that a secret peace “mission” was underway but did not provide any details when asked about peace initiatives during his recent talks with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban or the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church in Hungary. The Pope said, “There’s a mission that’s not public that’s underway; when it’s public I’ll talk about it”.

Last month, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s children’s commissioner, accusing them of war crimes for abducting children from Ukraine. Russia has denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the children were moved for their safety.

Last week, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal met with Pope Francis at the Vatican and requested his help in returning Ukrainian children taken following the Russian invasion. Shmyhal expressed his gratitude for the Pope’s willingness to help and said, “I asked His Holiness to help us return home Ukrainians, Ukrainian children who are detained, arrested, and criminally deported to Russia”.

Pope Francis recalled that the Holy See had facilitated some successful prisoner exchanges in the past, working through embassies, and was open to Ukraine’s request to reunite Ukrainian children with their families. He said, “The Holy See is available to do it because it’s the right thing…We have to do all that is humanly possible”.

The Pope’s commitment to helping reunite families and facilitate peace efforts has been praised by many. The situation involving Ukrainian children being taken to Russia during the war has been a source of great concern and controversy, and the Pope’s intervention could potentially help bring about a resolution to the issue.

Charles III Crowned As King Of United Kingdom In Once-In-A-Generation Ceremony

King Charles III and his wife, Camilla, were crowned during a grand coronation ceremony at Westminster Abbey on Saturday, May 6th, 2023. The couple, escorted by around 200 members of the British military, began their procession from Buckingham Palace to the ceremony in a golden carriage drawn by eight horses.

During the grand and religious ceremony at Westminster Abbey, King Charles III was formally crowned as monarch of the United Kingdom and 14 other countries. Although Charles had ascended to the throne on the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II last September, his coronation was the traditional crowning of the monarch. This marked the first time since 1953 that a coronation was held at the historic site.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby placed the St. Edward’s Crown, a 360-year-old symbol of monarchy, on Charles’ head during the most significant moment of the day. Welby declared, “God Save the King” in a service that reflected the fact that Charles is not only head of state but also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Picture : CNN

They were surrounded by over 1,000 soldiers, sailors, and Royal Air Force personnel. At Westminster Abbey, Charles and Camilla were welcomed by church officials and support staff before the formal ceremony began. One of Charles’ first speeches emphasized his intent to “serve, not to be served” and follow in the footsteps of the “king of kings.” After taking on a series of oaths, Charles was presented with symbolic items such as swords and spurs from various historical periods before putting on the heavy crown.

The coronation was completed with the oath of allegiance pledged by the highest members of Britain’s clergy and Charles’ son, Prince William. The ceremony, which was steeped in history and tradition, has been modernized in certain ways. During the service, when acknowledging the various faiths observed in the UK, the archbishop said the Church of England “will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths may live freely.”

One modern innovation saw the King become the first monarch to pray aloud at his coronation. Charles asked to “be a blessing” to people “of every faith and conviction.” This prayer was considered the most sacred part of the ceremony. The King was also anointed with holy oil by the archbishop and presented with the coronation regalia, including the royal Robe and Stole, during the investiture part of the service.

Picture : people

For the first time in coronation history, the archbishop invited the British public and those from “other Realms” to recite a pledge of allegiance to the newly crowned monarch and his “heirs and successors.” This invitation caused criticism from the media, and the Church of England then revised the text of the liturgy to offer a choice between saying “God save King Charles” and reciting the full pledge.

Music played a central role in the proceedings, with five new compositions commissioned, including an anthem by Andrew Lloyd Webber. The newly crowned king and his wife rode back to Buckingham Palace in a grand coach drawn by six horses, accompanied by the Household Cavalry, after which a much larger parade took place featuring 4,000 members of the armed forces, 250 horses, and 19 military bands.

The ceremony also featured a reading from the Bible by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and gospel music, which was a first for a coronation. Following the coronation, Charles’ wife, Queen Camilla was crowned in her own, shorter ceremony with Queen Mary’s Crown, making it the first time in recent history that a new crown wasn’t made specifically for this occasion.

The weather was wet during the proceedings, which saw tens of thousands of well-wishers gather in central London despite the rain. The rain appeared to have little effect on the proceedings, which concluded with the customary balcony appearance by the King and family members, who watched a flypast of military aircraft.

Picture : Yahoo

The two-hour-long ceremony saw the monarch proclaim his faith and devotion to his subjects, invoking integrity and humility, and the whole nation. Charles’ coronation is a historic event that upholds the traditions of the British monarchy, representing a modern touch with the introduction of the pledge of allegiance and modern hymns. Charles will continue to work towards building a better future for the United Kingdom and its allies.

Royal ceremony witnesses global dignitaries and renowned personalities

Thousands of royal fans camped alongside the 1.3-mile (2km) route that extends from London’s Buckingham Palace, the official residence of the British monarchy, to Westminster Abbey, the coronation church since 1066, to catch a glimpse of King Charles III’s procession. However, the London Metropolitan Police Service had to close all the viewing areas along the processional path due to overfilling.

The size of the congregation, about 2,300 people was much smaller than that in 1953, when temporary structures had to be erected at the abbey to accommodate more than 8,000 people on the guest list. The abbey doors were opened just before 8 a.m. and guests, including top British officials, faith leaders, and international representatives, were expected to take their seats more than an hour before the ceremony began. The event was attended by hundreds of VIPs, hinting at the logistical challenges presented by a ceremony of this magnitude.

The guest list was comprised of notable British public figures and politicians like Rishi Sunak’s living predecessors as Prime Minister. Other attendees included UK opposition leader Keir Starmer, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt. Heads of states from approximately 100 countries and dozens of members of foreign royal families also made their way to London for the service. Notable international attendees include Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, French President Emmanuel Macron, European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, and European Council President Charles Michel.

US President Joe Biden was absent from the ceremony, and Jill Biden led the US delegation, sitting beside Ukrainian first lady Olena Zelenska. Several celebrities graced the occasion, including singers Lionel Richie and Katy Perry, musician Nick Cave, actresses Emma Thompson, Maggie Smith, Joanna Lumley, and Judi Dench, composer Andrew Lloyd Webber, and broadcaster Stephen Fry.

The last to arrive, just before the King and Queen, were Prince Charles’ siblings and children, including Prince Harry, who travelled from the United States to the UK without his wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and their two young children. It was also Prince Archie’s 4th birthday. After the ceremony, Prince Harry did not join the family for the start of the traditional balcony appearance, and CNN revealed that he did not receive an invitation to join the family for this moment. Similarly, Prince Andrew was not present on the balcony due to his ties to Jeffery Epstein, a convicted pedophile. The prince announced that he would step back from royal duties in 2019 and, in January 2022, was stripped off his military titles and royal patronages after a judge ruled that a sexual abuse civil lawsuit filed against him by Virginia Giuffre would proceed. The case was later settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Challenges and Controversies Surrounding the Coronation of King Charles III

The Coronation ceremony of King Charles III has been a subject of controversy despite the grandeur of the occasion. While the British monarchy and its supporters relished the event, several citizens disapproved of the millions of pounds spent on the ceremony, calling it an insensitive use of taxpayers’ money, especially during the economic downturn.

The biggest challenge of the event was security, since security for such large-scale events is one of the costliest aspects. Given this, the London Metropolitan Police Service, ahead of time, announced that the coronation day would be the largest single-day policing operation in decades, with over 11,500 policemen on duty in the city. The event also faced unwanted anti-monarchy demonstrations, and a few protesters were arrested in Central London on Saturday morning, before the event commenced. Republic, a campaign group that vehemently opposes the monarchy, deemed the concept of the “homage of the people” on the coronation day “offensive, tone-deaf, and a gesture that holds the people in contempt.”

Earlier this week, the enforcement of a controversial UK public order bill, which has faced wide criticism, raised eyebrows. Since the Queen’s passing last year, there has been an increase in instances of anti-monarchists turning up unexpectedly at royal events to voice their objections to the monarchy. The new rule, signed into law by King Charles III just before the coronation, gives the police greater authority to take stronger legal action against peaceful protesters.

Despite the grandeur of the event, some people had criticized spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on the ceremony amid an economic crisis. The security costs, which are usually the costliest part of large events, were also a concern, with over 11, 500 police officers on duty across London.

After returning from his coronation ceremony at Westminster Abbey, King Charles III and Queen Camilla were welcomed by hundreds of military personnel in ceremonial uniforms on the vast lawn at the rear of Buckingham Palace.

They then appeared on the long balcony at the front of the building, where thousands of supporters had gathered to catch a glimpse of the newly crowned King and Queen. Despite raining heavily, the couple was joined by select members of the royal family as the audience looked on.

While the Air Force jets roared overhead, leaving behind a trail of smoke in the national colors of red, white and blue, Charles raised his eyes but did not look up, seemingly preoccupied with managing the delicate balance of his crown.

Headlined by popular artists such as Katy Perry, Lionel Richie, and Take That, the “Coronation Concert” was held at Windsor Castle on Sunday evening, and people were encouraged to volunteer in their communities on Monday, the final day of the long holiday weekend.

China Balks At India Overtaking It As World’s Most Populous Country

China has responded indignantly to news that India, its neighbor and rival, will soon surpass it as the world’s most populous country. Reports have suggested that India may already have overtaken China as the most populous country. Both countries will have almost 1.43 billion people, according to the United Nations World Population Dashboard. China is facing a demographic crisis that could hamper its bid to rival the United States, with Chinese officials arguing that western coverage of the population statistics is an excuse to “bad mouth” Beijing.

Chinese officials and state media are arguing that America and the West are focusing only on population size, rather than education, industrial output, and economic clout, the latter seeing China far outweigh India. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin stated that it was important to look at not just the size but also the quality of its population. The state broadcaster CCTV suggested that China was being “slandered” despite “creating a miracle of sustainable and stable economic development with a huge population”.

To China, being the most populous nation does not count for anything in and of itself. What’s important is to be seen as a developing, modern, and functional country. Dimitar Gueorguiev, an associate professor who teaches Chinese politics at Syracuse University, suggests that what matters to China is consumer and investor confidence. He said: “it is not hard to see why Chinese officials are pushing back on the argument that a population decline spells economic decline”.

China has a far larger economy than India, with its GDP almost seven times that of India, which is placed fifth. However, both countries face their own challenges. China’s aging population fell last year for the first time in six decades, and this raises serious questions about the country’s ability to maintain, let alone enhance, its economic status. India has not achieved the same development in manufacturing and infrastructure as China. Its population is younger, but more of them are unemployed or living in extreme poverty.

Despite a booming technology sector, India is struggling to create enough jobs to keep up with demand. Only 2.2% of workers between the ages of 15 and 59 have received formal vocational training, according to government figures. In China, 26% of the workforce are classified as “skilled”. Despite the population statistics, India does not seem entirely thrilled about claiming the top spot. A survey conducted by the UN in conjunction with this week’s report found that many Indians listed economic issues as their top concern when thinking about population change, followed by worries about the environment, health, and human rights.

Andrea Wojnar, the United Nations Population Fund’s representative for India, said that the findings suggest that “population anxieties have seeped into large portions of the general public,” even though the numbers should be seen as a sign of development, rather than a cause for anxiety.

Despite the fierce competition between China and India, some Chinese citizens are unconcerned about the population news. “Population does not equal national power,” said Zhang Han, 29, a business student from the eastern province of Shandong. Retired teacher Liu Quan, 57, said he doesn’t care about the population news at all. “We just want peace” between the quarrelling neighbours, he said. “I believe both India and China don’t want conflict.”

In conclusion, while China is facing a demographic crisis, it believes that its economic strength and quality of its population are more important than just population size. India may be set to become the world’s most populous nation, but it is struggling to create enough jobs and provide sufficient vocational training for its young people. However, despite the fierce rivalry between the two countries, some Chinese citizens do not believe that population size equals national power and want peaceful relations with their

South Asians On World Stage

The day Osman Salahuddin turned 27 was also the day he launched his political campaign. He announced his candidacy to run for City Council in Redmond, a city on America’s west coast where he grew up.

The city of Redmond, located 15 miles east of Seattle, in Washington state, with a population around 80,000, prides itself on its diversity and as a centre of technology – it is home to Microsoft, Nintendo, and AT&T, among other well-known companies.

Salahuddin is among a growing number of South Asians in the US taking up public office to serve their communities over the conventional fields of engineering, medicine, or law.  As a Pakistani-American, Salahuddin is well aware that he is going against the grain for the ‘desi’ (South Asian) community.

“This actually might not be popular amongst the parents,” he said at his inaugural campaign meeting, addressing the youth in the room. Inviting them to join him in pursuing a career in public service instead of going into tech or medicine he added, “Your parents will tell you otherwise, but this is really important work.”

Growing pattern

His situation reflects a pattern of first-generation immigrants working in traditional ways to settle in and establish themselves in their adopted country, while the next generation can explore and make independent life choices.

A similar example is the Ahmed family in Bowie, Maryland – father Shukoor, an Indian-origin tech entrepreneur, and his pharmacist Pakistan-origin wife Nabeela support their daughters Raaheela and Shabnam in running for local elections so that they can represent religious minorities and people of colour. After losing her first election at the age of 18, Raaheela has held public office since she was 23.

Another notable case is that of Bushra Amiwala, a Pakistani-American student who stood for elections in Skokie, Illinois, and became the youngest Muslim woman ever to be elected to the US government at age 21. She has since become the subject of two documentaries.

Like Ahmed and Amiwala, Salahuddin too found his calling in public service during his University years. While studying neurobiology at the University of Washington, Seattle, as a pre-med student, he ran for student body president and was elected to serve over 45,000 students. He found the work so enriching that he took on community leadership roles after graduating.

A particularly humbling experience as student body president, he says, was the time he helped pass legislation that helped undocumented students (HB1488 from 2017-18) gain eligibility for the College Bound Scholarship. This increased access to funding opportunities to help them attain higher education.

“I really quickly figured out my true passion was serving the community,” says Salahuddin. Guests enjoying lunch at Osman Salahuddin’s campaign launch on February 25, 2023. Photo: Shailaja Rao / Sapan News

Widening support base

Salahuddin’s top priority is empowering the youth “who are our future – by offering new programmes and ensuring that we are keeping them as engaged as possible.” He also aims to support small businesses and protect and improve public parks and open spaces.

At the festive, invitation-only lunch meeting at a hotel in Redmond on February 25, 2023, the gathering of over 200 comprised mainly leaders and members of the local Pakistani community, with a sprinkling of Indian-origin Americans, many in their ethnic wear. Some non-Southasian supporters also joined.

Salahuddin has garnered several endorsements from elected officials and community leaders and has substantial South Asian support beyond the Muslim and Pakistani communities. This includes his boss, King County council member Sarah Perry, for whom he works as a communications and community engagement manager. A strong ally of the local South Asian community, Perry calls Salahuddin “a gem”, someone with strong leadership skills and a strong drive to accomplish any task he takes on.

Another supporter is Hamdi Mohamed, Seattle Port Commissioner and the first Somali woman elected to serve in Washington state. She knows firsthand how difficult it is for someone “different” to run for public office. She received hate mail when she first did that, targeted for her race and ethnic background. Some supporters even advised her to change her name. “My identity was attacked, something I did not have control over!” she said at Salahuddin’s campaign launch, urging him to remain steadfast and not let things get to him.

Born in Seattle, Osman Salahuddin has lived most of his life in Redmond. His father, Kamran Salahuddin, a small business owner, grew up in Islamabad, Pakistan, and came to the US in the 1980s to pursue a Master’s degree at Oregon State University. Osman’s mother, Sania Salahuddin, a long-time special education teacher for autistic preschool students, hails from Karachi.

The younger Salahuddin says he owes his perseverance and entrepreneurial spirit to his father. He looks up to his mother the most, constantly awed by her patience, selflessness and compassion.

Pakistani roots

The oldest of three, Salahuddin, grew up in a multi-generational household. He learned about India and Pakistan from his grandparents, imbibing the importance of holding onto his roots in America.

Salahuddin believes that his home, America, provides the opportunity to bridge the divide left by a brutal Partition, ongoing Hindu-Muslim tensions, and the continual conflict between India and Pakistan.

He believes his grandparents’ emphasis on cultural values – food, festivals, traditions, family – helps him “meet and connect” with those of different backgrounds.

Salahuddin hopes to win a large number of votes from Indian-American citizens. His strategy is “to learn exactly what our Indian-American community members want from representation and incorporate these learnings with some of our shared cultural backgrounds.”

Prominent supporters among the Indian community include Lalita Uppala, executive director of Indian American Community Services; Rituja Indapure, a council member from Sammamish; and Rita Meher, executive director of Tasveer South Asian Film Festival, Seattle.

Strategising his path forward, he says, “There are many steps to ensure a win. Some initial steps include urging people to donate to the campaign, knocking on as many doors as possible to connect with the voters, and hosting and participating in various community gatherings.”

The final candidate’s list on May 19, 2023, will tell whether there will be others running against him. In that case, there will also be a primary on August 1, 2023. If not, Osman Salahuddin will head straight to the general election on November 7, 2023. (The author is the board president of Tasveer South Asian Film Festival and a contributing editor at Sapan News. By special arrangement with Sapan)

Read more at: https://www.southasiamonitor.org/south-asia-abroad/south-asians-making-their-presence-felt-american-public-life

Nirmala Sitharaman Highlights India’s Accomplishments, Challenges Facing North And South

India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman emphasized the global challenges facing countries of the North and the South, and highlighted India’s role as G20 President, during the Spring 2023 World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund meetings April 10- 16.

One of the main meetings was the Second G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (FMCBG) Meeting, under India’s Presidency. Sitharaman said many proposals discussed by India were very well received by participating members. She also emphasized that there has been a lot of momentum gained since the First G20 FMCBG held in February in Bengaluru this year.

­­India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman participating in a roundtable organized by USISPF and FICCI on April 11, 2023, at the Willard InterContinental in Washington DC. PHOTO: T. Vishnudatta Jayaraman, News India Times

Picture : Press Information Bureau

During her visit for the Spring Meetings, and on its sidelines,  Sitharaman followed a hectic schedule, participating in a series of events including a fireside chat on “Resilience of the Indian economy amidst tightening of financial conditions” hosted by Petersen Institute for International Economics (PIIE); a roundtable on “Investment opportunities for the long term: India on the rise” co-hosted by Confederation of Indian Industry and US-India Business Council; a roundtable on “Investing in the India Decade” organized by US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF) and Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI); another roundtable on “Multilateral Development Bank Evolution: Building Shareholder Consensus” hosted by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. She also met with First Deputy Managing Director of IMF, Gita Gopinath, US Ex-Commerce Secretary, Penny Pritzker, and visited NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Speaking at a press conference April 13, following the FMCBG meetings, she said, “The discussions were very intense in the sense they were a lot of substantive inputs coming from the members. We were very happy to see most of India’s proposals have been well supported and there’s been an active engagement.”

Some 350 delegates with 13 invitee countries, and international and regional organizations participated in the FMCBG meeting which was grouped into three sections including sustainable finance, financial inclusion, and international taxation. The meetings wrapped up discussing progress made on India’s G20 Presidency, strengthening of Multilateral Development Banks, and challenges posed by Crypto Assets and debt distress in middle-income countries.

Sitharaman shared six key takeaways: recognition by members of the urgency to address debt vulnerability including strengthening multilateral coordination towards addressing the increasing debt distress in low income and middle-income countries; the issue of reforming multilateral development bank was very well received; the discussion on climate finance and sustainable financing of climate and climate related matters heading in a positive direction; Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion, where digital public infrastructure has had tremendous traction; international taxation issues were discussed in detail with the members; and the issue of Crypto Assets were discussed taking into account all the risks.

About strengthening global financial architecture, she said “There’s been a lot of discussion getting into details of how exactly the global financial architecture should be strengthened and what are the next steps and so on. So, through the India Presidency, I think we will be having several sessions to get into the details of how we want to look at the National architecture itself.”

Later addressing a panel discussion on “Empowering Women as Entrepreneurs and Leaders” at the World Bank, along with President of World Bank Group, David Malpass, Sitharaman recalled that the Financial Inclusion program was launched in 2014 when she was a junior Minister of Finance and went on to credit Prime Minister Narendra Modi for empowering women. She said “Prime Minister Modi’s first line, and that line continues till today – is that it has to be a women-led development for India rather than just women centric… So Prime Minister Modi gave a very prominent statement saying, I’m the Prime Minister of the country and I’m the guarantee for these loans, please give them the loans without a guarantee the government stands guarantee.”

When asked about specific initiatives that have enhanced economic conditions of women in India, she pointed to initiatives such as the National Rural Livelihood Mission, Floating Supermarket in Kerala, and Prerna Canteen run by women in Uttar Pradesh.

How Modi Can Impact G20?

As the first quarter of India’s presidency of G20 comes to an end, it is time to assess the grave challenges that G20 faces today and the unique opportunities it has in near future. It is the first G20 meeting to take place in South Asia. Recent global events may prove to be turning points and they should be part of that overall assessment. They are seemingly unconnected but deeply entangled like the underground web of the roots of giant trees. The slow and silent spread of the roots has the potential to uproot the massive structures on  the way. These recent events have the very potential to literally encroach on the regime of stability and uproot the existing systems and cause disruption.

Picture : World Economic Forum

G20, under India’s presidency, offers a unique opportunity to make transformational changes in the world order in wake of these events.  Prime Minister Narendra Modi,  the host of G20 by rotation,  has the capacity and mandate to make a difference. G20 preparatory meetings under India’s presidency till now are well conceived and planned with creativity. Though many events are India-centric, the scene is getting set for the main summit of G20 leaders to be held later in the year. As that summit gets nearer, there is an urgent need to assess these events that are likely to have a bearing on the expected outcome of the final G20 communique.

G20 started as a wider and more inclusive group than G7 which was considered a “partitioned pack of parallel power” to the United Nations. The roots of G20 are still dipped in an economic and financial cauldron; however, to be fair it has learned the lessons from the United Nations gallant efforts on Millennium Development Goals, MDGs,  and the Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs. Peace on the planet is essential for economic growth and harmony with the nature ensures financial stability needed for the business and governments were those two key lessons. Partnership with the Global South is the sine qua non for the peace process.

G20 is a balanced representation of a total of 19 countries, developed and developing, plus the EU. Its members represent 85 per cent of the global GDP, 75 per cent of international trade and two-thirds of the world’s population, 80 percent of global greenhouse emissions and 80 percent of the world’s forest cover. In a way, G20 follows the 80:20 rule – 20 countries represent 80 percent of the world and 80 percent of the world’s problems are closely connected to the policies and actions of 20 per cent of the countries.

The first of these events is the intense inflection point for global negotiations on climate change. It is about much talked about ‘climate justice’ that is globally agreed upon but has remained without delivering one. Modi frequently highlights climate inequality in a number of his speeches on international fora including the UN.  But it has remained a quixotic concept.

Game-changing UN resolution

A game-changing UN General Assembly resolution drafted by a group of 17 Small Island Developing States (SIDS), including four from South Asia, and pioneered  by Vanuatu, a tiny Pacific Island country, has now given practical shape to that concept.

That resolution has now been formally adopted by United Nations General Assembly calling for the advice of the top UN judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ).   The resolution emerged out of frustration that the world is witnessing the abysmal gap between agreed action and routine rhetoric on the climate crisis and the SIDS are the worst sufferers. Disillusioned and dejected by the existential threat looming large as their territory sinks fast under rising sea waters, the SIDS are reaching their limit of patience. Climate migration has already started with a major part of their population moving to other nearby safer countries. SIDS now has decided to test the water of the UN’s ability to deliver justice. Those who have contributed the least to the climate crisis are suffering the most and the first.  Those who created and contributed the most still continue to aggravate the problem and negate the ‘polluter to pay’ principle.

The resolution, co-sponsored by nearly 120 countries, the majority of the member states of UN, basically requests advisory opinion from the ICJ on the issue of climate injustice. The opinion from ICJ is non-binding, but the start of the very process of interaction with ICJ has signalled a new era of international law-making for climate justice.  Giving teeth to the climate-related lawsuits around the world and empowering vulnerable nations in international climate negotiations is big leap forward. The resolution was adopted unanimously. It is interesting that four G20 countries – USA, Russia, India and China – were not part of the 120 countries that explicitly co-sponsored the resolution. However, they did not oppose its adoption by the General Assembly either, probably seeing that majority is in favour of the resolution.

Modi has the opportunity to be with the SIDS by reassuring them that issue of climate justice is not only closer to the heart of large developing countries like India. Small Island countries are also part of ‘ Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (the world is one family), a mantra of G20. He should proclaim that  ‘Sabka Saath  Sabka Vikas’ (with all, development for all) is not only a national but also a global slogan. Talk on climate justice has now been set on the right path starting with open dialogue with ICJ.  Modi should catalyze inclusive cooperation by  G20 in the process of seeking climate justice. Modi should invite the literally-sinking SIDS – Vanuatu, Maldives, Sri Lanka and Singapore – as special guests to G20 along with former Maldivian president and present Majlis (parliament) speaker Mohamed Nasheed and Erick Solheim, former environment minister of Norway, who strongly connects South Asia’s climate future to global peace.

IPCC guiding posts

The second event that should matter to G20 is the 6th Assessment of IPCC ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) called AR6. ‘Final bell’, ‘Shrill warnings’, ‘Battle lines are drawn’, and ‘Can we really be back on track?’, were the messages flashed after AR6 was released. It is the last report before the planetary scale catastrophe is likely to set in by  2030, if the world does not bend down the rising curve of greenhouse gas emission. By 2030 global emissions should be reduced  by 45 per cent as compared to the 2010 level as per AR6.

The limit of global warming by 1.5 deg C above the pre-industry level is now about to be breached. AR6 clearly states that warming is already reaching 1.2 deg C. That limit was pledged  in Paris Climate Agreement at the insistence of the very SIDs that are now seeking the opinion from ICG to deliver climate justice for setting the new world order. The world is hanging on a cliff and G20 must now go beyond the debates and conferences on energy transition, carbon trading and climate resilience. They must now start accelerating energy transformation, renewable-energy trading and climate justice. The agreed promises of financial assistance to the developing countries, initiate massive mitigation of emissions along with stringent penal non-compliance measures are needed. G20 should even propose to become the implementation arm of COPs under UNFCCC.

G20 is coming just before the UN climate conference COP28 in the UAE. The window of opportunity to limit global warming to 1.5 deg C is a crack open as per AR6. Though the climate time-bomb is ticking, the IPCC’s report could serve as a how-to manual for defusing the climate time bomb. IPCC has not stopped just by blowing the emergency siren.  It has laid out the milestones and guiding posts to achieve the targets of the Paris Climate Agreement as a matter of emergency.  The dire message from AR6 is arrow-straight. We must start a massive mitigation drive literally, NOW! G20 needs to send that message not by stating how India is contributing to the emission reduction but by proposing systemic changes by inducting rigorous implementation mechanisms in the process of COP and UNFCCC, introducing the compliance provisions in the Green Climate Fund, which has a miserable record till now, having failed to replenish even 1 per cent of the agreed climate fund. There is a need to carry out financial reforms in World Bank, funding from which still includes aid and loans for electricity generation by fossil fuels.

In March 2023, International Energy Agency (IEA) hosted the COP28 president-designate Dr Sultan Al-Jaber for a roundtable discussion at its headquarters in Paris on ways to accelerate climate action. COP28 will mark the first global stocktake of emissions, enhanced NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) pledges, and plans since the Paris Agreement.  The world is way off track in emission reduction as per the 2022 emission gap report of UNEP.

Dr Ali Jaber should be invited

“The bottom line is: the world needs to cut emissions by 43 per cent in the next seven years to keep (hope for limiting global warming to)  1.5 alive,” said Dr Al-Jaber at the IEA conference in Paris. “In the course of those same 7 years, the global population will exceed 8.5 billion and is on its way to 10 billion by 2050. Meeting the scale of the world’s fast-growing energy needs, while dramatically reducing emissions is one of the most complex challenges humanity has ever faced. Nothing short of transformational progress will do across mitigation, adaptation, climate finance and loss and damage.” added Al Jabar.

Modi should invite Dr Al Jaber to G20 as president-elect of COP28 not only to lay out his vision but to also engage him in a global programme of climate action as a legacy of his presidency. Masdar Solar venture was Al Jabar’s master stroke just like International Solar Alliance was promoted by  Modi. Al Jabar as a visionary business leader sees the future in energy transformation by reducing the role of the oil and gas industry through ‘system-wide transformation’ and by recanalization of profits from the oil and gas industry for a GHG-free world. He has already achieved that to a certain extent through the Masdar Solar project in UAE and in other countries through investments there. That vision of transformation resonates well with the message of the UN Secretary-General that “massively fast-track climate efforts by every country and every sector and on every timeframe are needed. Our world needs climate action on all fronts — everything, everywhere, all at once.”

Is ‘system transformation’ possible?

Indeed, such a transformation of mindset and lifestyle is needed considering the fast-closing window of opportunity and cracking open  main doors of solutions to win the battle against the climate crisis.

The words, “system transformation”, by Dr Al Jabar is the clarion call for the revolution in waiting. When the CEO of an oil company and Minister of Industry and Innovation of the country whose prosperity has emerged from the oil and gas, gives a call that “we need to step up efforts to hit net-zero emissions by adopting renewable and zero-carbon energies, decarbonising the current energy system and investing in proven and new mitigation technologies”, one gets the intense feeling that the revolution of “system transformation” has already begun.  (Read more at: https://www.southasiamonitor.org/spotlight/can-modi-seize-moment-g20-india-can-be-global-changemaker-and-climate-pioneer)

Restoring Ties, Saudi & Iran Seek Mideast Stability

Long-time Mideast rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia took another significant step toward reconciliation last week, formally restoring diplomatic ties after a seven-year rift, affirming the need for regional stability and agreeing to pursue economic cooperation.

The agreement was reached in Beijing during a meeting between the Iranian and Saudi foreign ministers, a month after China had brokered an initial reconciliation agreement between the two regional powerhouses.

Picture : TOI

The latest understanding further lowers the chance of armed conflict between the rivals, both directly and in proxy conflicts around the region. It could bolster efforts by diplomats to end a long war in Yemen, a conflict in which both Iran and Saudi Arabia are deeply entrenched.

The announcement also represents another diplomatic victory for the Chinese as Gulf Arab states perceive the United States slowly withdrawing from the wider region.

But it remains to be seen how far the reconciliation efforts will progress. The rivalry dates back to the 1979 revolution that toppled Iran’s Western-backed monarchy, and in recent years the two countries have backed rival armed groups and political factions across the region.

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian laid out details of the agreement in a tweet, after his talks with Saudi counterpart Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud. The minister wrote that Thursday marked the beginning of “official diplomatic relations … economic and commercial cooperation, the reopening of embassies and consulates general, and the emphasis on stability, stable security and development of the region.” Amirabdollahian said that the issues are “agreed upon and on the common agenda.”

The official Iranian news agency, IRNA, said that in addition to reopening embassies in the two capitals, diplomatic missions would start operating in two other major cities — Mashhad in Iran and Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. The report said both sides also agreed to study the prospects of resuming flights and official and private visits between the two nations, in addition to how to facilitate the visa process for their people.

China’s Foreign Ministry last month reported that both sides had agreed to reopen their embassies and missions within two months.  Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said the two foreign ministers signed a joint statement and expressed their determination to improve ties in line with their talks in Beijing last month.

The state-run Saudi Press Agency carried a brief news item on the meeting, saying “discussions were held on joint relations and ways to enhance cooperation in many fields,” with both sides aiming to “enhance the security, stability, and prosperity of the two countries and peoples.”

Thursday’s talks in Beijing marked the first formal meeting of senior diplomats from the two nations since 2016, when the kingdom broke ties with Iran after protesters invaded Saudi diplomatic posts there. Saudi Arabia had executed a prominent Shiite cleric with 46 others days earlier, triggering the demonstrations.

The warming of ties shows that “regional countries have the will and ability to take the lead” in maintaining peace, Mao said at the briefing. She said China is ready to support both sides in fostering good relations, urging the international community to help the Middle Eastern countries resolve their differences. “The colonial hegemonic tactics of stirring up contradictions, creating estrangement and division should be rejected by the people all over the world,” she said.

The United States has welcomed diplomatic progress between Saudi Arabia, with which it has a close but complicated alliance, and Iran, which it considers a regional menace. But U.S. officials have also expressed skepticism about whether Iran will change its behavior.

“If this dialogue leads to concrete actions by Iran to curb its destabilizing activities in the region, including the proliferation of dangerous weapons, then of course, we would welcome that,” said Vedant Patel, the principal deputy State Department spokesman.

While the reopening of embassies would mark a major step forward, the extent of the rapprochement could depend on peace efforts in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia has been at war with the Iran-backed Houthi rebels since 2015, following the rebels’ capture of the capital and much of northern Yemen.

Saudi Arabia is also deeply suspicious of Iran’s nuclear program, which has advanced significantly since the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from a 2015 agreement with world powers to curb Iran’s atomic activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

“I know from my conversations with the Saudis, they are going to be watching the Yemen space,” Tim Lenderking, the Biden administration’s envoy for Yemen, told a think-tank audience in Washington earlier this week.

“If the Iranians want to show that they’re really turning a corner on the conflict, then there won’t be smuggling of weapons to the Houthis anymore in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.” He pointed to alleged Iranian involvement in smuggling narcotics as well.

Lenderking cited Iran’s support for an ongoing truce there as a recent positive sign, and called on Iran to support political efforts for a lasting peace agreement.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the restoration of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran is “a very important development” to increase stability in the region, spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Thursday.

India Elected To UN Statistical Body As China Suffers Diplomatic Rout

In a sign of India’s growing diplomatic influence, it has been elected to the UN Statistical Commission and two other bodies while China suffered a diplomatic rout unable to get the required votes for the Commission when it squared off against India.

India was elected unopposed in two elections on Wednesday by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the Programme Coordinating Board of the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS.

Picture : TheUNN

In the election to the Statistical Commission where China was competing with India for seats earmarked for the Asia Pacific region India received 46 of the 53 votes for the Statistical Commission electing it to one of the two seats for the Asia Pacific region in the first round of voting.

China came in third with paltry 19 votes, while South Korea received 23 and the United Arab Emirates 15, necessitating a second round of balloting because none of them received the majority of 27 votes required for election to the region’s second seat under the rules.

China’s poor performance in the Statistical Commission election, securing only 19 votes and trailing South Korea was a surprise because of the extensive diplomatic and economic campaigns it has undertaken around the world.

In the runoff between China and South Korea, they tied with 25 votes each and under the rules, ECOSOC President Lachezara Stoeva drew lots to break the tie and Seoul was picked.

India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar tweeted, “India’s expertise in the field of statistics, diversity & demography has earned it a seat on the UN Statistical Commission”. He congratulated India’s UN Mission team for “for coming through so strongly in a competitive election”.

Seats on most UN bodies are allocated by region, although all countries vote to pick the candidates from the region. India, which will begin its term on the Statical Commission in 2024, returns after 20 years having completed its last term in 2004.

The Statistical Commission bills itself as “the highest body of the global statistical system bringing together the chief statisticians from member states from around the world”.

It sets statistical standards and develops concepts and methods, at the national and international levels.

India, China To Account For Half Of Global Economic Growth In 2023

The period of slower economic activity will be prolonged, with the next five years witnessing less than 3 per cent growth.

The IMF chief on Thursday said that the world economy is expected to grow at less than 3 per cent this year, with India and China expected to account for half of global growth in 2023.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing director Kristalina Georgieva warned that a sharp slowdown in the world economy last year following the raging pandemic and Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine would continue this year.

The period of slower economic activity will be prolonged, with the next five years witnessing less than 3 per cent growth, “our lowest medium-term growth forecast since 1990, and well below the average of 3.8 per cent from the past two decades,” she said.

“Some momentum comes from emerging economies — Asia especially is a bright spot. India and China are expected to account for half of global growth in 2023. But others face a steeper climb,” she explained.

“After a strong recovery in 2021 came the severe shock of Russia’s war in Ukraine and its wide-ranging consequences — global growth in 2022 dropped by almost half, from 6.1 to 3.4 per cent,” Georgieva said.

Georgieva said slower growth would be a “severe blow,” making it even harder for low-income nations to catch up.

“Poverty and hunger could further increase, a dangerous trend that was started by the COVID crisis,” she explained.

Her comments come ahead of next week’s spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, where policy-makers will convene to discuss the global economy’s most pressing issues.

The annual gathering will take place as central banks around the world continue to raise interest rates to tame galloping inflation rates.

About 90 per cent of advanced economies are projected to see a decline in their growth rates this year, she said.

For low-income countries, higher borrowing costs come at a time of weakening demand for their exports, she said.

Georgieva added that while the global banking system had “come a long way” since the 2008 financial crisis, “concerns remain about vulnerabilities that may be hidden, not just at banks but also non-banks. “Now is not the time for complacency.”

De-Dollarization Gaining Momentum As Countries Seek Alternatives To Dollar

The U.S. dollar has dominated global trade and capital flows over many decades. However, many nations are looking for alternatives to the greenback to reduce their dependence on the United States.

This graphic catalogs the rise of the U.S. dollar as the dominant international reserve currency, and the recent efforts by various nations to de-dollarize and reduce their dependence on the U.S. financial system.

The global de-dollarization campaign is gaining momentum, as countries around the world seek alternatives to the hegemony of the US dollar.

The global de-dollarization campaign is gaining momentum, as countries around the world seek alternatives to the hegemony of the US dollar. China, Russia, Brazil, India, ASEAN nations, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are now using local currencies in trade.

The Dollar Dominance

The United States became, almost overnight, the leading financial power after World War I. The country entered the war only in 1917 and emerged far stronger than its European counterparts.

As a result, the dollar began to displace the pound sterling as the international reserve currency and the U.S. also became a significant recipient of wartime gold inflows.

The dollar then gained a greater role in 1944, when 44 countries signed the Bretton Woods Agreement, creating a collective international currency exchange regime pegged to the U.S. dollar which was, in turn, pegged to the price of gold.

Picture : Elements of visual capitalist

By the late 1960s, European and Japanese exports became more competitive with U.S. exports. There was a large supply of dollars around the world, making it difficult to back dollars with gold. President Nixon ceased the direct convertibility of U.S. dollars to gold in 1971. This ended both the gold standard and the limit on the amount of currency that could be printed.

Although it has remained the international reserve currency, the U.S. dollar has increasingly lost its purchasing power since then.

Russia and China’s Steps Towards De-Dollarization

Concerned about America’s dominance over the global financial system and the country’s ability to ‘weaponize’ it, other nations have been testing alternatives to reduce the dollar’s hegemony.

As the United States and other Western nations imposed economic sanctions against Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine, Moscow and the Chinese government have been teaming up to reduce reliance on the dollar and to establish cooperation between their financial systems.

Since the invasion in 2022, the ruble-yuan trade has increased eighty-fold. Russia and Iran are also working together to launch a cryptocurrency backed by gold, according to Russian news agency Vedmosti. In addition, central banks (especially Russia’s and China’s) have bought gold at the fastest pace since 1967 as countries move to diversify their reserves away from the dollar.

How Other Countries are Reducing Dollar Dependence

De-dollarization it’s a theme in other parts of the world as well. In recent months, Brazil and Argentina have discussed the creation of a common currency for the two largest economies in South America.

In a conference in Singapore in January, multiple former Southeast Asian officials spoke about de-dollarization efforts underway. The UAE and India are in talks to use Rupees to trade non-oil commodities in a shift away from the dollar, according to Reuters.

For the first time in 48 years, Saudi Arabia said that the oil-rich nation is open to trading in currencies besides the U.S. dollar. Despite these movements, few expect to see the end of the dollar’s global sovereign status anytime soon. Currently, central banks still hold about 60% of their foreign exchange reserves in dollars.

The 10 Happiest Countries in the World in 2023

Individual happiness is subjective, but some factors contribute to a happy society no matter where you are, according to the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. For the past 11 years, the nongovernmental organization has ranked more than 150 countries based on their citizens’ self-evaluations of their quality of life, including social support, income, health, freedom, generosity, and lack of corruption.

Picture : CNN

And while the big winners continue to be the Nordic countries of Finland, Denmark, and Iceland, the report also points out that despite multiple world crises, including the war in Ukraine, global life satisfaction is “just as high as in the pre-pandemic years.”

“The overall goal is a happier society,” professor Richard Layard, co-director of the Wellbeing Programme at the London School of Economics and editor of the report, said in a press release. “But we only get there if people make each other happy (and not just themselves). It’s an inspiring goal for us as individuals. And it includes the happiness of future generations — and our own mental health.”

Now, check out the top 10 countries that seem to have figured out the formula for a happy society.

  1. Finland

This Nordic nation has been crowned the happiest in the world for a record sixth time. While its final score (7.804) is slightly lower than last year’s (7.821), Finland is still considerably ahead of other countries. And it’s not keeping its secret to happiness to itself. The country recently announced that it’s holding a “Masterclass of Happiness” to help people “find their ‘inner Finn’ and master the Finnish state of mind.” On the agenda? Professional coaches will help participants connect with nature among the peaceful scenery of Kuru Resort in the Lakeland region, known for its stunning landscapes and lakes.

  1. Denmark

With a total score of 7.586, Denmark maintains its status as a runner-up this year, too. The country where hygge is a way of life is also proof that high taxes don’t necessarily mean an unhappy nation. While Danish people pay the highest personal income tax in Europe (almost 56 percent), its citizens benefit from a comprehensive social welfare system, including free education and health care that seems to leave them pretty content.

  1. Iceland

Not only is the Land of Fire and Ice one of the happiest in the world, it’s also the safest. The country tops the World Economic Forum’s 2022 Global Gender Gap Report, having closed more than 90 percent of its gender gap. What else makes Icelandic people happy? A high income, a stable economy, a lack of corruption, generosity, free education, and a strong sense of community, to name a few. And we’re certain that having access to some of the most stunning natural landscapes in the world helps, too.

  1. Israel

The most significant change in this year’s ranking is Israel, which jumped five spots to number four — its highest since the report’s launch in 2012. Experts explain this with the country’s fast recovery post-COVID (the economy expanded by 6.5 percent and GDP per capita increased 4.4 percent). Additionally, Israelis have strong social connections and high life expectancy, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

  1. Netherlands

The Netherlands comes in fifth with a score of 7.403, mirroring last year’s ranking. Aside from its endless tulip fields (which makes us happy), the country’s economy was recently praised for its resilience and robust recovery compared to the rest of the EU in the latest report by the International Monetary Fund. Plus, affordable higher education, an excellent job market, a strong sense of community, and high civic engagement all reinstate a sense of happiness in Dutch society.

  1. Sweden

Sweden moved up one spot to sixth this year. Despite recording more deaths from COVID-19 than other Nordic nations, the country’s score was slightly higher than last year’s. Air and environmental pollution in Sweden are the second lowest after Finland, resulting in better life expectancy, according to data from OECD. A high employment rate and gender equality (more than 80 percent) also lead to better life satisfaction in Sweden.

  1. Norway

It’s easy to see why Norwegians consider themselves a happy nation. With tuition-free education, a high income rate, low levels of corruption, and a robust social support network, Norway has been a fixture on the top 10 happiest countries ranking, and it even topped it in 2017. With an abundance of natural attractions such as fjords, mountains, lush forests, lakes, and regular northern lights sightings, people don’t have to travel far to find a quiet spot to unwind and recharge.

  1. Switzerland

While Switzerland fell four spots since last year, the country is still home to some of the happiest (and healthiest) people in the world, thanks to low crime rates, a high GDP per capita, and beautiful mountain scenery that welcome year-round recreation. According to the World Happiness Report, Swiss people also relate positive life satisfaction with “prosociality,” like volunteering and charitable donations.

  1. Luxembourg

Luxembourg made its debut among the top 10 happiest countries last year under number six, but it fell to number nine in 2023 with a score of 7.228. While it’s one of the smallest and least populous nations in Europe (it’s slightly smaller than Rhode Island), Luxembourg is actually one of the wealthiest countries in the world when it comes to GDP per capita. Safety, high public trust, and diversity all contribute to a greater sense of happiness in locals here (half of which have a foreign nationality).

  1. New Zealand

Similar to last year, New Zealand occupies the tenth spot on the list of world’s happiest countries. After the nation opened post-COVID in April 2022, it has seen a steady stream of visitors helping it recover and, in some industries, even beat pre-pandemic levels.

But aside from a high GDP per capita, New Zealand residents — even those who live in cities — are lucky to have access to incredible beaches, lakes, and vineyards. The country also outperforms other OECD places in many well-being factors, including education, health, and civic engagement.  (Courtesy:https://www.travelandleisure.com/happiest-countries-in-the-world-in-2023-7373739)

US Lawmakers Strip China of “Developing Nation” Status

(IPS) – As signs of a new Cold War are fast emerging at the United Nations, the US continues its war of words with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The rivalry, which extends from Russia and Taiwan to Iran and Myanmar – where the UN’s two permanent members are on opposite sides of ongoing political or military conflicts– has now triggered a battle on semantics.

Is China, described as the world’s second largest economy ranking next to the US, really a “developing nation”?

The US House of Representative unanimously passed a bill March 27 directing the Secretary of State Antony Blinken to strip the PRC of its “developing country” status in international organizations

Titled “PRC Is Not a Developing Country Act” — the bill cleared the House in an overwhelming 415-0 vote. The legislation reads: “It should be the policy of the United States—

(1) to oppose the labeling or treatment of the People’s Republic of China as a developing country in any treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party;

(2) to oppose the labeling or treatment of the People’s Republic of China as a developing country in each international organization of which the United States is a member; and

(3) to pursue the labeling or treatment of the People’s Republic of China as an upper middle-income country, high income country, or developed country in each international organization of which the United States is a member”.

At the United Nations, China is closely allied with the 137-member Group of 77 (G77), the largest single coalition of “developing countries” (a group created in 1964 with 77 members).

Since China is not a formal member of the G77, the group describes itself either as “The G77 and China” or “The G77 plus China.”

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, a former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN and a former UN Under-Secretary-General, told IPS the defining of a developing country is a complex challenge.

“There is no established framework or charter for defining a “developing country,” he noted

According to well-respected economist Jeffrey Sachs, the current divide between the developed and developing world is largely a phenomenon of the 20th century. Some economists emphasize that the binary labeling of countries is “neither descriptive nor explanatory”.

For the UN system, the G77, which provides the collective negotiating platform of the countries of the South, is in reality synonymous with nations which are identified as “developing countries, least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries and small island developing states” (SIDS).

“They are all sub-groupings of developing countries and belong to the G-77, he pointed out.

Outlining the group’s history, he said, the G-77 was established in 1964 by seventy-seven developing countries, signatories of the “Joint Declaration” issued at the end of the first session of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva.

Although members of the G-77 have increased to 134 countries, the original name was retained due to its historic significance. Developing countries tend to have some characteristics in common, often due to their histories or geographies, said Ambassador Chowdhury, Chairman of the Administrative and Budgetary Committee (Fifth Committee) of the UN General Assembly in 1997-98 and Chair of the Group of 27, working group of G-77, in 1982-83.

In October 1997, he said, China joined the G-77 while keeping its special identity by proposing the nomenclature as “G-77 and China”. China aligns its positions on the global economic and social issues with G-77 positions for negotiating purposes.

Being the largest negotiating group in the United Nations, and in view of the mutuality of their common concerns, G-77 is not expected to agree to separate China from the current collaborative arrangements.

“And more so, if the pressure comes from the US delegation, in view of the recent resolution of the House of Representatives of the US Congress, to take away the categorization of China as a developing country”, declared Ambassador Chowdhury.

In a World Bank Data Blog, Tariq Khokhar, Global Data Editor & Senior Data Scientist and Umar Serajuddin, Manager, Development Data Group, at the World Bank, point out that the IMF, in the “World Economic Outlook (WEO)” currently classify 37 countries as “Advanced Economies” and all others are considered “Emerging Market and Developing Economies” according to the WEO Statistical Annex.”

The institution notes that “this classification is not based on strict criteria, economic or otherwise” and that it’s done in order to “facilitate analysis by providing a reasonably meaningful method of organizing data.”

The United Nations has no formal definition of developing countries, but still uses the term for monitoring purposes and classifies as many as 159 countries as developing, the authors argue.

Under the UN’s current classification, all of Europe and Northern America along with Japan, Australia and New Zealand are classified as developed regions, and all other regions are developing.

The UN maintains a list of “Least Developed Countries” which are defined by accounting for GNI per capita as well as measures of human capital and economic vulnerability.

“While we can’t find the first instance of “developing world” being used, what it colloquially refers to — the group of countries that fare relatively and similarly poorly in social and economic measures — hasn’t been consistently or precisely defined, and this “definition” hasn’t been updated.”

“The World Bank has for many years referred to “low and middle income countries” as “developing countries” for convenience in publications, but even if this definition was reasonable in the past, it’s worth asking if it has remained so and if a more granular definition is warranted.”

In its legislation, the US House of Representatives says “not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report identifying all current treaty negotiations in which—

(a) Any international organization of which the United States and the People’s Republic of China are both current member states, the Secretary, in coordination with the heads of other Federal agencies and departments as needed, shall pursue—

(1) changing the status of the People’s Republic of China from developing country to upper middle income country, high income country, or developed country if a mechanism exists in such organization to make such a change in status;

(2) proposing the development of a mechanism described in paragraph (1) to change the status of the People’s Republic of China in such organization from developing country to developed country; or

(3) regardless of efforts made pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), working to ensure that the People’s Republic of China does not receive preferential treatment or assistance within the organization as a result of it having the status of a developing country.

(b) The President may waive the application of subsection (a) with respect to any international organization if the President notifies the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 10 days before the date on which the waiver shall take effect, that such a waiver is in the national interests of the United States.

Speaking during the debate, Representative Young Kim (Republican of California) said: “The People’s Republic of China is the world’s second largest economy, accounting for 18.6 percent of the global economy.”

“Their economy is second only to that of the United States. The United States is treated as a developed country, so should PRC,” Kim said. “And is also treated as a high-income country in treaties and international organizations, so China should also be treated as a developed country.”

“However, the PRC is classified as a developing country, and they’re using this status to game the system and hurt countries that are truly in need,” she added.

Elaborating further, Ambassador Chowdhury said the World Bank, as a part of the Bretton Woods institutions, classifies the world’s economies into four groups, based on gross national income per capita: high, upper-middle, lower-middle, and low income countries.

In 2015, the World Bank declared that the “developing/developed world categorization” had become less relevant and that they will phase out the use of that descriptor.  Instead, their reports will present data aggregations for regions and income groups.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) accepts any country’s claim of itself being “developing”.

He said certain countries that have become “developed” in the last 20 years by almost all economic metrics, still wants to be classified as “developing country”, as it entitles them to a preferential treatment at the WTO – countries such as Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates.

The term “Global South“, used by some as an alternative term to developing countries, began to Scinbe mentioned more widely since about 2004.

The Global South refers to these countries’ interconnected histories of colonialism, neo-imperialism, and differential economic and social change through which large inequalities in living standards, life expectancy, and access to resources are maintained.  “Most of humanity resides in the Global South,” declared Ambassador Chowdhury. (IPS UN Bureau Report)

Finland Joins NATO, Doubling NATO’s Border With Russia In A Blow For Putin

Finland officially became the 31st member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on Tuesday, April 4th, 2023 marking a major shift in the security landscape in northeastern Europe that adds some 1,300 kilometers (830 miles) to the NATO Alliance’s frontier with Russia.

The Nordic nation’s accession was sealed during a formal ceremony at the NATO headquarters in Brussels on Tuesday. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg were on hand as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Pekka Haavisto, established Finland’s accession.

“Finland has today become a member of the defense alliance NATO. The era of military non-alignment in our history has come to an end. A new era begins,” the Finnish presidency said in a statement.

“Each country maximizes its own security. So does Finland. At the same time, NATO membership strengthens our international position and room for maneuver. As a partner, we have long actively participated in NATO activities. In the future, Finland will make a contribution to NATO’s collective deterrence and defense,” it added.

Reports say, Finland’s acceptance into the US-led security alliance presents a blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has long sought to undermine NATO, and before invading Ukraine, demanded the bloc refrain from further expansion.

The invasion instead drove non-aligned Finland and Sweden to abandon their neutrality and seek protection within NATO, though Sweden’s attempt to join the bloc has been stalled by alliance members Turkey and Hungary.

On the eve of induction ceremony, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg heralded the raising of the Finnish flag for the first time at the alliance’s headquarters in Belgium, saying “it will be a good day for Finland’s security, for Nordic security, and for NATO as a whole.”

But Russia has warned that further NATO expansion will not bring more stability to Europe, and on Monday said it would scale up forces near Finland if the alliance sent any troops or equipment to the new member country.

“We will strengthen our military capabilities in the west and northwest if NATO members deploy forces and equipment on Finnish territory,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told Russian state news agency RIA Novosti.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov reiterated that Finland’s accession will force Moscow to “take counter-measures to ensure our own security, both tactically and strategically.”

Prior to Tuesday, Russia shared about 1,215 kilometers (755 miles) of land border with five NATO members. Finland’s accession more than doubles NATO’s land border with Russia.

Stoltenberg said Putin had “failed” in his attempt to “slam NATO’s door shut. Today, we show the world that he failed, that aggression and intimidation do not work. Instead of less NATO, he has achieved the opposite – more NATO – and our door remains firmly open,” he added.

“Joining NATO is good for Finland. It is good for Nordic security and it’s good for NATO as a whole. Finland brings substantial and highly capable forces expertise on national resilience and years of experience working side by side with NATO allies.”

What it means for Finland and the alliance

Finland’s NATO membership guarantees the northern European nation access to the resources of the entire alliance in the event of attack.

It includes the protection offered by NATO’s Article 5 principle, which states that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all members. It’s been a cornerstone of the 30-member alliance since it was founded in 1949 as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

NATO membership also better integrates Finnish forces in training and planning with NATO allies.

The country is no stranger to working with NATO, with its troops regularly participating in NATO exercises under a partner status.

The Finnish Defense Force also operate some of the same weapons systems as other NATO members, including US-made F/A-18 fighters, German-designed Leopard main battle tanks and K9 Howitzers used by Norway and Estonia among others.

Helsinki has also signed on the F-35 stealth fighter program, which will allow its air force to work smoothly with NATO members including the US, UK, Norway, Italy, Canada, Poland, Denmark and the Netherlands.

A November report from the Washington-based Wilson Center lists three key areas where Finland benefits NATO: reserve forces, technology access and artillery forces.

“Finland’s artillery forces are the largest and best-equipped in western Europe,” the report said.

“With some 1,500 artillery weapons, including 700 Howitzer guns, 700 heavy mortar, and 100 rocket launcher systems, the Finnish artillery has more artillery firepower than the combined militaries of Poland, Germany, Norway, and Sweden can currently muster,” it said.

The Wilson Center report also noted Finland’s strong cyber security record, pointing out the country is home to Nokia, “a major provider of 5G infrastructure,” and one of three major providers of 5G infrastructure in the world, along with Sweden’s Ericsson and China’s Huawei.

And it said Finland can muster 900,000 reserves who have been trained as conscripts in its armed forces. The wartime strength of Finnish forces is 280,000 troops, it says.

Sweden still waiting

Finland’s accession comes days after Turkey’s parliament voted to ratify the country’s membership, clearing the final hurdle for the country to join NATO and putting an end to months of delays.

Finnish and Swedish public support for joining NATO surged following the invasion of Ukraine. “Everything changed when Russia invaded Ukraine,” outgoing Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin said last April. “People’s mindset in Finland, also in Sweden, changed and shifted very dramatically.”

NATO has an open-door policy, meaning that any country can be invited to join if it expresses an interest, as long as it is able and willing to uphold the principles of the alliance’s founding treaty.  However, under the accession rules, any member state can veto a new country from joining.

An overwhelming majority of NATO members welcomed Finland and Sweden’s applications, but two countries – Turkey and Hungary – began to stall the process.  Turkey and Hungary later softened their stance on Finland’s accession, opening the door to its membership in March, while continuing to block Sweden’s membership application.

There is hope for Sweden’s bid, however. Stoltenberg said Finland’s accession is “in itself something we should celebrate” but that it was also good for Sweden.  “It makes Sweden more integrated into NATO and makes Sweden even more safer,” Stoltenberg said. “At the same time we celebrate and enjoy that Finland is now a full-fledged member, we should continue work to finalize the Swedish accession process.”

Finland’s fold into the alliance also reignited calls from Ukraine to join.

“Finland’s accession is a clear message that the time to revise old strategies and old perceptions has come and there is no better solution to ensuring Euro-Atlantic security as a whole than eventual membership of Ukraine in NATO,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said as he was welcomed to the NATO headquarters by Stoltenberg on Tuesday.

World leaders welcome Finland’s accession

A chorus of NATO members congratulated Finland as it joined the alliance on Tuesday.  “Finland, welcome to NATO,” Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak tweeted. “This is a historic day for you and for our alliance. It’s a step that makes every one of us safer. All NATO members now need to take the necessary steps to admit Sweden, so we stand together as one to defend freedom in Europe and across the world.”  He also called on Turkey and Hungary to ratify Sweden’s bid for NATO membership.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz also hailed Finland’s accession to NATO.  “Finland is now a member of #NATO – this is good news and a victory for transatlantic security. With #Finland, our defense alliance has gained a strong friend,” he tweeted.  Scholz also gave his backing to Sweden’s bid to join the military alliance.

Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, tweeted: “I warmly welcome the accession of #Finland to @NATO. This historic step will strengthen the Alliance, reinforce European & Transatlantic security and contribute to further fostering our #EU-NATO strategic partnership.”

World’s Population To Decline To 6 Billion By The 2100

A new model has predicted that Earth’s population is likely to decrease in all scenarios across the next century and will peak nowhere near the 11 billion previously forecast.

Population growth could grind to a halt by 2050, before decreasing to as little as 6 billion humans on Earth in 2100, a new analysis of birth trends has revealed.

The study, commissioned by the nonprofit organization The Club of Rome, predicts that if current trends continue, the world’s population, which is currently 7.96 billion (opens in new tab), will peak at 8.6 billion in the middle of the century before declining by nearly 2 billion before the century’s end.

The forecast is both good and bad news for humanity: A plummeting human population will slightly alleviate Earth’s environmental problems, but it is far from being the most important factor in solving them.

And falling populations will make humanity older as a whole and lower the proportion of working-age people, placing an even greater burden on the young to finance health care and pensions. The researchers — members of the Earth4All collective (opens in new tab), which is made up of environmental scientists and economists — published their findings March 27 in a working paper (opens in new tab).

“We know rapid economic development in low-income countries has a huge impact on fertility rates,” Per Espen Stoknes (opens in new tab), director of the Centre for Sustainability at Norwegian Business School and the project lead of Earth4All, said in a statement (opens in new tab). “Fertility rates fall as girls get access to education and women are economically empowered and have access to better healthcare.”

The study is a follow-up to The Club of Rome’s 1972 Limits to Growth study, which warned the world of an imminent “population bomb.” The new result diverges from other recent population forecasts. For instance, in 2022, the United Nations estimated (opens in new tab) that the world population would reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and rise to 10.4 billion by 2100. U.N. estimates from a decade ago suggested the population would reach 11 billion (opens in new tab).

Other models forecast population growth based on factors that affect women’s social independence and bodily autonomy, such as access to education and contraception. Earth4All’s model is slightly more complex, integrating variables connected to the environment and the economy. These include energy abundance, inequality, food production, income levels and the impacts of future global warming.

The model predicted two possible outcomes for the future human population. The first, “business-as-usual” case — in which governments continue on their current trajectories of inaction, creating ecologically fragile communities vulnerable to regional collapses — would see populations rise to 9 billion people by 2050 and decline to 7.3 billion in 2100. The second, more optimistic scenario — in which governments invest in education, improved equality and green transitions — would result in 8.5 billion people on the planet by the century’s halfway point and 6 billion by 2100.

The team also investigated the connection between population sizes and the planet’s ability to sustain human populations. They found that, contrary to popular Malthusian narratives, population size is not the key factor driving climate change. Instead, they pinned the blame on high levels of consumption by the world’s richest individuals, which they say must be reduced.

“Humanity’s main problem is luxury carbon and biosphere consumption, not population,” Jorgen Randers (opens in new tab), one of the modelers at the Norwegian School of Business and a member of Earth4All, said in the statement. “The places where population is rising fastest have extremely small environmental footprints per person compared with the places that reached peak population many decades ago.”

Netanyahu Succumbs To Mass Protests, Delays Judicial Overhaul

(AP) — Bending to a wave of mass protests, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delayed his contentious judicial overhaul plan Monday and said he wanted “to avoid civil war” by making time to seek a compromise with political opponents.

The announcement appeared to calm some of the tensions that have fueled three tumultuous months of unrest. But it failed to address the underlying issues that have polarized the nation, and the anti-government protest movement vowed to intensify its efforts.

In his prime-time address, Netanyahu, who had previously rejected calls to delay the legislation, took a more conciliatory tone than in recent speeches. He acknowledged the deep divisions in the country and said he was hitting the pause button “to prevent a rift in the nation.”

“When there’s an opportunity to avoid civil war through dialogue, I, as prime minister, am taking a timeout for dialogue,” he said. He vowed to reach a “broad consensus” during the summer session of parliament, which begins on April 30.

He spoke after tens of thousands of Israelis demonstrated outside parliament, and the country’s largest labor union launched a nationwide strike in a dramatic escalation of the mass protest movement against his plan.

Netanyahu and his religious and ultranationalist allies presented the overhaul in January just days after forming their government, the most right-wing in Israel’s history.

The proposal has plunged Israel into its worst domestic crisis in decades. Business leaders, top economists and former security chiefs have all come out against the plan, saying it is pushing the country toward an autocracy. Fighter pilots and military reservists have threatened not to report for duty, and the country’s currency, the shekel, has tumbled in value.

The plan would give Netanyahu, who is on trial on corruption charges, and his allies the final say in appointing the nation’s judges. It would also give parliament, which is controlled by his allies, authority to overturn Supreme Court decisions and limit the court’s ability to review laws.

Netanyahu has argued that the overhaul is needed to rein in a liberal and overly interventionist court of unelected judges. But his opponents say the package would damage the country’s system of checks and balances by concentrating power in the hands of Netanyahu’s allies. They also say that he has a conflict of interest as a criminal defendant.

Tens of thousands of people, largely secular, middle-class Israelis, have regularly joined mass protests against the plan.

Those demonstrations ramped up Sunday night after Netanyahu abruptly fired Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who had urged the prime minister to put his plan on hold, citing concerns about damage to the Israeli military.

The firing sparked a spontaneous outburst of anger, with tens of thousands of people taking to the streets in just one hour.

Chanting “the country is on fire,” they lit bonfires on Tel Aviv’s main highway, closing the thoroughfare and many others throughout the country for hours.

Demonstrators continued Monday outside the Knesset, or parliament, turning the streets surrounding the building and the Supreme Court into a roiling sea of blue-and-white Israeli flags dotted with rainbow Pride banners.

“This is the last chance to stop this move into a dictatorship,” said Matityahu Sperber, 68, who joined a stream of people headed to the protest outside the Knesset. “I’m here for the fight to the end.”

Israel’s main trade union, the histadrut, declared a general strike in what it said was the first time it has carried out such an action over a political issue.

The chaos shut down much of the country and threatened to paralyze the economy. Departing flights from the main international airport were grounded, stranding tens of thousands of travelers.

Large mall chains and universities closed their doors, and the union called for its 800,000 members to stop work in health care, transit, banking and other fields.

Diplomats walked off the job at foreign missions, and local governments were expected to close preschools and cut other services. The main doctors union announced that its members would also strike.

In a sign of easing tensions, the union said late Monday that it was halting the strike in response to Netanyahu’s delay.

The announcement appeared to buy the embattled Netanyahu several weeks of quiet. But it was far from clear whether the disputes could be resolved.

The country’s figurehead president, Isaac Herzog, said pausing the legislative blitz was “the right thing.”

“This is the time for frank, serious and responsible discussion that will lead urgently to calming spirits and lowering the flames,” he said.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid said he was willing to hold a “genuine dialogue” under Herzog’s sponsorship.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, an ultranationalist who has pushed for quick passage of the package, said he would respect the delay but showed few signs of compromise.

“The reform will pass,” he tweeted. “No one will scare us.”

The first of a series of laws — giving the coalition control over judicial appointments — had been scheduled to pass this week.

Before Netanyahu’s speech, some 20,000 right-wing Israelis attended a counter demonstration in support of the prime minister. That demonstration also took place near parliament and passed without violence.

“They won’t steal the election from us,” read a flyer for event, organized by Religious Zionist party. Netanyahu said he was “moved” by the show of support.

Shikma Bressler, one of the leaders of the anti-government protest movement, said the campaign would continue until the legislation is canceled.

“This is just an attempt to weaken the protests in order to enact Netanyahu’s dictatorship,” she said. “Now is not the time to reduce the pressure, but to increase it.”

Dozens of protesters from rival sides faced off late Monday in central Tel Aviv. The sides, kept apart by police, exchanged insults, but there was no violence. Police used a water cannon to disperse anti-government protesters.

Israel’s Palestinian citizens have largely sat out the protests. Many say Israel’s democracy is tarnished by its military rule over their brethren in the West Bank and the discrimination they themselves face.

The Biden administration, which has been uneasy with Netanyahu and the far-right elements of his government, welcomed the announcement as “an opportunity to create additional time and space for compromise,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters.

Talks Between Xi And Putin’s Talks In Moscow Fail To End Ukraine War

Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in  Moscow this week for a bilateral Summit. As per reports, the meetings yielded no breakthrough on resolving the conflict in Ukraine.

Both leaders called for the cessation of actions that “increase tensions” and “prolong” the war in Ukraine, according to their joint statement released by China’s Foreign Ministry. The statement did not acknowledge that Russia’s invasion and military assault were the cause of ongoing violence and humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.

The leaders also urged NATO to “respect the sovereignty, security, interests,” of other countries – a reference that appeared to echo long-standing rhetoric from both countries blaming the Western security alliance for provoking Russia to invade.

Discussion of China’s murky proposal to end the war in Ukraine appeared only in the last section of their joint statement, offering no specifics about a way forward. In a warning to Western countries supporting Ukraine, it said that any settlement to the crisis must “prevent the formation of confrontational blocs that add fuel to the flames.”

China’s peace plan for Ukraine could be used as a basis to end the war, Vladimir Putin has said. But, Putin said the plan could be put forward only when they are ready “in the West and Kyiv”.

China’s plan, published last month, does not explicitly call for Russia to leave Ukraine.

Listing 12 points, it calls for peace talks and respect for national sovereignty, without specific proposals. But Ukraine has insisted on Russia withdrawing from its territory as a condition for any talks – and there is no sign that Russia is ready to do that.

In a joint news conference after talks with Xi, Putin said: “Many provisions of the Chinese peace plan can be taken as the basis for settling of the conflict in Ukraine, whenever the West and Kyiv are ready for it.” But Russia had yet to see such “readiness” from the other side, he added.

Xi Jinping has wrapped up a state visit to Moscow, where he held nearly three full days of talks with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. The two men have a close relationship and have met 40 times now in the last decade.

Putin had long been shunned by Western leaders over the invasion. And yet in meetings with Xi before cameras, the Chinese leader praised Putin’s “strong leadership” — even encouraging Russians to support another term for their president when he stands for reelection in 2024.

Xi said he was “very happy” to be in Moscow and described talks with President Putin as “frank, open and friendly”. His visit to Russia came days after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for President Putin on war crimes allegations.

The New York Times summed up the visit this way: “Talk of Ukraine was overshadowed by Mr. Xi’s vow of ironclad solidarity with Russia as a political, diplomatic, economic and military partner: two superpowers aligned in countering American dominance and a Western-led world order. The summit showed Mr. Xi’s intention to entrench Beijing’s tilt toward Moscow against what he recently called an effort by the United States at the full-fledged “containment” of China.”

International Criminal Court Issues Arrest Warrant For Putin

The International Criminal Court has reported that it has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes, accusing him of personal responsibility for the abductions of children from Ukraine.

According to reports, this is the first time the global court has issued a warrant against a leader of one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. The ICC said in a statement that Putin “is allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of (children) and that of unlawful transfer of (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.”

ICC President Piotr Hofmanski said in a video statement that while the ICC’s judges have issued the warrants, it will be up to the international community to enforce them. The court has no police force of its own to do so.

The ICC said its pre-trial chamber found “reasonable grounds” that Putin “bears individual criminal responsibility” for the child abductions “for having committed the acts directly, jointly with others and/or through others” and for failing to “exercise control properly over civilian and military subordinates who committed the acts.”

If tried and found guilty, the ICC can impose a maximum sentence of life imprisonment “when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime,” according to its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, that established it as a permanent court of last resort to prosecute political leaders and other key perpetrators of the world’s worst atrocities — war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The move was immediately dismissed by Moscow — and welcomed by Ukraine as a major breakthrough. Its practical implications, however, could be limited as the chances of Putin facing trial at the ICC are highly unlikely because Moscow does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction or extradite its nationals.

But the moral condemnation will likely stain the Russian leader for the rest of his life — and in the more immediate future, whenever he seeks to attend an international summit in a nation bound to arrest him.

Ukraine’s human rights chief, Dmytro Lubinets, has said that based on data from the country’s National Information Bureau, 16,226 children were deported. Ukraine has managed to bring back 308 children.

“So, Putin might go to China, Syria, Iran, his … few allies, but he just won’t travel to the rest of the world and won’t travel to ICC member states who he believes would … arrest him,” said Adil Ahmad Haque, an expert in international law and armed conflict at Rutgers University.

Others agreed. “Vladimir Putin will forever be marked as a pariah globally. He has lost all his political credibility around the world. Any world leader who stands by him will be shamed as well,” David Crane, a former international prosecutor, told The Associated Press.

The court also issued a warrant for the arrest of Maria Lvova-Belova, the commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation. The AP reported on her involvement in the abduction of Ukrainian orphans in October, in the first investigation to follow the process all the way to Russia, relying on dozens of interviews and documents.

Still, the chances of Putin or Lvova-Belova facing trial remain extremely remote, as Moscow does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction — a position it vehemently reaffirmed last week. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia doesn’t recognize the ICC and considers its decisions “legally void.” He called the court’s move “outrageous and unacceptable.” Peskov refused to comment when asked if Putin would avoid making trips to countries where he could be arrested on the ICC’s warrant.

Lvova-Belova, who was also implicated in the warrants, reacted with dripping sarcasm. “It is great that the international community has appreciated the work to help the children of our country, that we do not leave them in war zones, that we take them out, we create good conditions for them, that we surround them with loving, caring people,” she said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called it a “historic decision, from which historic responsibility will begin.” Sergiy Kyslytsya, Ukraine’s U.N. ambassador, recalled that on the night of Russia’s invasion, “I said at the Security Council meeting that there is no purgatory for war criminals, they go straight to hell. Today, I would like to say that those of them who will remain alive after the military defeat of Russia will have to make a stop in The Hague on their way to hell.”

In Washington, President Joe Biden called the ICC’s decision “justified,” and that Putin “clearly committed war crimes.” While the US does not recognize the court either, Biden said it “makes a very strong point” to call out the Russian leader’s actions in ordering the invasion.

While Ukraine is also not a member of the global court, it has granted it jurisdiction over its territory and ICC prosecutor Karim Khan has visited four times since opening an investigation a year ago. Besides Russia and Ukraine, the United States and China are not members of the 123-member ICC.

During a visit this month, ICC prosecutor Khan said he went to a care home for children 2 kilometers (just over a mile) from front lines in southern Ukraine. “The drawings pinned on the wall … spoke to a context of love and support that was once there,” he said in a statement. “But this home was empty, a result of alleged deportation of children from Ukraine to the Russian Federation or their unlawful transfer to other parts of the temporarily occupied territories. As I noted to the United Nations Security Council last September, these alleged acts are being investigated by my office as a priority. Children cannot be treated as the spoils of war,” Khan said.

And while Russia rejected the allegations and warrants, others said the ICC action will have an important impact. “The ICC has made Putin a wanted man and taken its first step to end the impunity that has emboldened perpetrators in Russia’s war against Ukraine for far too long,” said Balkees Jarrah, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch. “The warrants send a clear message that giving orders to commit, or tolerating, serious crimes against civilians may lead to a prison cell in The Hague.”

Crane, who indicted Liberian President Charles Taylor 20 years ago for crimes in Sierra Leone, said dictators and tyrants around the world “are now on notice that those who commit international crimes will be held accountable.” Taylor was eventually detained and put on trial at a special court in the Netherlands. He was convicted and sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment.

On Thursday, a U.N.-backed inquiry cited Russian attacks against civilians in Ukraine, including systematic torture and killing in occupied regions, among potential issues that amount to war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. The sweeping investigation also found crimes committed against Ukrainians on Russian territory, including deported Ukrainian children who were prevented from reuniting with their families, a “filtration” system aimed at singling out Ukrainians for detention, and torture and inhumane detention conditions.

Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has issued a warrant for President Vladimir Putin’s arrest, it is no more than the first step in a very long process. The United Nations clearly believes there is sufficient evidence to accuse the Russian leader of war crimes in Ukraine.

The court was established in 2002 by a treaty known as the Rome Statute. This statute lays down that it is the duty of every state to exercise its own criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes. The ICC can only intervene where a state is unable or unwilling to carry out the investigation and prosecute perpetrators. In all, 123 states have agreed to abide by it, but there are some significant exceptions, including Russia.

The idea of trying people for crimes against humanity pre-dates the existence of the ICC. It began in 1945 after World War Two with the Nuremberg Trials, which were held to punish key members of the hierarchy in Nazi Germany for the Holocaust and other atrocities.

Those included Nazi leader Adolf Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess, who was sentenced to life imprisonment and died by his own hand in 1987. Putin has not actually been charged with crimes against humanity, even though US Vice-President Kamala Harris has argued that he should be.

The arrest warrant is being seen as a signal from the international community that what is taking place in Ukraine is against international law. The court says the reason it is going public with these warrants is that these crimes are continuing. In doing so, it is trying to deter further crimes taking place.

Senate Resolution Expresses US Support, Recognizing Entire Arunachal As Integral Part Of India

US Senators Bill Hagerty and Jeff Merkley have introduced a bipartisan Senate resolution reaffirming the US’ recognition of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as an “integral part of the Republic of India”.

The resolution comes following a major clash between India and China in the Eastern Sector along the Line of Actual Control in six years.

China claims India’s Arunachal Pradesh as part of its territory, calling it “Southern Tibet”. The two countries fought a bloody battle in 1962 in the region.

Named after British official Sir Henry McMahon, it’s a frontier between Tibet and colonial India in the eastern sector which was negotiated during the 1914 Simla Convention. China has never recognized this boundary though.

The present de facto border, the Line of Actual Control (LAC), runs from Arunachal Pradesh in the east to Ladakh in the west.

Picture : Monday India

“This bipartisan resolution expresses the Senate’s support for unequivocally recognizing the state of Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of India, condemning China’s military aggression to change the status quo along the Line of Actual Control,” Senator Bill Hagerty, who along with Senator Jeff Merkley introduced a resolution in the Senate, said on Tuesday.

 Furthermore, the resolution commends India for taking steps to defend itself against aggression and security threats from China. These efforts include securing India’s telecommunications infrastructure; examining its procurement processes and supply chains; implementing investment screening standards; and expanding its cooperation with Taiwan in public health and other sectors.

“At a time when China continues to pose grave and gathering threats to the Free and Open Indo-Pacific, it’s critical for the US to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our strategic partners in the region — especially India,” said Senator Hagerty in a statement.

“This bipartisan resolution expresses the Senate’s support for unequivocally recognizing the state of Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of India, condemning China’s military aggression to change the status quo along the Line of Actual Control, and further enhancing the US-India strategic partnership and the Quad in support of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific.

“America’s values supporting freedom and a rules-based order must be at the center of all of our actions and relationships around the world — especially as the Chinese government pushes an alternative vision,” said Senator Merkley.

“This resolution makes clear that the US views the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as part of India — not China — and commits the US to deepening support and assistance to the region, alongside like-minded international partners and donors.”

The resolution reaffirms that the US recognizes the McMahon Line as the international boundary between China and the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and pushes back against China’s claims that Arunachal Pradesh is its territory, which is a part of China’s increasingly aggressive and expansionist policies, the statement said.

The Senators’ resolution condemns additional Chinese provocations, including China’s use of military force to change the status quo along the Line of Actual Control, construction of villages in contested areas, publication of maps with Mandarin-language names for cities and features in the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and expansion of Chinese territorial claims in Bhutan.

Furthermore, the resolution commends the Indian government for taking steps to defend itself against aggression and security threats from China. These efforts include securing India’s telecommunications infrastructure; examining its procurement processes and supply chains; implementing investment screening standards; and expanding its cooperation with Taiwan in public health and other sectors, the Senators said.

After Saudi-Iran Deal, China Seeks Bigger Global Role

When Saudi Arabia and Iran buried the hatchet in Beijing last week, it was a game-changing moment both for a Middle East shaped by their decades-old rivalry, and for China’s growing influence in the oil-rich region.

The announcement was surprising yet expected. The two regional powerhouses have been in talks to re-establish diplomatic relations for nearly two years. At times, negotiators seemed to drag their feet, the deep distrust between the two countries appearing immovable.

Iran’s talks with Saudi Arabia were unfolding at the same time as negotiations between Iran and the United States to revive the 2016 nuclear deal were faltering. The outcomes of both sets of Iran talks seemed interlinked – Riyadh and Washington have long walked in lockstep on foreign policy.

Picture : NBC

But a shift in regional alliances is afoot. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the US has become strained in recent years, while China’s standing has risen. Unlike Washington, Beijing has shown an ability to transcend the many rivalries that crisscross the Middle East. China has forged good diplomatic relations with countries across the region, driven by strengthening economic ties, without the Western lectures on human rights.

Meanwhile, President Xi Jinping has called for China to play a bigger role in managing global affairs after Beijing scored a diplomatic coup as the host of talks that produced an agreement by Saudi Arabia and Iran to reopen diplomatic relations.

Xi gave no details of the ruling Communist Party’s plans in a speech to China’s ceremonial legislature. But Beijing has been increasingly assertive since he took power in 2012 and called for changes in the International Monetary Fund and other entities it says fail to reflect the desires of developing countries.

China should “actively participate in the reform and construction of the global governance system” and promote “global security initiatives,” said Xi, the country’s most powerful leader in decades. That will add “positive energy to world peace and development,” Xi said.

Last week, Xi was named to another term in the ceremonial presidency after breaking with tradition in October and awarding himself a third-five year term as general secretary of the ruling party, putting himself on track to become leader for life.

The National People’s Congress on March 12th cemented Xi’s dominance by endorsing the appointment of his loyalists as premier and other government leaders in a once-a-decade change. Xi has sidelined potential rivals and loaded the top ranks of the ruling party with his supporters.

The new premier, Li Qiang, tried Monday to reassure entrepreneurs but gave no details of possible plans to improve conditions after Xi’s government spent the past decade building up state companies that control banking, energy, steel, telecoms and other industries.

Li’s comments echoed promises by other Chinese leaders over the past six months to support entrepreneurs who generate jobs and wealth. They have vowed to simplify regulations and taxes but have given no indication they plan to rein in state companies that entrepreneurs complain drain away their profits.

The ruling party will “treat enterprises of all types of ownership equally” and “support the development and growth of private enterprises,” Li said. “Our leading cadres at all levels must sincerely care about and serve private enterprises,” he said.

Chinese officials earlier indicated anti-monopoly and data security crackdowns that knocked tens of billions of dollars off the stock market value of e-commerce giant Alibaba Group and other tech companies were ending. But entrepreneurs were rattled anew in February when a star banker who played a leading role in tech deals disappeared. Bao Fan’s company said he was “cooperating in an investigation” but gave no details.

Li said Beijing will make a priority of job creation as it tries to revive economic growth that sank to 3% last year, the second-lowest level in decades. This year’s official growth target is “around 5%.”

The premier expressed confidence China can cope as its workforce shrinks. The number of potential workers age 15 to 59 has fallen by more than 5% from its 2011 peak, an unusually abrupt decline for a middle-income country.

Li said that while China is losing its “demographic dividend” of young workers, better education means it is gaining a “talent dividend.” He said some 15 million people still enter the workforce every year. “Abundant human resources is still China’s outstanding advantage,” he said.

Abroad, Beijing also has built on China’s growing heft as the second-largest economy to promote trade and construction initiatives that Washington, Tokyo, Moscow and New Delhi worry will expand its strategic influence at their expanse.

Those include the multibillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative to construct ports, railways and other trade-related infrastructure across an arc of countries from the South Pacific through Asia to Africa and Europe. China also is promoting trade and security initiatives.

A “Global Security Initiative” issued in February said China is “ready to conduct bilateral and multilateral security cooperation with all countries.” It offered to help African countries resolve disputes and to set up a “new security framework in the Middle East.”

Also last month, Beijing called for a cease-fire in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy welcomed Chinese involvement but said success would require action in addition to words. Beijing has refused to criticize President Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine and has accused Western governments of provoking the invasion.

The agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia could herald the end of a blood-drenched era in the Middle East. Riyadh and Tehran have been at ideological and military loggerheads since Iran’s Islamic Revolution installed an anti-Western, Shia theocracy in 1979.

Those tensions began to escalate into a region-wide proxy war after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq spiraled into civil conflict, with both Iran and Saudi Arabia vying for influence in the petrol-rich Arab country. Armed conflict that pitted Saudi-backed militants against Iran-backed armed groups washed over much of the region in the decade and a half that followed.

In Yemen, a Saudi-led coalition military campaign to quash Iranian-backed rebels triggered one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. In Syria, Iran supported President Bashar al-Assad as he brutalized his own people, only to find his forces facing off with rebels backed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. In Lebanon too, Iran and Saudi Arabia have backed different factions, contributing to a two-decade-long political crisis that has exacted a huge economic and security toll on the tiny eastern Mediterranean country.

Diplomatic relations were officially severed in 2016 when Saudi Arabia executed prominent Shia Saudi cleric Nimr al-Nimr, leading rioters in Tehran to torch the Saudi embassy.

But a slew of economic problems triggered by the pandemic and costly wars may have eroded the appetite for conflict, and Saudi and Iranian officials say they are eager to turn the page on that dark chapter.

The détente appears to go far beyond the resumption of diplomatic relations. Saudi and Iranian officials say they will also work to reimplement a decades-old security cooperation pact and revive an even older agreement on technology, and trade.

It’s a rare piece of good news for a region still reeling from their rivalry. How that plays out – and whether it can undo the havoc wreaked by the rivalry – remains to be seen.

But analysts say that China’s growing leverage in the region helped hedge both countries’ bets, changing a now-outdated political calculus that once made Western capitals the most likely venue for watershed regional accords.

“China is now the godfather of this agreement and given China’s strategic importance to Iran, that holds tremendous weight,” said Ali Shihabi, a Saudi analyst familiar with the Saudi leadership’s thinking.

Millions Of Israelis Protesting Against Netanyahu’s Judicial Overhaul

Demonstrators across the nation blocked streets and major highways throughout Israel on March 16, 2023 continuing nationwide protests over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s plan to overhaul the country’s judicial system. Despite the widespread unrest, the conservative administration appeared determined to move forward with legislation that would upend Israel’s legal system by handing Netanyahu’s government full control over the country’s judiciary, with the sovereignty of the Supreme Court also at stake.

Netanyahu and his allies say the country’s unelected judges have too much power and need to be reined in. His opponents say that Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption charges, has a deep conflict of interest. They say his planned overhaul will destroy the country’s democratic checks and balances and is a poorly disguised plot to make his criminal case go away.

Picture : CNN

Last week, half a million Israelis took to the streets in the tenth consecutive week of protests against plans by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu to overhaul the country’s judicial system, organizers claimed. Israel has a population of just over 9 million, so if organizers’ estimates are correct, about 5% of Israelis came out to voice their opposition to the proposed reforms.

Nearly half of the protesters – about 240,000 – gathered in Tel Aviv, the organizers said. In Jerusalem, several hundred demonstrators gathered in front of President Isaac Herzog’s house. They carried Israeli flags and chanted slogans including “Israel will not be a dictatorship.”

On Thursday, Herzog – whose role is largely ceremonial – urged the Netanyahu government to take the judicial overhaul legislation off the table. Protesters and critics of Netanyahu’s plan say it would weaken the country’s courts and erode the judiciary’s ability to check the power of the country’s other branches of government.

The package of legislation would give Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, the power to overrule Supreme Court decisions with a simple majority. It would also give the government the power to nominate judges, which currently rests with a committee composed of judges, legal experts and politicians.

It would remove power and independence from government ministries’ legal advisers, and take away the power of the courts to invalidate “unreasonable” government appointments, as the High Court did in January, forcing Netanyahu to fire Interior and Health Minister Aryeh Deri.

Critics accuse Netanyahu of pushing the legislation in order to get out of corruption trials he is currently facing. Netanyahu denies that, saying the trials are collapsing on their own, and that the changes are necessary after judicial overreach by unelected judges.

Israel does not have a written constitution, but a set of what are called Basic Laws. “We are done being polite,” said Shikma Bressler, an Israeli protest leader. “If the laws being suggested will pass, Israel will no longer be a democracy.”

About two out of three (66%) Israelis believe the Supreme Court should have the power to strike down laws incompatible with Israel’s Basic Laws, and about the same proportion (63%) say they support the current system of nominating judges, according to a poll last month for the Israel Democracy Institute.

“The only thing this government cares about is crushing Israeli democracy,” opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yair Lapid said. The proposal has touched off deep political discord in Israel in recent weeks, with public turmoil reaching a fever pitch one day after Netanyahu and members of his right-wing coalition snubbed a proposal by President Isaac Herzog that was widely supported as a viable alternative to the controversial shakeup.

Herzog and protest leaders have continued to warn that political chaos gripping the nation had potential to ignite a civil war unless a compromise could be reached soon.

‘Historic’ Deal To Protect High Seas Agreed By UN Member States

More than 100 UN member-states have finally agreed, following years of talks, to a draft of the first international UN treaty to protect the high seas, a fragile and vital treasure that covers nearly half the planet. After years of negotiations, negotiators from more than 100 countries completed the UN treaty – a long-awaited step that environmental groups say will help reverse marine biodiversity losses and ensure sustainable development.

Once adopted, the treaty will be legally binding on the member-states. Pending for 15 years. Aimed at conserving and ensuring the sustainable use of ocean biodiversity, this treaty’s draft was agreed upon on Saturday, a day after the original deadline, in New York after 15 years of negotiation.

Among the contentious issues was an agreement to share the benefits of “marine genetic resources” used in biotech and other industries, dragging out the talks.

In June 2022, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had declared an “ocean emergency” at the UN Ocean Conference in Portugal, citing threats to the world’s oceans.

What are the high seas?
High seas are oceanic areas beyond the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) — beyond 200 nautical miles from the coastlines — of the countries. They are under the jurisdiction of no country.

High seas comprise more than 60% of the world’s oceans, and nearly half the planet’s surface.

Only about 1% of the high seas are currently protected.

Nearly 10% of marine species are facing the risk of extinction, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Oceans regulate global climate in — providing oxygen for human and animal life, driving weather systems and storing about 25% of the carbon dioxide generated by human activities.

The legally binding pact to conserve and ensure the sustainable use of ocean biodiversity, under discussion for 15 years, was finally agreed after five rounds of protracted UN-led negotiations.

The treaty is seen as a crucial component in global efforts to bring 30 percent of the world’s land and sea under protection by the end of the decade, a target known as “30 by 30” agreed in Montreal, Canada, in December last year.

The treaty will also oblige countries to conduct environmental impact assessments of proposed activities on the high seas.

Economic interests were a major sticking point throughout the latest round of negotiations, which began on February 20, with developing countries calling for a greater share of the spoils from the “blue economy”, including the transfer of technology.

An agreement to share the benefits of “marine genetic resources” used in industries like biotechnology also remained an area of contention until the end, dragging out talks.

What are high seas?

The high seas begin at the border of countries’ exclusive economic zones, which extend up to 370km (200 nautical miles) from coastlines.  Beyond that point, the seas are under the jurisdiction of no country.

Even though the high seas comprise more than 60 percent of the world’s oceans and nearly half the planet’s surface, they have long drawn far less attention than coastal waters and a few iconic species.

Ocean ecosystems create half the oxygen humans breathe and limit global warming by absorbing much of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities. But they are threatened by climate change, pollution and overfishing.

Only about 1 percent of the high seas are currently protected.

‘Victory for multilateralism’

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commended the delegates, according to a spokesperson, who said the agreement was a “victory for multilateralism and for global efforts to counter the destructive trends facing ocean health, now and for generations to come”.

“It is crucial for addressing the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution,” a UN statement said.

Greenpeace says 11 million square km (4.2 million square miles) of ocean needs to be put under protection every year until 2030 to meet the target.

“Countries must formally adopt the treaty and ratify it as quickly as possible to bring it into force, and then deliver the fully protected ocean sanctuaries our planet needs,” said Laura Meller, a Greenpeace oceans campaigner who attended the talks.

“The clock is still ticking to deliver 30 by 30. We have half a decade left, and we can’t be complacent.”

G-20 Concludes In India With Divisions On Ukraine War

The G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting was unable to agree to a joint communique here Thursday over sharp differences on the Russia-Ukraine war between the US-led West on one side and Russia-China on the other.

Top diplomats from the Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations ended their contentious meeting in New Delhi on Thursday, March 2nd with no consensus on the Ukraine war, India’s foreign minister said, as discussions of the war and China’s widening global influence dominated much of the talks.

Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said there were “divergences” on the issue of war in Ukraine that “we could not reconcile, as various parties held differing views.”

“If we had a perfect meeting of minds on all issues, it would have been a collective statement,” Jaishankar said. He added that members agreed on most issues involving the concerns of less-developed nations, “like strengthening multilateralism, promoting food and energy security, climate change, gender issues and counter-terrorism.”

Picture : Reuters

Jaishankar, who chaired two sessions of discussions at the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting on March 2, 2023 said that the twenty countries that make up the G20 were in agreement on a range of global issues. Speaking at a press meet after the meeting, Jaishankar said, “Despite the challenges of the divergent positions on the conflict in Ukraine, the G20 foreign ministers were able to come to a consensus on addressing key challenges.”

As per reports, China and Russia objected to two paragraphs taken from the previous G-20 declaration in Bali last year, according to a summary of Thursday’s meeting released by India. The paragraphs stated that the war in Ukraine was causing immense human suffering while worsening weak spots in the global economy, and affirmed the need to uphold international law and that “the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.”

A summary issued by Host India stated: “The war in Ukraine has further adversely impacted the global economy. There was a discussion on the issue. We reiterated our national positions as expressed in other fora, including the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, which, in Resolution No. ES-11/1 dated 2 March 2022, as adopted by majority vote (141 votes for, 5 against, 35 abstentions, 12 absent) deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and demands its complete and unconditional withdrawal from the territory of Ukraine.

“Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine and stressed it is causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy – constraining growth, increasing inflation, disrupting supply chains, heightening energy and food insecurity, and elevating financial stability risks. There were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions. Recognizing that the G20 is not the forum to resolve security issues, we acknowledge that security issues can have significant consequences for the global economy.”

Host India had appealed for all members of the fractured G-20 to reach consensus on issues of deep concern to poorer countries even if the broader East-West split over Ukraine could not be resolved. While some attendees, including U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, chose to highlight their positive roles in addressing world crises, the divide was palpable.

The talks began with a video address to the foreign ministers by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He urged them not to allow current tensions to destroy agreements that might be reached on food and energy security, climate change and debt.

“We are meeting at a time of deep global divisions,” Modi told the group, which included Blinken, Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang and their Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, whose discussions would naturally be “affected by the geopolitical tensions of the day.”

Modi said: “We all have our positions and our perspectives on how these tensions should be resolved. … We should not allow issues that we cannot resolve together to come in the way of those we can.”

While, on the surface, this is a repeat of stated positions, what is significant is that both US and India said that the outcome document was approved by an overwhelming majority. In what marks a calibrated step forward, Washington backed Delhi’s statement that the Chair’s summary – put out by India as Chair of the G-20 — was a product of consensus on a variety of issues.

“With the foreign ministers of the Group of 20 leading economies meeting  in New Delhi, host India is promoting itself as a rising superpower while leveraging its position on the global stage to bridge the gap between the West and Russia,”  analysts stated.

The Coming Of Age Of Indian Americans

“Despite constituting less than 1% of the U.S. population, Indian-Americans are 3% of the nation’s engineers, 7% of its IT workers and 8% of its physicians and surgeons,” wrote the popular Forbes magazine in 2008. “The overrepresentation of Indians in these fields is striking–in practical terms, your doctor is nine times more likely to be an Indian-American than is a random passerby on the street.”

Fifteen years later, in 2023, the story of the Indian Americans has grown even stronger; their successes encompassing almost all areas of American life – living  the American Dream.  The less than four million Indian Americans appear to be gaining prominence and have come to be recognized as a force to reckon with in this land of opportunities that they have come to call as their adopted homeland.

Picture : TheUNN

In fact, Indian Americans have for some time been considered a “model minority” in the US — they are better educated, have better jobs, are wealthier than many other immigrant populations and enjoy both political and business clout. Here’s data that points to these factors:

At a virtual interaction with Nasa scientists who were involved in the historic landing of Perseverance on Mars on March 3, US President Joe Biden remarked, “Indian-of-descent Americans (sic) are taking over the country. You (Swati Mohan), my Vice President (Kamala Harris), my speech writer (Vinay Reddy).”

Biden, who was sworn in as the 46th president of the United States on January 20, is in a good place to judge that. He has created history by appointing at least 55 Indian-of-descent Americans to key positions in his administration. And of course, his vice- president, Kamala Harris, is also an American of Indian-descent.

The rise of Kamala Harris, daughter of an Indian mother, as the Vice President represents a coming-of-age of the Indian American community in the United States. Harris was born to civil rights activist parents a year before the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was passed; this Act relaxed the quota regime that restricted foreigners. At that time, there was one Indian American lawmaker in the US House of Representatives — the Punjab-born Dalip Singh Saund, also from California.

The Senate India Caucus was created in 2004. Harris was elected to the US Senate in 2016. The following year, four Indian Americans were elected to the US House of Representatives, and more were elected to the Senate and Congress of other states. Two other persons of Indian origin — Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley — served as Governors of Louisiana and South Carolina, respectively, in that period.

In 2022, there are as many as five persons of Indian Origin have been elected to the House of Representatives:  Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ro Khanna, Dr Ami Bera, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, and Shri Thanedar, a Karnataka-born entrepreneur – have been re-elected to the US House of Representatives

Today, more Indian Americans hold public office than ever before. However, politics is far from being the only sphere in which the Indian diaspora has gained influence in the last few decades.

Historically, Indians in the US worked in medicine, science & technology, engineering and mathematics-related jobs. Some, like the Patel community from Gujarat, took to the hotel industry and grew to dominate it. Others were entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley after the digital revolution of the 1980s.

In 1997, Ramani Ayer became the CEO of the Fortune 500 financial firm The Hartford, becoming the first in the list of Indian leaders heading American businesses.

At present, 2% of the Fortune 500 companies of American origin — including Microsoft, Alphabet, Adobe, IBM, and MasterCard — are led by Indian American CEOs. One in every seven doctors in America is of Indian descent;

Numbering about 3.8 million, or about 1.2 per cent of the US population, the Indian diaspora in the US is the richest, most educated and among the most successful ethnic groups in that country – pulling ahead of even white Americans on most counts. More than 75 per cent of Indian Americans have arrived in the US after 1990.

Picture : Quora

Looking ahead to the 2024 Presidential Elections, there are as many as three of them are seeking their way to be on the ballot. Two of the three Republicans who have announced plans so far to enter the US presidential race are Indian-Americans. While Nikki Haley is a familiar name, surprise candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is much less well known. If President Biden seeks reelection, the current Vice President, Harris is likely ot be on the ballot as his running mate in 2024.

Ramaswamy, a multimillionaire entrepreneur and author of the book Woke, Inc., announced his presidential bid on 21 February with an appearance on a Fox News show and a video laying out his political views. He wants to launch a “cultural movement to create a new American dream” based on the “pursuit of excellence” – and he says “diversity is meaningless if there’s nothing greater that binds” people.  The 37-year-old, who was born in Ohio, studied at Harvard and Yale, earned his millions as a biotechnology entrepreneur and then founded an asset management firm.

Democrat Shekar Narasimhan, founder and chairman of the AAPI (Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders) Victory Fund, says that while he is happy to see more Asian-Americans gain prominence in politics, he isn’t confident about Mr Ramaswamy’s ideas.

“He is a business guy and has a clean slate, but what are his promises?” Mr Narasimhan asks. “Does he care about medical care for the elderly? What are his plans for infrastructure spending? He doesn’t have fixed positions and has not articulated his policies yet.”

Indian-American Republicans are predicting a “three-way race between Mr Trump, Mr DeSantis and Ms Haley” and prefer to wait instead of forging early alliances, especially as there is still uncertainty around the former president’s legal battles.

Dr. Sampat Shivangi says that he admires Ms Haley’s aggressive campaigning style and would support her in case Mr Trump is forced to withdraw from the race. “Mr Trump has 40% ratings and Ms Haley is in single digits, but she is our candidate. Her being Indian-American is the main reason why we are close to her,” he says.

Irrespective of political differences, the Indian-American community is happy about the sharp increase in their political participation, especially over the last three election cycles, and is proud of the rise of another of their own.

“A beautiful thing is happening: Indian-Americans are coming to the forefront,” Mr Gaekwad says, adding that the latest bid could encourage more Indian-Americans to run for elections even at the local level.  Even political opponents agree with that.  “If our children see Americans with a name like Ramaswamy run, and a Khanna or Krishnamoorthi can win, that’s a good thing,” Narasimhan says.

Nikki Haley Wants To Block US Aid To Countries ‘That Hate Us’

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley vowed on Friday to strip U.S. aid for countries that she said “hate us” if elected president.  Haley said in an op-ed in The New York Post that taxpayers deserve to know where U.S. foreign aid is going and would be “shocked” to learn that much of it is supporting “anti-American” countries and causes.

She claimed that the United States has given more than $1 billion in recent years to Iraq, which she said is increasing ties to “murderous thugs” in Iran who have shouted “Death to America.” Iraq and Iran have improved their relations in recent years after a long history of being adversaries.

Haley noted that the U.S. has sent aid to Pakistan despite more than a dozen terrorist organizations residing there and China for “ridiculous” environmental programs.

“This is not just Joe Biden. It’s been happening for decades under presidents of both parties. Our foreign-aid policies are stuck in the past,” she wrote. “They typically operate on autopilot, with no consideration for the conduct of the countries that receive our aid.

She added that she is running for president to “restore our nation’s strength,” pride in the country and the public’s trust.  “Backing American allies and friends like Israel and Ukraine is smart. Sending our tax dollars to enemies isn’t,” Haley said. “That’s why I will cut every cent in foreign aid for countries that hate us. A strong America doesn’t pay off the bad guys.”

Haley, who previously served as ambassador to the United Nations under the Trump administration and governor of South Carolina, said she often saw countries that “bashed” the United States in public and then privately “begged” it for money.

She said she supported former President Trump’s decision to cut almost $2 billion in military aid to Pakistan, but it did not go far enough.  Haley became the second major Republican to launch their bid for the GOP nomination for president in 2024 earlier this month, following Trump into the race. Polling has shown Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis leading in hypothetical Republican primary polls.

G-20 Finance Ministers To Address Global Economic Concerns In Bengaluru

(AP) Top financial leaders from the Group of 20 leading economies are gathering in Bengaluru this week to tackle myriad challenges to global growth and stability, including stubbornly high inflation and surging debt.

India is hosting the G-20 financial conclave for the first time in 20 years. Later in the year it will convene its first summit of G-20 economies. The meetings offer the world’s second most populous country a chance to showcase its ascent as an economic power and its status as a champion of developing nations.

The gathering of finance ministers and central bank governors takes place just a year after Russia invaded Ukraine, setting off a cascade of shocks to the world economy, chief among them decades-high inflation. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is expected to address the global economic impacts of the war while at the G-20 meetings.

India is among the countries treading lightly between the Western nations and Russia, eager to claim more global sway but wary of becoming embroiled in antagonisms as its economy benefits from purchases of discounted Russian crude oil.

“India has a growing leadership role globally,” Information Minister Anurag Thakur, said Wednesday, reiterating Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s stance that “today’s era is not of war. Dialogues and discussions are the only way forward.”

As host of more than 200 G-20 meetings in 28 cities leading up to the summit in November, Modi is expected to use that role to burnish India’s stature as a leader in fighting climate change and to act as a bridge between the interests of industrialized nations and developing ones.

Why Can’t The World Agree On Ukraine?

By Emma Ashford, a columnist at Foreign Policy and a senior fellow with the Reimagining U.S. Grand Strategy program at the Stimson Center, and Matthew Kroenig, a columnist at Foreign Policy and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

Emma Ashford: Hey, Matt! Greetings from sunny Cartagena, Colombia, where I’m talking about U.S. foreign policy. I’m about as far from the war in Ukraine as you can get, yet with the war’s one-year anniversary this week, Ukraine is still looming large in discussions of the United States and its global role.

Matthew Kroenig: Colombia sounds nice. I was a bit closer to Ukraine this weekend at the Munich Security Conference, and Ukraine was obviously the dominant topic on the agenda there too.

How is the war being perceived in the global south?

Picture : Foreign Policy

EA: I’d draw a pretty clear distinction between two groups of countries. First, the Western coalition that the Biden administration has pulled together, which is quite united in its continued opposition to Russia and—at least in general—its willingness to bear some costs to do so. That’s the group you undoubtedly interacted with most in Munich, and I suspect the message you heard from it was quite triumphalist, focused on the success of U.S. and European efforts to arm Ukraine and turn the tide of the war on the ground.

The second group, however, comprises a wide variety of Latin American, African, and Asian states, many of which are conflicted about their response to Ukraine. Most of them oppose the invasion itself, but they’re also wary of damaging their ties with Russia and also extremely worried about spiraling costs created by the conflict in food and energy prices globally. That’s a much more mixed picture for U.S. officials to manage.

Did I characterize the Munich crowd correctly?

In Munich, there was a kind of naive assumption that if the West just takes the right steps, everyone will fall into line.

MK: Yes and no. There seemed to be a consensus that the outcome of the war would have enormous consequences for the future of European and even global security. Accordingly, the common view was that the goal needed to be a Ukrainian victory—and for many also a Russian defeat.

The global south was, however, another major topic of conversation. People were genuinely puzzled as to how so much of the world could be agnostic on the issue of a war of aggression in Europe. The search for answers, however, was often superficial and revealed what former U.S. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster calls “strategic narcissism.”

The question seemed to be: “What did we do wrong?” Officials and experts wondered, for example, whether wealthy governments should have provided more COVID-19 relief. There was a kind of naive assumption that if the West just takes the right steps, everyone will fall into line. Instead, they should have showed some strategic empathy and tried to understand the issue from the perspective of the global south’s interests.

I assume you were able to see things more from that point of view in Cartagena.

EA: I think it really highlights that for all the valuable things about meetings like the Munich Security Conference, Aspen Security Forum, or World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, they do often have a tendency to produce groupthink among like-minded officials and experts. I hope that some of the African and Latin American delegates in attendance were able to impress upon their European counterparts that it is hardly difficult to understand their viewpoint: They have interests, including the basic economic needs of their own populations, at stake in this conflict.

For that reason, I suspect Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s speech to the conference—in which he promised that China would shortly be presenting a peace plan for Ukraine, which Beijing has now revealed—might have been popular among some of those delegates. Of course, it seemed to be undermined almost immediately: Wang headed straight to Moscow after the conference, and U.S. officials alleged that Beijing is considering sending arms to Moscow to help its efforts in the war. So much for the appearance of Chinese impartiality!

MK: I’m glad you mentioned China and Russia because they are part of the other major grouping you left out above. The world is increasingly divided into three blocs: the free world (the United States and its formal allies in Europe and Asia), the revisionist autocracies (China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and a few less capable rogues like Syria, Eritrea, and Belarus), and the new nonaligned movement (everyone else!).

China’s plan at Munich seemed to be to try to drive a wedge between Europe and the United States. Wang’s speech talked about how Europe and China could work together, but “hysterical” Americans have lost their minds and are shooting down weather balloons. You are right that they also tried to be the good guys by offering up promises of a peace plan—never mind that they only talked to the Russians, not the Ukrainians, about the plan.

China’s posturing at the conference was undermined most by the Biden administration releasing intelligence suggesting that China was preparing to provide weapons to Russia. Nothing could have made Beijing more unpopular in Europe than indications that it was getting ready to arm Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It was similar to Biden’s attempts during the early stage of the war in Ukraine to deter actions by revealing intelligence. Let’s hope it works this time.

EA: It was innovative the first time around, but at some point, I imagine it will cease to be an effective approach. Worth a try though, I guess.

The problem with these two conflicting worldviews—Western and Russian/Chinese—is that I think the last year has mostly shown they’re both wrong. The world isn’t fully united in opposing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and they’re definitely not on board with the Biden administration’s democracy versus autocracy framing. But at the same time, the world is not united against the United States, and many countries in the global south and elsewhere view Russian and Chinese intentions with deep suspicion. It suggests a more diverse set of global viewpoints.

And for that reason, I was rather disappointed to see Biden double down on his triumphalist rhetoric about democracy and the war in Ukraine in his big Warsaw speech in Poland.

Shall we chat about Biden’s secret trip to Kyiv and his speech in Warsaw?

MK: Sure. Let’s start with the trip to Ukraine’s capital. I think it was a brave show of support for Ukraine. It was also conducted with amazing operational security. It caught everyone by surprise. I chatted with several senior Biden administration officials in Munich, and none of them let out a peep. I assume you were less impressed.

(Courtesy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/24/why-cant-the-world-agree-on-ukraine/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Editors%20Picks%20OC&utm_term=70516&tpcc=Editors%20Picks%20OC)

A Rematch Between Biden – Trump in 2024?

The United States is slouching towards a presidential election that almost nobody wants. The 2024 vote seems increasingly likely to be a re-match between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

It would be only the seventh re-match in the 59 presidential elections in American history and the first since President Dwight D. Eisenhower faced off against Adlai Stevenson for a second time in 1956.

Voters in both major US political parties are looking for fresh faces to run for president in 2024, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. A majority of Democratic voters, at 52 per cent, do not want Mr Biden to seek a second term, while 40 per cent of Republican voters do not want Mr Trump to seek another term in 2024. Trump, who lost the presidency in 2020 and was impeached by Congress for inciting a riot at the US Capitol but ultimately acquitted by the Senate, announced he would run again in November.

Nearly making it certain, . first lady Jill Biden gave one of the clearest indications yet that President Joe Biden will run for a second term, telling The Associated Press in an exclusive interview on Friday last week that there’s “pretty much” nothing left to do but figure out the time and place for the announcement that Biden will run for US Presidency in 2024.

Although Biden has long said that it’s his intention to seek reelection, he has yet to make it official, and he’s struggled to dispel questions about whether he’s too old to continue serving as president. Biden would be 86 at the end of a second term.

“How many times does he have to say it for you to believe it?” the first lady said in Nairobi, the second and final stop of her five-day trip to Africa. She added, “He says he’s not done. He’s not finished what he’s started. And that’s what’s important.”

Granddaughter Naomi Biden, who is on the trip, cheered the first lady’s comments after the interview.  “Preach nana,” she said on Twitter.

Picture : USA Today

The president himself was asked about his wife’s comments just hours later in an interview with ABC News, and laughed when told of her remarks, adding, “God love her. Look, I meant what I said, I’ve got other things to finish before I get into a full-blown campaign.”

During the interview with ABC’s David Muir, Biden, 80, was asked whether he is considering his age when deciding whether to run again, to which he replied no. However, he said it is “legitimate” for people to raise concerns about it.

Biden aides have said an announcement is likely to come in April, after the first fundraising quarter ends, which is around the time that President Barack Obama officially launched his reelection campaign.

The first lady has long been described as a key figure in Biden’s orbit as he plans his future. “Because I’m his wife,” she laughed.

She brushed off the question about whether she has the deciding vote on whether the president runs for reelection.  “Of course, he’ll listen to me, because we’re a married couple,” she said. But, she added later, “he makes up his own mind, believe me.”

The wide-ranging interview took place on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and Jill Biden recalled her trip into the country last May to meet the besieged country’s first lady, Olena Zelenska.

President Biden said in a new interview that he has “other things to finish” before starting a “full-blown” 2024 presidential campaign. Well, apparently, someone interviewed my wife today, I heard. I gotta call her and find out,” Biden told ABC News’s David Muir when asked if he’s running again.

“No, all kidding aside, my intention … has been from the beginning to run, but there’s too many other things I have to finish in the near-term before I start a campaign,” Biden said.  The president has long said he intends to run for another four years in the White House, and first lady Jill Biden gave a strong indication last week that he’ll do so.

They visited a school that was being used to help migrants who fled the fighting. Some of the families, Jill Biden said, had hid underground for weeks before making their escape.  “We thought then, how long can this go on? And here we are, a year later,” she said. “And look at what the Ukrainian people have done. I mean, they are so strong and resilient, and they are fighting for their country.”

“We’re all hoping that this war is over soon, because we see, every day, the damage, the violence, the horror on our televisions,” the first lady added. “And we just can’t believe it.”

Jill Biden is the only first lady to continue her career in addition to her ceremonial duties, teaching writing and English to community college students. At 71 years old, she said she’s not ready to think about retirement. “I know that I will know when it’s enough,” she said. “But it’s not yet.”

She said she left detailed lesson plans for a substitute teacher while she was on her trip, and she’s been texting with students as she was traveling. She plans to be back in the classroom at 8 a.m. on Tuesday morning, after arriving home from Africa around 3 a.m. Monday.

Education has been a flashpoint in American politics, especially with conservative activists and politicians trying to limit discussion of race and sexuality in classrooms. “I don’t believe in banning books,” she said.

She added: “I think the teachers and the parents can work together and decide what the kids should be taught.” During the interview, Jill Biden reflected on the legacy of former President Jimmy Carter, who recently began home hospice care. The Carter Center, which the former president founded after leaving the White House, was key in helping to eliminate the Guinea worm parasite in African countries.

“That’s the perfect example,” she said. “He’s such a humble man. He didn’t go out and shout, ‘Look what I’ve done.’ He just did the work.” Jill Biden recalled Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, reaching out on the eve of Joe Biden’s inauguration two years ago.  “They called and said congratulations,” she said. “And it meant so much to me and to Joe.”

She also talked about visiting the Carters at their home in Plains, Georgia, early in Biden’s presidency. “It’s not just that here are two presidents. It’s here are two friends,” she said. “Actually four friends, who have really supported one another over the years.

“It’s legitimate for people to raise issues about my age,” he told Muir. “It’s totally legitimate to do that. And the only thing I can say is, ‘Watch me.’” Biden, the oldest president in U.S. history, would be 82 when sworn in if reelected in 2024. Biden’s age has drawn concerns from both sides of the aisle. (Associated Press writer Chris Megerian in Washington contributed to this report.)

India Abstains Again On Key Ukraine Resolution At UN

India abstained in the UN General Assembly on February  22nd, 2023 on a resolution that underscored the need to reach “comprehensive, just and lasting peace” in Ukraine, citing the resolution’s “inherent limitations” in reaching New Delhi’s desired goal of securing lasting peace and ending the conflict which has been raging for one year now.

The 193-member General Assembly adopted the draft resolution, put forward by Ukraine and its supporters, titled Principles of the Charter of the United Nations underlying a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.

The resolution, which got 141 votes in favor and seven against, “underscores the need to reach, as soon as possible, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine in line with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” India was among the 32 countries that abstained.

The resolution called upon member states and international organizations to redouble support for diplomatic efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, consistent with the Charter.

India was among the 32 nations that abstained as the 193-member General Assembly adopted the resolution put forward by Ukraine and its supporters.

Before the UNGA vote, many countries, including the US, Germany and Ukraine, reached out to India seeking its support for the resolution that calls for Russia to end hostilities in Ukraine and demands the withdrawal of its forces.

India’s explanation

In the ‘Explanation of Vote’ after the resolution was adopted, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ruchira Kamboj said that as the General Assembly marks a year of the Ukrainian conflict, “it is important that we ask ourselves a few pertinent questions.

“Are we anywhere near a possible solution acceptable to both sides? Can any process that does not involve either of the two sides, ever lead to a credible and meaningful solution? Has the UN system, and particularly its principal organ, the UN Security Council, based on a 1945-world construct, not been rendered ineffective to address contemporary challenges to global peace and security?” Kamboj said.

In September 2022, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said in his address to the high-level U.N. General Assembly session that in this conflict, India is on the side of peace and dialogue and diplomacy.

“As the Ukraine conflict continues to rage, we are often asked whose side are we on. And our answer, each time, is straight and honest. India is on the side of peace and will remain firmly there. We are on the side that respects the UN Charter and its founding principles. We are on the side that calls for dialogue and diplomacy as the only way out,” Jaishankar had said, adding that it is in the collective interest to work constructively, both within the United Nations and outside, in finding an early resolution to this conflict.

India has also consistently underlined that in the conflict, the entire global South has suffered “substantial collateral damage” and developing countries are facing the brunt of the conflict’s consequences on food, fuel and fertiliser supplies.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the emergency special session of the General Assembly that resumed on February 22 that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is “an affront to our collective conscience” and said it is “high time” to step back from the brink.

“The one-year mark of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine stands as a grim milestone — for the people of Ukraine and for the international community. That invasion is an affront to our collective conscience. It is a violation of the United Nations Charter and international law,” Mr. Guterres said adding that the invasion is having dramatic humanitarian and human rights consequences.

In a strong message, Mr. Guterres said the war is fanning regional instability and fuelling global tensions and divisions while diverting attention and resources from other crises and pressing global issues. “Meanwhile, we have heard implicit threats to use nuclear weapons. The so-called tactical use of nuclear weapons is utterly unacceptable. It is high time to step back from the brink,” he said.

Since Russia’s February 24, 2022 invasion of Ukraine, several UN resolutions have condemned the invasion and underlined the commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine. While most nations have condemned the Russian aggression, India has not condemned Russia’s actions, nor has it taken any known initiatives to end the war and bring peace in the region.

India, which maintains good relations with Russia, has abstained from all these resolutions on Ukraine and consistently underlined the need to respect the UN Charter, international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. New Delhi has also urged that all efforts be made for an immediate cessation of hostilities and an urgent return to the path of dialogue and diplomacy.

Zelensky Is Open To China’s Cease-Fire Proposal

President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday welcomed some elements of a Chinese proposal for a ceasefire in Russia’s war on Ukraine, but said only the country where a war is being fought should be the initiator of a peace plan.

“I believe that the fact that China started talking about Ukraine is not bad, but the question is what follows the words,” Zelensky said at a press conference on Friday, The Associated Press reported.

“I think it’s correct to think that if there are thoughts that, in one way or another, correspond with respect for international law, to territorial integrity… let’s work with China on this point,” he said during a news conference in Kyiv.

China released a 12-point plan for trying to find a resolution in the conflict as the one-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine arrived. The plan includes points calling for respecting all countries’ sovereignty, ending hostilities, resuming peace talks and resolving the humanitarian crisis that has been created by the war.

Picture : ABC News

Zelensky said China’s plan seems to call for protecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine, noting that while it does not mention the country specifically, Ukraine’s territory is the one that has been breached. He said China’s call for nuclear security is in line with Ukrainian and international interests.

Zelensky, who said he believed China did not offer a concrete plan but some “thoughts”, also said there were parts he disagreed with. He urged Beijing not to provide Moscow with arms, but added that it was promising that China – a Russian ally – was considering brokering peace. “Our task is to gather everyone to isolate one,” he said, speaking on the one-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

He said he disagrees with some proposals, but Ukraine should look to work with a plan that respects international law and territorial integrity. He also reportedly said he wants to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Volodymyr Fesenko, the leader of the independent think tank Penta Center in Kyiv, told the AP that he believes Zelensky will try to work with China to prevent Beijing from increasing its ties to Russia.

U.S. officials have warned that China has sent nonlethal aid to support Russia despite officially being neutral in the conflict and is considering sending lethal aid as well. The Pentagon has warned that China will face consequences if it sends weapons or munitions to Russia.  “As long as China comes up with peacemaker initiatives, it will be forced to maintain neutrality and to abstain from supplying weapons and direct military assistance to Russia,” Fesenko said.

1 Year After Putin Invaded Ukraine

War has been a catastrophe for Ukraine and a crisis for the globe. The world is a more unstable and fearful place since Russia invaded its neighbor on Feb. 24, 2022. One year on, thousands of Ukrainian civilians are dead, and countless buildings have been destroyed. Tens of thousands of troops have been killed or seriously wounded on each side. Beyond Ukraine’s borders, the invasion shattered European security, redrew nations’ relations with one another and frayed a tightly woven global economy.

On Feb. 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine—and until that date, the United States had done little to thwart it.  This Friday marks one year since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine. The war has killed thousands, displaced millions, and disrupted global food and energy markets—with no end in sight.  To better understand how this conflict continues to shape geopolitics, and how geopolitics shapes it, Foreign Affairs is publishing an ongoing series of essays about what the war has taught us so far.

The war in Ukraine has touched almost every corner of the world — delivering death and suffering to Ukraine, an energy crisis in Europe, grain shortages in the Middle East and Africa, and compounding inflation across the globe.

“One year later, Kyiv stands. And Ukraine stands. Democracy stands,” the American president said as he stood next to Ukrainian leader Volodomyr Zelensky during his surprise visit to the Ukrainian capital, where life has returned more or less to normal since the initial Russian onslaught.

Inside Russia, all aspects of society and the economy have been warped or reoriented in a sprawling effort to support Vladimir Putin’s war effort.  And while the vast number of casualties have been sustained by Russia and Ukraine, countries from Australia to Zambia have seen their own fighters killed in the war.

While the toll of the war is often described in sweeping statistics — 8 million refugees, 1,000 Russians killed in a day or $500 million in aid — over the past 12 months many groups and individuals have come to symbolize resistance to the war and resilience amid the carnage.

Millions of Ukrainians fled from their homeland in the early days of the war, with mostly women and children leaving their husbands, sons, fathers and brothers to fight the invading forces.

Leading scholars consider why some democracies have not joined the coalition against Russia, why Russian President Vladimir Putin persists despite his disastrous war, what can be learned about contemporary conflict from the battlefields in Ukraine, and more. Start reading below.

NATO was created to prevent a major war in Europe, a task it accomplished well for many decades. Apart from the brief Kosovo war in 1999, its members never had to fight together or coordinate a joint response to aggression—until a year ago, when Russia invaded Ukraine. NATO’s response thus offers fresh, real-world evidence about how contemporary alliances work in practice.  Despite a series of blunders, miscalculations, and battlefield reversals that would have surely seen him thrown out of office in most normal countries, President Vladimir Putin is still at the pinnacle of power in Russia.

He continues to define the contours of his country’s war against Ukraine. He is micromanaging the invasion even as generals beneath him appear to be in charge of the battlefield. (This deputizing is done to protect him from blowback if something goes badly wrong in the war.) Putin and those immediately around him directly work to mobilize Russians on the home front and manipulate public views of the invasion abroad. He has in some ways succeeded in this information warfare.

The war has revealed the full extent of Putin’s personalized political system. After what is now 23 years at the helm of the Russian state, there are no obvious checks on his power. Institutions beyond the Kremlin count for little. “I would never have imagined that I would miss the Politburo,” said Rene Nyberg, the former Finnish ambassador to Moscow. “There is no political organization in Russia that has the power to hold the president and commander in chief accountable.” Diplomats, policymakers, and analysts are stuck in a doom loop—an endless back-and-forth argument among themselves—to figure out what Putin wants and how the West can shape his behavior.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Tuesday that his country would suspend its participation in the New START agreement with the United States, throwing into question the future of the last remaining arms control accord between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. The treaty, which came into force in 2011, places limits on the number of intercontinental nuclear weapons that each country can have and was extended for an additional five years in 2021. Arms control had long been regarded as the last redoubt of constructive collaboration between Washington and Moscow.

Putin showed no signs of backing down as he used his annual state-of-the-nation address to rail against the United States and accuse Ukraine and the West of provoking the war days before the first anniversary of the Russian invasion. “They want to inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on us and try to get to our nuclear facilities at the same time,” Putin said during his nearly 100-minute speech, which was met with applause from Russian lawmakers and senior officials. “In this context, I have to declare today that Russia is suspending its participation in the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms.”

President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday delivered a nuclear warning to the West over Ukraine, suspending a bilateral nuclear arms control treaty, announcing new strategic systems had been put on combat duty and warning that Moscow could resume nuclear tests.

Speaking nearly a year to the day since ordering an invasion that has triggered the biggest confrontation with the West since the depths of the Cold War, Putin said Russia would achieve its war aims and accused the West of trying to destroy Russia.

Cautioning the United States that it was stoking the war into a global conflict, Putin said that Russia was suspending participation in the New START Treaty, the last major arms control treaty between Moscow and Washington.

Responding to Putin’s announcement, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, “With today’s decision on New START, the whole arms control architecture has been dismantled.”

Experts said it’s too soon to interpret Putin’s remarks as heralding a new nuclear arms race, but with the treaty set to expire in 2026, the Russian leader’s announcement will further complicate diplomatic efforts to extend or negotiate a new treaty between the United States and Russia, which together hold about 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The biggest blow to democracy on a global scale was not the war itself but the fact that—despite all “never again” claims—European and Western countries in general agreed and accepted beforehand that another European nation might be deprived of its sovereignty, freedom, and independent institutions, and it might find itself militarily occupied. (If this isn’t how they felt, then they wouldn’t have evacuated their embassies in Kyiv.) President Biden vowed on Tuesday that the United States would “not tire” in its support of Ukraine, describing the American commitment to NATO and Ukraine as a battle for freedom against autocracy in a speech delivered just hours after President Vladimir V. Putin presented a radically different account of the war.

In his national address, Mr. Putin showed no sign that he would change course, instead signaling that Russians should prepare for a long war ahead. He accused the West of a “totalitarian” project to control the world under the guise of spreading liberal values, and declared Russia was suspending the one remaining nuclear arms treaty with the United States.

“They intend to transform a local conflict into a phase of global confrontation. This is exactly how we understand it all and we will react accordingly, because in this case we are talking about the existence of our country.” Defeating Russia, he said, was impossible.

Why Has India Not Condemned Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine?

In the year since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Western democracies have condemned Moscow, slapped wide-ranging sanctions on it, cut back on Russian oil and gas and sent unprecedented amounts of arms and ammunition to help Ukraine defend itself.

But the world’s biggest democracy — India — hasn’t done any of that.

India has solidified ties with Moscow. Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with Vladimir Putin in September and called their countries’ friendship “unbreakable.” He did tell the Russian president it’s “not a time for war.” But a year on, Modi still refuses to assign blame for the violence, and has voiced more concern over the spike in global food and fuel prices triggered by the war.

Meanwhile, as Europe eschews Russian oil and gas, India has doubled down on buying Russian oil at bargain prices — much to Washington’s chagrin. And India continues to place orders for Russian-made weapons.

All this is a reminder that, a year into this war, condemnation of Russia is far from unanimous. Much of the global south actually sees the West’s focus on Ukraine as a distraction from other, more pressing issues like food security, inflation and mounting debt.

Analysts and political scientists cite four main factors shaping India’s policy toward Ukraine and Russia: History, energy, arms and influence.

Factor #1: The India-Russia relationship goes way back

India was still under British colonial rule when Russia opened its first consulate there in 1900, in Mumbai. But relations really took off during the Cold War.

Picture : Politico

“It started out as strategic sympathy for the Soviet Union, in the backdrop of India getting independence from the British. So it’s an anti-colonial experience, anti-imperialism,” says Rajeswari (Raji) Pillai Rajagopalan, a political scientist at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. “And as the Cold War picked up, it became a more anti-West, anti-U.S. sentiment they shared.”

The end of the Cold War didn’t change that. Neither has the Ukraine war. India’s nationalist TV news channels often accuse the United States — rather than Russia — of doing more to ruin Ukraine.

In November, Modi’s top diplomat, S. Jaishankar, traveled to Moscow, where he stood alongside his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov and called their countries’ relationship “steady and time-tested.”

Modi has called for a cease-fire in Ukraine, without condemning Russia’s attacks. Some of his political opponents say that doesn’t go far enough, and point toward India’s actions rather than its words.

“The actions that India is engaged in so far do not reflect any remorse or even mild criticism of the events in Ukraine,” says Praveen Chakravarty, a political economist affiliated with the opposition Indian National Congress party. “If anything, it seems to aid and abet.”

Factor #2: India wants cheap Russian oil

India has one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. (The IMF forecasts 6.8% growth for India this year, compared to just 1.6% for the United States.) By 2030, India is forecast to be the third-largest economy in the world, behind the U.S. and China.

It’s already the third-largest oil consumer in the world. And it needs even more to fuel all that growth. But because India has few oil and gas reserves of its own, most of the oil it needs has to be imported. It’s also a relatively poor country, particularly sensitive to price.

That’s where Russia comes in. India still buys more oil from Middle Eastern countries than Russia. But its Russian share has skyrocketed. In December, India imported 1.2 million barrels of Russian crude. That’s a whopping 33 times more than a year earlier. In January, the share of Russian crude rose to 28% of India’s oil imports — up from just 0.2% before Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Indian officials have defended those purchases by saying it’s their job to find bargains for their citizens. And Jaishankar, the foreign minister, has suggested it’s hypocritical of wealthier Westerners to ask them not to.

“Europe has managed to reduce its imports [of Russian gas] while doing it in a manner that is comfortable,” Jaishankar told an Austrian TV channel last month. “At 60,000 euros or whatever is your per capita income, you’re so caring about your population. I have a population at 2,000 dollars [per capita annual income]. I also need energy, and I am not in a position to pay high prices for oil.”

Last April, Jaishankar visited the White House for a virtual summit between Modi and President Biden. There, U.S. officials told their Indian counterparts they understand India’s energy needs and were hoping only that India would not “accelerate” Russian oil purchases.

India basically ignored that. But the Biden administration now says it’s actually fine with that.

Earlier this month, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources Geoffery Pyatt said Washington is “comfortable” with India’s approach on Russian oil. And Karen Donfried, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, said the U.S. is not looking at sanctioning India for this.

Here’s one possible explanation for Washington’s change of heart: India is buying Russian crude at deep discounts — something the West can’t do because of sanctions, or doesn’t want to do because of the optics. Then India refines that same Russian oil and exports it onward to the U.S. and Europe. So the West gets Russian oil, without getting its hands dirty.

“U.S. treasury officials have two main goals: keep the market well supplied and deprive Russia of oil revenue,” Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, recently told Bloomberg. “They are aware that Indian and Chinese refiners can earn bigger margins by buying discounted Russian crude and exporting products at market prices. They’re fine with that.”

Factor #3: Moscow is India’s biggest arms dealer

India’s military has historically been equipped with Russian and Soviet weapons. Most of those contracts date back to the Cold War, a conflict in which India was officially non-aligned but close to Moscow. So most of India’s arsenal was — and still is — Soviet-made.

By now, some those 30-something-year-old weapons are deteriorating. “Let’s just go to the [Indian] Air Force. Most of those Sukhois and MiGs [fighter aircraft] are referred to as ‘flying coffins.’ Very often Indian pilots die when they are testing, or flying, those,” says Aparna Pande, a political scientist at the Hudson Institute in Washington. “So India knows they need to be replaced.”

Indian defence experts may have been the only ones not surprised to see Russian tanks falling apart in Ukraine this past year, Pande says. They’ve been unhappy with Russian equipment for years.

So the Indian government has started replacing some of its Soviet-made aircraft and artillery with French, Israeli and American versions. But it’s a time-consuming and costly task to update India’s entire arsenal, Pande notes.

“Let’s say my entire apartment had only IKEA furniture, and now I decide, ‘OK now I want to change it, and I want West Elm.’ I cannot just replace one chair. I have to change my entire dining table and all the chairs,” Pande explains. “So what India has done [in terms of updating its weapons] is piecemeal. But those big ticket items are still Russian-made. So that’s the change which has to happen, and this is what will reduce the Russian influence.”

Despite the Indian government’s efforts to diversify, Moscow continues to be India’s biggest arms dealer — more than 30 years after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Russia has reportedly supplied India with around $13 billion in weapons in the past five years alone. There’s one big reason India needs all these weapons: China.

Factor #4: India wants to prevent Putin from getting closer to China’s Xi Jinping

India’s biggest foreign policy preoccupation is not Ukraine or Russia. It’s China. The two countries share a more than 2,000-mile disputed border. Satellite imagery shows China may be encroaching on Indian territory. Soldiers clashed there in June 2020, and again this past December.

And as the West isolates Russia, India fears Putin is already looking eastward, toward Beijing. “You’re already seeing a very close Russia-China relationship emerging, even in the last few years,” says the ORF’s Rajagopalan. “So the current Indian approach is, we don’t want Russia to go completely into the Chinese fold. Because for India, China has become the No. 1 national security threat.”

Despite the Ukraine war, that’s true for Washington too. So even if Washington doesn’t like it, Biden administration officials say they understand why India has not condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and they’re willing to grant India a wide berth.

They may even see India’s continued ties with Putin as useful — to try to mitigate just how far the Ukraine war drives him into Xi Jinping’s arms.

Under India’s Leadership, G20 Can Help Solve Global Healthcare Crisis

Dr. Joseph M. Chalil, MD, MBA, FACHE

According to a new study published in the Lancet, an estimated 6.4 million physicians are needed to meet global universal health coverage (UHC) goals. America is also experiencing a significant physician shortage, and it’s only expected to get worse, a concerning situation that could lead to poorer health outcomes for many patients. Data published in 2020 by the Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that the US could see a shortage of 54,100 to 139,000 physicians by 2033.

Europe is not in any better spot. More than three years into the pandemic that decimated personnel, healthcare managers and governments are scrambling to cobble together a semblance of a workforce in European countries. Europe’s healthcare worker shortfall—around 2 million—is acutely felt across the Continent.

In Greece, first responders sound the alarm over longer emergency response times due to a shortage of personnel. England lacks tens of thousands of nurses, reporting a record number of vacancies. Nurses top the list of all occupations experiencing shortages in Finland. Maternity wards in Portugal are struggling to stay open due to a lack of doctors. Some 50,000 healthcare workers in Europe have died due to Covid-19, and health worker absences in the European Region increased by 62% during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020, according to WHO.

The pandemic also took a severe toll on the workers’ mental health. In some countries, over 80% of nurses reported psychological distress caused by the pandemic, and 9 out of 10 nurses planned to quit their jobs.

G20, under the leadership of India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, could offer bold solutions to this impending global healthcare crisis. While the recommendations to establish a G20 Health Preparedness Taskforce are excellent, addressing the global health workforce shortage must be a key priority in national development agendas. India can help solve the expected global physician shortage in G20 nations by investing in healthcare infrastructure and training programs. This could involve increasing funding for medical schools and postgraduate programs and improving the quality of medical education.

Additionally, India can help by expanding its role in providing medical services to underserved populations in G20 countries. This could include establishing telemedicine programs, allowing Indian doctors to provide medical care remotely. India can also work with governments in G20 nations to develop more streamlined pathways for Indian doctors to practice in those countries. Finally, India could use its public health and health systems expertise to help G20 countries develop and implement effective healthcare policies.

Here are the practical steps that G20 may take under Indian leadership:

  1. STRENGTHEN THE MEDICAL EDUCATION FRAMEWORK

Setting up common minimum standards in the medical education of physicians, nurses, health administrators, and other allied healthcare workers among G20 nations could create a G20 medical corps that can be mobilized in the invent of emergencies due to pandemics, war, or other natural calamities. Promoting private-public partnerships and investing in new international medical schools should also be considered. We have examples of Indian universities like Manipal offering American equivalent medical education from Antigua. We also have several thousand Indian students currently completing medical education in European countries. Let G20 help execute formal agreements between G20 governments and India that define the conditions and requirements for Indian doctors to practice in those countries.

Revamping the existing guidelines for setting up medical schools and teaching methods as per future methodologies will require significant investment in e-learning tools, including remote learning, virtual classrooms, etc.

Indian medical education system is evolving and striving to reach international standards. Setting up new international medical colleges in addition to current colleges training MBBS and PG students may be considered initially. There are examples of parallel pathways in primary and secondary education in India currently offered via State syllabus in addition to ICSE or CBSE schools.

  1. STANDARDIZING GLOBAL MEDICAL LICENSING SYSTEMS AND VISA REQUIREMENTS

Developing an online database and platform that lists the qualifications and experience of Indian doctors interested in pursuing opportunities in G20 countries would be a good start. In addition, let us work with G20 nations to create more flexible visa and work permit requirements for Indian doctors.

Furthermore, establishing a mutual recognition agreement between G20 countries and India would enable Indian doctors to practice in those countries without additional licensing exams and create standard international medical licensing guidelines. Working with G20 governments to develop and implement standardized, streamlined credentialing and licensing processes for Indian doctors and the reciprocity of national medical licenses and international clinical rotations for medical students among G20 countries should also be considered.

Facilitating and supporting the mobility of Indian doctors within the G20 countries should be promoted. We will also need to create more opportunities for G20 nations and India to collaborate on research and development initiatives.

  1. HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY

The healthcare industry is fast-tracking the use of e-health and e-learning techniques, AI, VR simulation, and the internet of things to train, upskill and empower health workers. Telemedicine and remote patient monitoring should be encouraged among and within G20 nations involving the G20 Medical Corps, as mentioned above. The scaling-up is rapid, based on big data and analytics. These emerging technologies will also generate more demand for new skills, increasing the potential to employ more in digital healthcare delivery. Let G20 leadership help develop programs that allow G20 countries to benefit from the expertise of Indian doctors through telemedicine and other remote care services.

  1. REBALANCING HEALTHCARE TASKS AND MANUFACTURING

As per an OECD global survey, 79% of nurses and 76% of doctors were found to be performing tasks for which they were over-qualified. Given the worldwide evidence of the poor distribution of skills, we must rationally re-organize our workforce for effective management of high-burden diseases, particularly NCDs, which are responsible for 71% of the global mortality and, unless addressed, could cost the world $30 trillion by 2030. G20 nations should also increase manufacturing and procurement of essential medical supplies domestically. Depending on China for most of your medical supplies has exposed the vulnerabilities of G20 healthcare systems during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

  1. BRIDGING LANGUAGE BARRIER AMONG HEALTHCARE WORKERS

The newly proposed international medical and nursing students should be encouraged to be fluent in at least one or two foreign languages, which will help them bridge the language divide. For instance, several countries have similar course curriculums for nursing; however, cultural aspects sometimes need fixing. For example, Sweden and India have identical nursing curricula, and there is great potential to encourage the exchange of nurses. Still, the potential for exchange is restricted due to linguistic barriers. However, this can be easily overcome, and more conducive arrangements can be implemented to facilitate the exchange of healthcare workers.

  1. CREATING A SUSTAINABLE AND GENDER-BALANCED WORKFORCE

Evidence points towards gender imbalance and disparities in health employment and the medical education system. According to the WHO, globally, only 30% of doctors are females, and more than 70% of nurses are females. A similar trend is seen in India, where most nursing workforce comprises women, but only 16.8% of allopathic doctors are females. As per ILO data, gender wage gaps are also a cause for concern. Therefore, we need proactive steps to create a balanced healthcare workforce that addresses the issue of gender inequity and ensures equal pay for work of equal value, a favorable working environment, and targets investments towards training the female workforce.

G20 member states under India’s leadership must increase the in-built flexibility of their health systems, showing the capacity to guarantee everyday quality healthcare for all citizens, refugees, and displaced populations. Significant investment in the future of healthcare of G20 nations is the need of this hour. The abundance of young Indian talents could help the world to minimize the expected healthcare human resource shortfall with proper training and investment. G20 countries represent two-thirds of the world’s population and four-fifths of the global gross domestic product but also a significant proportion of people left behind socially, economically, and in terms of health. Let India propose bold steps and offer solutions in healthcare to secure the future of the G20 nations.

(This story was published in The Sunday Guardian on February 11, 2023)

(Prof (Dr) Joseph M. Chalil, MD, MBA, FACHE, is an Adjunct Professor & Chair of the Complex Health Systems advisory board at Nova Southeastern University’s School of Business, Chief Strategic Officer of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI), and the publisher of The Universal News Network. He recently published a best-seller book, “Beyond the Covid-19 Pandemic: Envisioning a Better World by Transforming the Future of Healthcare”.)

India Surpasses China As The World’s Most Populous Country

India is poised to become the world’s most populous country this year – surpassing China, which has held the distinction since at least 1950, when the United Nations population records begin. The UN expects that India will overtake China in April, though it may have already reached this milestone since the UN estimates are projections.

Here are key facts about India’s population and its projected changes in the coming decades, based on Pew Research Center analyses of data from the UN and other sources.

How we did this

India’s population has grown by more than 1 billion people since 1950, the year the UN population data begins. The exact size of the country’s population is not easily known, given that India has not conducted a census since 2011, but it is estimated to have more than 1.4 billion people – greater than the entire population of Europe (744 million) or the Americas (1.04 billion). China, too, has more than 1.4 billion people, but while China’s population is declining, India’s continues to grow.

Under the UN’s “medium variant” projection, a middle-of-the-road estimate, India’s population will surpass 1.5 billion people by the end of this decade and will continue to slowly increase until 2064, when it will peak at 1.7 billion people. In the UN’s “high variant” scenario – in which the total fertility rate in India is projected to be 0.5 births per woman above that of the medium variant scenario – the country’s population would surpass 2 billion people by 2068. The UN’s “low variant” scenario – in which the total fertility rate is projected to be 0.5 births below that of the medium variant scenario – forecasts that India’s population will decline beginning in 2047 and fall to 1 billion people by 2100.

People under the age of 25 account for more than 40% of India’s population. In fact, there are so many Indians in this age group that roughly one-in-five people globally who are under the age of 25 live in India. Looking at India’s age distribution another way, the country’s median age is 28. By comparison, the median age is 38 in the United States and 39 in China.

The other two most populous countries in the world, China and the U.S., have rapidly aging populations – unlike India. Adults ages 65 and older comprise only 7% of India’s population as of this year, compared with 14% in China and 18% in the U.S., according to the UN. The share of Indians who are 65 and older is likely to remain under 20% until 2063 and will not approach 30% until 2100, under the UN’s medium variant projections.

The fertility rate in India is higher than in China and the U.S., but it has declined rapidly in recent decades. Today, the average Indian woman is expected to have 2.0 children in her lifetime, a fertility rate that is higher than China’s (1.2) or the United States’ (1.6), but much lower than India’s in 1992 (3.4) or 1950 (5.9). Every religious group in the country has seen its fertility rate fall, including the majority Hindu population and the Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Jain minority groups. Among Indian Muslims, for example, the total fertility rate has declined dramatically from 4.4 children per woman in 1992 to 2.4 children in 2019, the most recent year for which data is available from India’s National Family Health Survey (NFHS). Muslims still have the highest fertility rate among India’s major religious groups, but the gaps in childbearing among India’s religious groups are generally much smaller than they used to be.

Fertility rates vary widely by community type and state in India. On average, women in rural areas have 2.1 children in their lifetimes, while women in urban areas have 1.6 children, according to the 2019-21 NFHS. Both numbers are lower than they were 20 years ago, when rural and urban women had an average of 3.7 and 2.7 children, respectively.

Total fertility rates also vary greatly by state in India, from as high as 2.98 in Bihar and 2.91 in Meghalaya to as low as 1.05 in Sikkim and 1.3 in Goa.

Likewise, population growth varies across states. The populations of Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh both increased by 25% or more between 2001 and 2011, when the last Indian census was conducted. By comparison, the populations of Goa and Kerala increased by less than 10% during that span, while the population in Nagaland shrank by 0.6%. These differences may be linked to uneven economic opportunities and quality of life.

On average, Indian women in urban areas have their first child 1.5 years later than women in rural areas. Among Indian women ages 25 to 49 who live in urban areas, the median age at first birth is 22.3. Among similarly aged women in rural areas, it is 20.8, according to the 2019 NFHS.

Women with more education and more wealth also generally have children at later ages. The median age at first birth is 24.9 among Indian women with 12 or more years of schooling, compared with 19.9 among women with no schooling. Similarly, the median age at first birth is 23.2 for Indian women in the highest wealth quintile, compared with 20.3 among women in the lowest quintile.

Among India’s major religious groups, the median age of first birth is highest among Jains at 24.9 and lowest among Muslims at 20.8.

India’s artificially wide ratio of baby boys to baby girls – which arose in the 1970s from the use of prenatal diagnostic technology to facilitate sex-selective abortions – is narrowing. From a large imbalance of about 111 boys per 100 girls in India’s 2011 census, the sex ratio at birth appears to have normalized slightly over the last decade. It narrowed to about 109 boys per 100 girls in the 2015-16 NFHS and to 108 boys per 100 girls in the 2019-21 NFHS.

To put this recent decline into perspective, the average annual number of baby girls “missing” in India fell from about 480,000 in 2010 to 410,000 in 2019, according to a Pew Research Center study published in 2022. (Read more about how this “missing” population share is defined and calculated in the “How did we count ‘missing’ girls?” box of the report.) And while India’s major religious groups once varied widely in their sex ratios at birth, today there are indications that these differences are shrinking.

Infant mortality in India has decreased 70% in the past three decades but remains high by regional and international standards. There were 89 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990, a figure that fell to 27 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2020. Since 1960, when the UN Interagency Group for Child Mortality Estimation began compiling this data, the rate of infant deaths in India has dropped between 0.1% and 0.5% each year.

Still, India’s infant mortality rate is higher than those of neighboring Bangladesh (24 deaths per 1,000 live births), Nepal (24), Bhutan (23) and Sri Lanka (6) – and much higher than those of its closest peers in population size, China (6) and the U.S. (5).

Typically, more people migrate out of India each year than into it, resulting in negative net migration. India lost about 300,000 people due to migration in 2021, according to the UN Population Division. The UN’s medium variant projections suggest India will continue to experience net negative migration through at least 2100.

But India’s net migration has not always been negative. As recently as 2016, India gained an estimated 68,000 people due to migration (likely to be a result of an increase in asylum-seeking Rohingya fleeing Myanmar). India also recorded increases in net migration on several occasions in the second half of the 20th century.

U.S. Shoots Down Chinese Spy Balloon Off The Coast Of South Carolina

The U.S. military shot down a suspected Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina on Saturday afternoon, the Pentagon said, while China called the downing an overreaction.

“On Wednesday, President Biden gave his authorization to take down the surveillance balloon as soon as the mission could be accomplished without undue risk to American lives under the balloon’s path,” U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a statement.

Austin said military commanders “had determined downing the balloon while over land posed an undue risk to people across a wide area due to the size and altitude of the balloon and its surveillance payload.”

Speaking on Saturday, President Biden told reporters he gave the order on Wednesday. U.S. officials “said to me, ‘Let’s wait ’til the safest place to do it,’ ” he said. “They successfully took it down, and I want to compliment our aviators who did it,” Biden added.

The downing came shortly after the Federal Aviation Administration said it had “paused departures from and arrivals to” three East Coast airports — in Wilmington, N.C., Myrtle Beach, S.C., and Charleston, S.C. — “to support the Department of Defense in a national security effort.” Flights through these airports resumed shortly after 3 p.m.

China responds with “dissatisfaction and protest”

Picture : The Drive

U.S. and Chinese officials have given conflicting information on the balloon’s purpose. The Chinese government said the balloon is strictly used for meteorological research and accidentally went adrift into U.S. airspace. China’s foreign ministry on Saturday expressed “strong dissatisfaction and protest” over what it called the U.S.’s “use of force to attack a civilian unmanned airship.” It called the shooting down an “obvious overreaction and a serious violation of international practice.”

The Pentagon has said the balloon was being used for surveillance. Its presence already led Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Friday to postpone a historic trip to Beijing, as tensions continue to rise between the two countries over national security.

U.S. officials earlier this week decided against shooting down the balloon after the Biden administration said it did not pose a national security threat. The Pentagon shared reports on Friday of a second balloon, belonging to China, that could be seen floating over Latin America. Colombia’s Air Force said on Saturday that an object with characteristics of a balloon had traveled through its airspace on Friday.

The balloon traveling through the U.S. quickly became an internet celebrity as meteorologists, storm chasers and others shared sightings on social media as it continued on its path across the U.S. Others criticized the Biden administration for not taking quicker actions to stop it.

Blinken postpones his Beijing trip after a Chinese balloon spotted

“The China balloon flying over the U.S. is a direct assault on our national sovereignty,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted on Friday. “Biden’s refusal to stop it is a dereliction of duty. From flying balloons to open borders, Biden has no regard for our national security and sovereignty.”

After its downing on Saturday, Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said it “should have been shot down before it crossed the continental United States, not after. We still don’t know what information was collected and where it was sent,” he said. “This was a dereliction of Biden’s duty, and let’s hope the American people don’t pay a price.”

Austin praised Biden’s decision to shoot down the balloon. The Canadian government assisted in the “tracking and analysis of the balloon,” according to Austin.

“Today’s deliberate and lawful action demonstrates that President Biden and his national security team will always put the safety and security of the American people first while responding effectively to the PRC’s unacceptable violation of our sovereignty,” he said in the statement.

On Saturday, people shared sightings of the balloon on social media. Earlier, in South Carolina, the York County Sheriff’s Office tweeted that the balloon was more than 60,000 feet in the air and urged people not to take matters into their own hands. “Don’t try to shoot it!!” the office tweeted. “Your rifle rounds WILL NOT reach it. Be responsible. What goes up will come down, including your bullets.”

Rishi Sunak May Exit Human Rights Treaty To Push Immigration Plan

The UK has been warned that 65,000 illegal migrants are expected to enter the country this year. UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak may withdraw from an international human rights treaty with an aim to crack down on illegal immigration in the country. The UK PM is prepared to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in a bid to curb migrant arrivals, the Sunday Times reported.

The UK has been warned that 65,000 illegal migrants are expected to enter the country this year. According to these estimates, illegal immigration in the UK will rise by 50 per cent this year.

Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Suella Braverman have started working on a new immigration legislation after the warning. The new laws could be unveiled within weeks, Bloomberg reported.

The pair are also prepared to withdraw from the ECHR before the general election if judges in Strasbourg rule that the new plans are unlawful, the Times report said.

A threat to withdraw from the ECHR would draw a sharp dividing line between Sunak’s Conservatives and the opposition Labour party — underlining the prime minister’s hardline stance on immigration.

Before being elected as the Prime Minister in October last year, Rishi Sunak had vowed to fix the “broken” asylum systems in the UK and stop the illegal boat crossings from France.

He had also announced a five-step strategy to clamp down on illegal immigration, with a promise to end the government’s backlog of asylum applications by the end of next year.

Turkey Earthquake: Deadliest Of This Century

More than 11,000 people have been killed and thousands injured by a huge earthquake which struck south-eastern Turkey, near the Syrian border, in the early hours of Monday morning.

The earthquake, which hit near the town of Gaziantep, was closely followed by numerous aftershocks – including one quake which was almost as large as the first.

The death toll is expected to keep rising.

Why was it so deadly?

Picture : NBC News

A number of factors have contributed to making this earthquake so lethal. One of them is the time of day it occurred. With the quake hitting early in the morning, many people were in their beds when it happened, and are now trapped under the rubble of their homes.

Additionally, with a cold and wet weather system moving through the region, poor conditions have made reaching affected areas trickier, and rescue and recovery efforts on both sides of the border significantly more challenging once teams have arrived.

One of the most powerful earthquakes to hit the region in a century rocked residents from their slumber in the early hours of Monday morning around 4 a.m. The quake struck 23 kilometers (14.2 miles) east of Nurdagi, in Turkey’s Gaziantep province, at a depth of 24.1 kilometers (14.9 miles), the United States Geological Survey (USGS) said.

The first earthquake was big – it registered as 7.8, classified as “major” on the official magnitude scale. It broke along about 100km (62 miles) of fault line, causing serious damage to buildings near the fault.

A series of aftershocks reverberated through the region in the immediate hours after the initial incident. A magnitude 6.7 aftershock followed 11 minutes after the first quake hit, but the largest temblor, which measured 7.5 in magnitude, struck about nine hours later at 1:24 p.m., according to the USGS.

Prof Joanna Faure Walker, head of the Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction at University College London, said: “Of the deadliest earthquakes in any given year, only two in the last 10 years have been of equivalent magnitude, and four in the previous 10 years.”

But it is not only the power of the tremor that causes devastation.

This incident occurred in the early hours of the morning, when people were inside and sleeping.

The sturdiness of the buildings is also a factor.

Dr Carmen Solana, reader in volcanology and risk communication at the University of Portsmouth, says: “The resistant infrastructure is unfortunately patchy in South Turkey and especially Syria, so saving lives now mostly relies on response. The next 24 hours are crucial to find survivors. After 48 hours the number of survivors decreases enormously.”

This was a region where there had not been a major earthquake for more than 200 years or any warning signs, so the level of preparedness would be less than for a region which was more used to dealing with tremors.

How long can people survive under rubble?

Despite the mounting challenges, a structural engineer and humanitarian coordinator urged rescuers not to abandon hope as survivors could be found up to “weeks” after the massive earthquake hit the region. Kit Miyamoto, president of non-profit Miyamoto Global Disaster Relief, also praised the community in Turkey who came together and “did their part” after the quake struck.

“The community, the citizens, they’re the ones that are actually the first line of defense,” he told CNN Wednesday. “They dug up family, friends, neighbors.”

What caused the earthquake?

The Earth’s crust is made up of separate bits, called plates, that nestle alongside each other.

These plates often try to move but are prevented by the friction of rubbing up against an adjoining one. But sometimes the pressure builds until one plate suddenly jerks across, causing the surface to move.

In this case it was the Arabian plate moving northwards and grinding against the Anatolian plate.

Friction from the plates has been responsible for very damaging earthquakes in the past.

On 13 August 1822 it caused an earthquake registering 7.4 in magnitude, significantly less than the 7.8 magnitude recorded on Monday.

Even so, the 19th Century earthquake resulted in immense damage to towns in the area, with 7,000 deaths recorded in the city of Aleppo alone. Damaging aftershocks continued for nearly a year.

There have already been several aftershocks following the current earthquake and scientists are expecting it to follow the same trend as the previous big one in the region.

How are earthquakes measured?

They are measured on a scale called the Moment Magnitude Scale (Mw). This has replaced the better known Richter scale, now considered outdated and less accurate.

The number attributed to an earthquake represents a combination of the distance the fault line has moved and the force that moved it .

A tremor of 2.5 or less usually cannot be felt, but can be detected by instruments. Quakes of up to five are felt and cause minor damage. The Turkish earthquake at 7.8 is classified as major and usually causes serious damage, as it has in this instance.

Anything above 8 causes catastrophic damage and can totally destroy communities at its centre.

How does this compare with other large earthquakes?

On 26 December 2004, one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded struck off the coast of Indonesia, triggering a tsunami that swept away entire communities around the Indian Ocean.

The 9.1 magnitude quake killed about 228,000 people.

Another earthquake – off the coast of Japan in 2011 – registered as magnitude 9 and caused widespread damage on the land, and caused a tsunami. It led to a major accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant along the coast.

The largest ever earthquake registered 9.5, and was recorded in Chile in 1960.

India, Pakistan Were ‘Too Close’ To Nuclear Conflagration: Pompeo

India and Pakistan came “too close” to a nuclear conflagration during the 2019 confrontation with both sides believing the other was preparing to deploy nuclear weapons, according to former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

He recounted in his book, “Never Give an Inch”, his frantic night-time diplomatic efforts to get the neighbours to stand down after getting a call from his “Indian counterpart” warning him that he believed Pakistan was readying nuclear weapons for a strike and India was considering its own escalation.

The External Affairs Minister, during the crisis set off by the terrorist attack that killed 46 Central Reserve Police Force personnel and the Indian strike on a terrorist base inside Pakistan in Balakot in February 2019, was the late Sushma Swaraj.

“I do not think the world properly knows just how close the India-Pakistan rivalry came to spilling over in a nuclear conflagration,” Pompeo wrote.

But, he added: “the truth is, I don’t know precisely the answer either. I just know it was too close”.

He was woken up at night while he was on a visit to Hanoi with a call from his “Indian counterpart” who told him that “he believed the Pakistanis had begun to prepare their nuclear weapons for a strike”.

“India, he informed me, was contemplating its own escalation. I asked him to do nothing and give us a minute to sort things out,” Pompeo wrote.

Working with John Bolton, who was then the US National Security Adviser, from their Hanoi hotel room he “reached the actual leader of Pakistan. General (Qamer Javed) Bajwa”, he wrote.

“I told him what the Indians had told me. He said it wasn’t true. As one might expect, he believed the Indians were preparing their own nuclear weapons for deployment.

“It took us a few hours, and remarkably good work by our teams on the ground in New Delhi and Islamabad, to convince each side that neither was to convince each side or the other was not preparing for nuclear war,” Pompeo added.

Taking credit for the de-escalation, he wrote: “No other nation could have done that, but we did that night to avoid a horrible outcome.”

He acknowledged the work of Kenneth Juster, who was the then US envoy in New Delhi, calling him “an incredibly capable ambassador” who “loves India and its people”.

Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency before becoming the Secretary of State, recounted in the book his four years in former President Donald Trump’s cabinet.

The book subtitled, “Fighting for the America I Love”, lays out how he aggressively implemented Trump’s ‘America First’ vision.

Writing about his efforts to deepen ties with New Delhi, Pompeo wrote that he “made India the fulcrum of my diplomacy to contract Chinese aggression”.

“I chose to devote serious quantities of time and effort to make India the next great American ally,” he added. (IANS)

Data Ranks How Countries Around The Globe Protect Human Rights

Newswise — BINGHAMTON, N.Y. — In the first global Human Rights Report Card issued by the CIRIGHTS Data Project, Canada and Sweden were at the head of the class with a 96, followed by New Zealand, Norway and Portugal at 94. At the bottom were Iraq with a score of 12, China at 10, and North Korea and Syria with six. Iran was marked by a shocking lack of human rights, scoring only two out of a possible total of 100.

While Binghamton University Professor of Political Science David Cingranelli has been tracking global human rights for more than 40 years, the recently launched CIRIGHTS project — a collaboration between Binghamton and the University of Rhode Island (URI) — accomplishes a long-term goal: a simple report card for a complex issue.

The score is meant to grab attention and even provoke: a necessary prerequisite for change. “People who see a report card understand what a 95 means and what a 20 means,” said Cingranelli, co-director of CIRIGHTS with Skip Mark of URI and Mikhail Filippov of Binghamton University. Mark received his PhD in political science from Binghamton in 2018.

Picture : New Arab

According to Mark, CIRIGHTS “…gives a shorthand assessment of how countries are doing when it comes to respecting human rights.” It provides 72 numerical scores that show how well every country in the world protects — or doesn’t protect — a wide variety of internationally recognized human rights. The full dataset and the 2022 report card are freely available online and can be accessed at https://cirights.com/.

More maps, additional data visualization tools and a guide explaining the scoring system will soon be added. The Human Rights Report Card will be issued annually and includes a total country score as well as individual scores in particular areas, such as gender equality.

The goal is to provide researchers, nongovernmental organizations, policy-makers, college and high school teachers, and others with an objective tool to track human rights around the world, according to Mark, director of URI’s Center for Nonviolence and Peace Studies.

“We measure what we treasure,” said Cingranelli, also co-director of Binghamton’s Human Rights Institute. “I sincerely believe that anything we care about in this world, we measure, whether it’s how much we weigh or how fast we are at the 50-yard dash. If you don’t measure it, how could you change it?”

Ranking rights

In the 1970s, the United States passed laws banning the allocation of military and economic aid to governments that systematically violated the human rights of their citizens. But how well were those rules being followed?

“I wanted to conduct a research project to examine whether there was any relationship between the distribution of American foreign aid and other favors of American policy and the human rights practices of the potential recipients,” Cingranelli explained.

In 1982, Cingranelli began researching and scoring Latin American countries on human rights with the help of then-graduate student Thomas Pasquarello, now a professor at SUNY Cortland, and a faculty colleague. A few years later, he and another graduate student — David Richards, now an associate professor at the University of Connecticut — expanded their data collection to other parts of the world. The result: the Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project, considered the gold standard in the field of human rights until the project’s end in 2013.

A gift from URI alumni Shannon Chandley and Tom Silvia has enabled the CIRIGHTS team to hire student research assistants and data specialists to update and significantly expand the original CIRI database. Sources for scoring human rights include annual human rights reports from the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, the United Nations State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples Report and other sources. The State Department’s annual report alone often spans almost 3,000 pages, with keen observations contributed by ambassadors all over the world, Cingranelli said.

The 72 internationally recognized rights in CIRIGHTS’ database include those related to physical integrity, such as those prohibiting torture and extrajudicial killings; workers’ rights, such as fair working conditions and the right to unionize; the political rights of women and Indigenous people; and the right to a fair trial.

The scorers — often undergraduate or graduate students supervised by Cingranelli, Filippov or Mark in their seminar courses — work independently with a rigorous set of scoring guidelines and then work together to resolve differences. Using a three-point scale, 25 human rights measures were considered for this year’s pilot report card.“Our scoring guidelines lay out everything our scorers need to assess each right — a simple definition of the right, its grounding in international law and examples of what violations look like,” said Kate Sylvester, a URI graduate student. “The goal is to be as objective as we can possibly be.”

However, one country is mostly missing from the current report card: the United States. Part of that comes down to data: While Amnesty International reports on respect for physical integrity rights in the U.S., it doesn’t report on much else. The State Department report includes a much wider range of rights, but doesn’t report on itself.

Another reason comes down to objectivity, since the evaluation is done within the United States by human reviewers who have access to a wide range of sources about their own country. Essentially, Cingranelli explained, it wouldn’t be an apples-to-apples comparison.

Still, the problem may eventually be resolved. Mark plans to offer a seminar in Rhode Island that will explore the status of human rights in the United States, with the goal of establishing more comprehensive rankings of U.S. human rights. And, Cingranelli points out, nothing prevents database users from reviewing the available information and determining how the U.S. ranks on their own.

A broader look

In addition to individual rankings, CIRIGHTS’ inaugural 2022 report identifies some broad global trends in the 21st century. According to the researchers, economic rights — apart from the right to a minimum wage — have declined, along with rights associated with the ability to criticize government, electoral self-determination and an independent judiciary. Some rights, however, have seen a marked increase, such as the right to a fair trial, protection from human trafficking, women’s political rights, and freedom of domestic and foreign movement.

Ultimately, countries seem to fall into two groups: One in which human rights have improved over time, and the other in which they remained stagnant or declined. The main difference between the two groups is whether they have regular free and fair elections with universal adult suffrage, Cingranelli said.

Long term, the team plans to expand both the dataset and the scope of the report. The ultimate goal is to have a comprehensive global human rights dataset that includes every internationally recognized human right.

“The way that human rights become real is through education,” Cingranelli added. “I’m hoping that these human rights report cards will be used by people around the world, especially teachers, to learn about indicators of human rights performance and to assess the performance of their own government relative to others.”

-+=