The Rohingya: an endless exodus

The Rohingya, a Muslim minority from Myanmar’s Rakhine State, were stripped of citizenship and rights by a . Victims of what the described in 2017 as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing,” over 740,000 people to Bangladesh. Today, approximately one million of them in the Cox’s Bazar district, home to Kutupalong, the world’s largest refugee camp. The 2021 shattered any hope of repatriation, fueling a desperate, multi-stage journey toward Southeast Asia.��

This hell begins in Teknaf, on the coast of Bangladesh. There, refugees brave the deadly currents of the Naf River on small, overcrowded boats that frequently . Those who survive fall into the hands of traffickers, who clandestine departures toward the Andaman Sea from hidden mangrove inlets, packing hundreds of people onto fishing vessels to evade the Coast Guard.

Welcome aboard the “ghost” ships

Once at sea, the operational phase known as the “Ghost Protocol” begins. This involves the Automatic Identification System (AIS) — a tactic technically referred to as “going dark.” By switching off these electronic transponders, traffickers eliminate all traceability of the vessel’s route and position. By becoming invisible to radar, the vessels into floating prisons. Deprived of Wi-Fi, traceability and legal protection, refugees are ammassed in fish holds. This lack of connectivity is not a technical limitation, but a deliberate strategy by smugglers to prevent the reporting of abuse and torture used to extort money from families.��

In this technological limbo, the crews themselves invisible slaves, recruited through deception and forced into months of sailing without pay. The of going dark eliminates any chance of assistance: In the event of a breakdown, no signal exists to guide rescuers. Data from 2025–2026 confirms the lethality of the Andaman Sea route: One in five people is missing or dead. With over 600 victims in the past year, the true toll remains tragically uncalculable.

The Junta link: the ship-to-ship operations fueling the airstrikes

Myanmar’s instability has transformed the Andaman Sea into a military corridor disguised as a migration route. The networks Rohingya south toward Malaysia and Indonesia are often the same ones that, through ship-to-ship (STS) operations in international waters, the military junta with sanctioned fuel (Jet A-1). Without these maneuvers, the regime would be unable to power the Chinese-made jets and drones responsible for bombing civilians. Precisely because it is prohibited, the junta must rely on STS operations to bring fuel into the country while concealing its origin.��

Large “mother ships” loaded with crude oil from the Russian Federation or Iran — countries officially under international sanctions — transfer their cargo on the high seas to the Burmese shadow fleet, which operates on behalf of the junta. Once there, the fuel is “” by falsifying documents to make it appear to have originated from legitimate Southeast Asian ports: a proven mechanism that finances authoritarian regimes through these invisible fleets.

Justice at sea: the cynical game of bouncing and reflagging

The tragedy is amplified by “.” In the absence of a coordinated Search and Rescue (SAR) system, such as the one in the Mediterranean, boats are bounced between the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Extreme abuses have been documented, including refugees forced to into the open sea and swim for miles back toward Myanmar under armed threat. Despite the High Seas Treaty () entering into force in January 2026 — adopted by the UN — the protection of human life in Southeast Asia remains a mirage.��

While the treaty aims for transparency, Myanmar’s instability and the region’s fragmented sovereignty allow shipowners to bypass all oversight. By changing flags () with staggering speed, vessels mask their maritime criminal records. By exploiting “shadow states” like the Comoros, Panama or the Cook Islands, they operate within a bureaucratic gray zone. Small island nations become involuntary accomplices in a system that guarantees impunity. International authorities find themselves chasing not physical ships, but “ghosts” that switch identities every time they approach a new port or a refueling operation, making their capture nearly impossible.

While the International Court of Justice in the Hague with the genocide case against Myanmar, the Rohingya tragedy in the Andaman Sea remains the result of a criminal architecture that exploits the physical and digital geography of Southeast Asia. As long as the world permits the existence of a ghost fleet beyond any rules, the sea will continue to be a place of silent violations. To save lives, we must first turn on the radars, enforce on-board connectivity and recognize that every deactivated AIS signal is a potential crime against humanity. Breaking the cynicism of the “bouncing game” is the only way to restore dignity to these people that the world has left invisible for too long.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Andaman Sea “Ghost” Fleet: The Invisible Oil Fueling Myanmar’s Genocide appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The rise of the Global South and new institutions

These geopolitical developments produce a constant shifting of the epicenter of world order crafted by the West to the Global South. The recently concluded Shanghai Cooperation Organization () Summit in Tianjin is a demonstration of this shift in the global order, as Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the establishment of the SCO Development Bank, with $280 million in grants and an additional $ 1.4 billion in loans for SCO members.

China leveraged the SCO Summit to demonstrate its global ambition to lead the new world order, an alternative to the one led by the US. This new world order will, in addition to addressing the development needs of SCO member countries, serve as an antidote to unilateralism, hegemony and coercion of countries in the Global South. For instance, China pledged to deepen cooperation with Central Asian countries to meet their energy needs at the SCO Summit.

The underlying concern of either the SCO Summit or the BRICS Summits is to carve out a new world order that supports multilateralism and a rules-based, transparent order, with new governing institutions such as the SCO Development Bank and the BRICS Development Bank that could perfectly address the particular needs and aspirations of the countries of the Global South. In fact, to reduce the influence of the US Dollar as a means of transaction in the Global Economy, countries like India have the idea of de-dollarization by commencing regional trade among the BRICS nations in their local currencies.

In a nutshell, the fundamental objective of these geopolitical initiatives is to counter the abrasive, threatening and hypocritical attitude of US President Donald Trump. By waging a against BRICS countries and imposing a on Indian goods recently as a penalty for importing crude oil from Russia, the US under Trump accorded strategic space to countries like China, especially, which has long awaited the opportunity to marginalize the US’s geopolitical and geostrategic influence in order to lead the world as a global superpower.

The decline of US hegemony and its global consequences

In addition to waging tariff wars against numerous countries without a second thought, other factors are contributing to the continuous decline of US hegemony in the world order. World history shows that whenever the US wages war against any country, be it Afghanistan in to quell Al-Qaeda in the wake of the 9/11 attack on the US, the Vietnam War () or the Bay of Pigs Invasion (), it either loses the war or leaves it in the middle without any conclusion.

It is ironic for a country like the US, which claims to be a global superpower, that it lacks the diplomatic and military capabilities to win or conclude a war. Very recently, during the US elections, as part of his election manifesto, Trump that he would end the Russia-Ukraine War, but miserably failed. He also failed to prevent the recent . Cumulatively, these incidents signal that the list of countries that do not obey, bow down to or recognize the US, which has been the global hegemon to date, is growing.

Additionally, the world’s political history is replete with examples demonstrating that the US has the trust of its allies due to its high level of hypocrisy. For instance, on the one hand, the US firmly Israel when it launched military action against Gaza. On the other hand, it condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine in the name of safeguarding democracy.

Factors such as Trump’s unpredictability, which led to a with its strategic allies such as India, and the from international organizations such as the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (), and the are also accelerating the decline of US hegemony in world politics.

Moreover, sharp of many of its allies, such as France, Germany and even Canada, on issues like green energy and immigration, by the US at the recently concluded United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session prompted the countries to pursue an independent foreign policy. In fact, dialogues among participating countries at the Munich focused on developing their own security policies and defense capabilities independent of the US.

Cumulatively, these strategic and geopolitical developments signal the US’s rapid decline in stature within the current global order and the emergence of a new world order led by the troika, namely, India, Russia and China.

The challenges of forging a new world order

Further geopolitical upheavals must be analyzed to forecast the emergence of a new world order, as geopolitics is a function of continually shifting national interests. More crucially, the effectiveness and potential of any bloc, whether it be BRICS or SCO, depend on the degree of convergence of all national interests of its member countries to a common agenda, which is nothing but transforming the contours of the present global order, a task that is very difficult in the current geopolitics due to its constantly changing nature.

This is the point that the US is watching very patiently and calmly, maneuvering the strategic space that emerged from the long-standing dissensions and contradictions among the SCO or BRICS member countries. Most importantly, it is also watching China’s global power ambitions to lead the new world order by surpassing the US, by hook or by crook.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Emergence of the New World Order and the Decline of the US appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Over people, including a school children in West Java, have been hospitalized from MBG meals. Billions of rupiah lie unspent. Kitchens mushroom faster than regulations can be written. What began as a symbol of social justice is quickly hardening into a cautionary tale about populism overtaking public administration.

The ambition is monumental. President Prabowo Subianto 171 trillion rupees ($10.2 billion) for MBG in 2025, with the intention of increasing it annually to feed people daily by December 2025. By May, just rupees ($184.6 million) had been spent, with fewer than four million recipients out of a target of 17 million.��

The numbers reveal a system struggling to support its own ambitions: procurement bottlenecks, untrained employees and no mandatory presidential regulation to define accountability. Transparency International Indonesia of “billions in play without rules in place”. For a program feeding children, the margin for error is zero.

Fixing the program

Indonesia must rebuild MBG from the village up: anchor every kitchen to elected Food Safety Councils and to a national Nutrition Service Unit ( — Satuan Pelayanan Pemenuhan Gizi), a hands-on hub that regularly tests, trains and deploys rapid remediation teams while publishing transparent results; ring-fence a nutrition guarantee and phase in local-procurement quotas that prioritize female farmers, create a safety fund for urgent equipment replacement and the mobilization of innovative finance.

This includes nutrition impact bonds and debt-for-nutrition swaps. QR codes and a simple mobile Key Performance Indicator (KPI) dashboard — allowing village deliberation, such as an independent agency (musyawarah), to drive menus and audits so that one safe plate a day becomes an act of citizenship, climate-smart development and long-term community resilience. can transform MBG from a top-down experiment into a community-anchored safety net.

Decentralization is no luxury here; it is the for quality control across 17,000 islands. Japan’s school-lunch model a paradigm: menus by dietitians, procurement handled locally under strict standards and the involvement of parents in taste-testing. Brazil’s National School Feeding Program (PNAE) that 30% of ingredients be purchased from local smallholders — a policy that cut corruption and revived rural economies.

Increasing accountability��

Indonesia can achieve the same by empowering district governments and community cooperatives to run kitchens with trained nutritionists, public audits and implementing transparent digital reporting of spending and food safety checks.

Re-centring MBG around local accountability also Jakarta’s fiscal fears. A Center for Global Development (CGD) study that school-feeding programmes return 7 to 35 times their cost through better education and health outcomes. But only when communities feel ownership do those returns materialise.��

���Ի�DzԱ������’s National Nutrition Agency should devolve monitoring responsibilities to provincial nutrition boards, which should be composed of teachers, midwives and representatives from civil society. Public dashboards could list kitchen audits and infection incidents in real time — a transparency test that both the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) identify as best practice for rights-based feeding programs.

Preventing misinterpretation and corruption��

Legal clarity is equally urgent. Without a Presidential Regulation the National Nutrition Agency’s authority, every provincial office interprets MBG differently. Codifying the program into law — as and did — would shield it from political cycles and corruption.��

Binding standards for menu composition, food procurement and staff training must precede further expansion. When UN agencies MBG as a “cornerstone of ���Ի�DzԱ������’s nutrition strategy,” they also imply a duty: must carry weight without cracking.

If Jakarta is concerned about halting momentum, a phased rollout can strike a between speed and safety. Prioritize stunting-prone districts, such as East Nusa Tenggara, Papua and sections of Sulawesi, where malnutrition rates remain above 30%.��

Train local cooks through polytechnic and vocational programs, creating jobs and boosting standards. Link each kitchen to a local farmers’ collective, reducing food miles and stimulating rural income. Such approaches advance not only SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 3 (Good Health) but also SDG 13 (Climate Action), since locally sourced meals cut transport emissions and waste.

Critics believe that MBG will the education budget, while international evidence supports the opposite. In the EU, school-meal programs attendance and achievement, yielding a 7:1 economic return. Every well-fed child is a future worker, better educated and a citizen less dependent on health subsidies.

The World Food Program school feeding “the world’s most extensive safety net,” reaching 418 million children globally in 2025. Indonesia is right to join that movement. However, leadership means learning from others’ mistakes instead of making the same ones.

Can the MBG move forward?

Ultimately, the MBG crisis tests ���Ի�DzԱ������’s political maturity. Can the country move from grand announcements to detailed delivery? Good local governance requires decentralized oversight, public participation and transparent measurements. 

According to the United Nations Right to , “rights holders must participate in the creation and monitoring of policies that impact them.” In Indonesia, this parents sampling meals, community leaders authorizing purchases and nutritionists with independent authority to close dangerous kitchens before catastrophe strikes.

If Jakarta embraces that ethos, could become what it was meant to be: a civic contract for dignity, not a headline of hubris. Feeding a nation is not about the numbers served, but about trust earned. For Indonesia, and for a region watching closely, the lesson is clear —�� a program built on paper can fuel a campaign, but only a program built on good governance will feed a generation.��

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Feeding ���Ի�DzԱ������’s Future, or Poisoning its Promise? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On October 12, 2025, a for the Afghan government stated that Afghan forces had conducted retaliatory strikes against Pakistani military targets. Pakistan, in turn, that it had undertaken cross-border counterstrikes within Afghan territory, targeting both Afghan military installations and militant bases allegedly used to launch attacks on Pakistan. Subsequently, on October 15 and 17, Pakistan conducted additional airstrikes in Kandahar, Kabul and Paktika provinces, which struck civilian homes and marketplaces, killing and injuring hundreds of civilians.

Initially, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) remained silent after the October 9 airstrikes, but — following the Afghan retaliatory operations — that Pakistan had exercised its right of self-defense against both the Afghan government and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).��

In December 2024, following a separate set of airstrikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s MoFA had that its operations targeted the Hafiz Gul Bahadur Group, a nonstate actor, which, along with the TTP, was accused of carrying out multiple terrorist attacks inside Pakistan.��

Pakistan that the Afghan authorities are either unwilling or unable to effectively address the threat posed by these groups, thereby necessitating Pakistan to take measures to protect its national security interests. Nonetheless, these actions have raised serious concerns about their potential illegality and their ability to undermine broader regional stability.

Use of force and the right to self-defense under international law

Under international law, states are generally prohibited from using or threatening to use force in their international relations. This rule is found in of the UN Charter and is considered a (jus cogens), meaning no state is allowed to violate it. However, there are three exceptions to this rule: (1) when a state exercises the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, (2) when a State uses force at the invitation or with the consent of another state and (3) the UN Security Council authorizes the use of force under of the UN Charter. Any use of force outside these exceptions constitutes a clear violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

The justification for Pakistan’s airstrikes in Afghanistan relies on the right of self-defense, as outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, this right applies only when a state has been subjected to an “armed attack”, and international law sets clear conditions for invoking it: (1) self-defense, whether individual or collective, must be in response to an “armed attack” under international law. 

The Charter does not define “armed attack.” Nonetheless, it is generally believed that an armed attack occurs when the regular forces of one state attack another’s territory, whether by land, sea, or air. (2) The attack must be carried out by a state that is a member of the UN, and (3) the state using the right of self-defense must report its actions to the UN Security Council.

The question arises as to whether the right to self-defense extends to “armed attacks” by nonstate actors operating from the territory of another state. The wording of Article 51 does not explicitly say so, but the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) rulings — including the opinion and the case — indicate that Article 51 applies only to armed attacks by states, unless the nonstate actors’ conduct can be legally attributed to a state.

Nevertheless, some scholars that the right to self-defense includes armed attacks by nonstate actors. These scholars rely on two UN Security Council resolutions adopted after 9/11 to support this view. However, Resolutions and recognize that the right of individual and collective self-defense must be exercised only in accordance with the UN charter, clearly implying that the use of force in self-defense must still adhere to the conditions established under Article 51.��

Particularly, the need to establish a clear link (attribution) between the host state and the nonstate actor responsible for the attack. Because attacks by the TTP cannot be attributed to Afghanistan, Pakistan’s unilateral military operations inside Afghan territory do not meet the requirements of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Therefore, they constitute a violation of the international legal prohibition on the use of force.

“Unable and unwilling” standard

The “” standard suggests that if a state harbors nonstate actors who launch attacks against another state, and if that state either fails to act against them or lacks the capacity to do so, the victim state can claim its right to self-defense. For instance, Pakistan maintains that TTP operates from Afghan territory and has repeatedly urged Afghanistan to address the issue.��

If Afghanistan is either unwilling or unable to confront TTP, Pakistan claims it may resort to self-defense measures against the group. The United States and its allies have previously this standard to justify unilateral military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Syria, arguing that Syria was unable or unwilling to suppress ISIS activities threatening Iraq. They also argued that their actions were taken at Iraq’s request, which faced an imminent threat from ISIS.

However, this doctrine formal legal status under the UN Charter or customary international law. Instead, it is a unilateral reinterpretation of Article 51, primarily advanced by the United States and some of its allies to legitimize unilateral use of force that would otherwise constitute clear violations of the Charter.

In practice, the “unable or unwilling” standard has been invoked only by a few states so far, typically to justify their unilateral military actions without the consent of the territory’s state or any authorization from the UN Security Council. Similarly, Pakistan’s use of this legally unfounded standard to justify airstrikes inside Afghanistan reflects the same domineering unilateralism that the US and its allies have used against weaker states, bypassing the UN Charter’s explicit prohibition on the use of force.

The recent Pakistani airstrikes

In recent months, Pakistan has conducted a series of airstrikes within Afghan territory, marking a significant escalation in regional tensions and raising serious questions about respect for international law by even postcolonial states. Pakistan previously its December 2024 air operations as lawful measures directed against the Hafiz Gul Bahadur Group, a nonstate actor along with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) — alleged to have orchestrated multiple terrorist attacks inside Pakistan.��

However, following the airstrikes of October 9, 2025, Pakistan refrained from issuing an official explanation. It was only after Afghanistan reportedly launched retaliatory strikes on the night of October 11-12, 2025, that Islamabad released two official statements — one from its and another from .

The military statement warned that if the “Taliban government” failed to take effective action against terrorist groups operating from Afghan soil, Pakistan would continue to exercise its right to defend its people by the persistent neutralization of terror targets. This statement effectively left open the possibility of further cross-border unilateral military operations inside Afghanistan under the pretext of self-defense. 

The MoFA statement also noted that Pakistan has exercised its right of self-defense against the “unwarranted aggression” from the Afghan side. It warned that “any further provocations would be met with an unwavering and befitting response.” Both statements thus explicitly framed Pakistan’s use of force within the broader legal discourse of self-defense, but with little visible effort to articulate a clear legal basis for its actions within the established framework of self-defense under international law.

Pakistan’s justification rests on the argument that Afghanistan has failed to address the threat posed by the TTP, and that such failure demonstrates either unwillingness or inability on the part of the Afghan authorities to prevent their territory from being used as a base for attacks against Pakistan. 

By invoking this rationale, Pakistan clearly seeks to rely on the legally unfounded “unwilling or unable” standard. Politically, these actions also expose Pakistan to charges of hypocrisy. Islamabad has repeatedly similar unilateral military strikes conducted by neighboring states — particularly India — labeling them as and violations of its sovereignty.��

Pakistan’s recent actions mirror the very justifications it has historically rejected, thereby weakening its credibility and normative commitment to international law. Finally, by normalizing the cross-border unilateral use of force against non-state actors inside the territory of another sovereign state under the guise of self-defense, Pakistan risks legitimizing similar actions by other states inside its own territory.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Pakistan’s Airstrikes in Afghanistan: Aggression or Self-Defense? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Most of the world’s states have that a negotiated, sovereign Palestine alongside Israel remains the clear goal. The real issue now is practical: Can diplomats and leaders transform that declaration into enforceable, step-by-step actions that protect civilians and secure progress, or will it stay as a loud, moral vow that the parties — and geopolitics — gradually dismantle?��

The revealed as much about global politics as it did about sympathy for Palestinian statehood. All Gulf Arab states backed the declaration; The United States, Israel and countries voted no.

A dozen states abstained, from small European and Pacific states to African partners and Latin American allies. Those abstentions were not uniform expressions of opposition but pragmatic hedges: Some governments closer ties with Israel and caution in voting, while others cited a need to balance when to abstain.

A history of rhetoric

In short, the vote exposed a fault line that every advocate of a durable settlement must address: Winning global sympathy is not the same as building a multilateral mechanism capable of translating consensus into credible incentives and safeguards. That distinction is important because the resolution includes both principles and risks.

It condemned Hamas’s October 7 attacks and called for disarmament, while also demanding an end to siege strategies and attacks on civilians in Gaza — the duality that many capital governments say they support but that few have effectively put into practice.

The United Nations can outline a roadmap; However, implementation needs institutions, funding, monitoring and political backing. Currently, the international community risks repeating an old pattern of strong followed by fragmented implementation. The Palestinian leadership and its allies must bridge that gap between voting support and actual delivery. So what makes a political declaration into a deliverable plan?

Steps for the future

First, convert symbolism into a Two-State Implementation Compact: a time-bound, measurable framework hosted by the UN that ties phased recognition and political steps to clear, verifiable benchmarks — humanitarian access, de-escalation, credible disarmament mechanisms and concrete governance reforms in Palestinian institutions.

Donors would commit finance to a multilateral trust fund; Propose a guarantor group composed of key regional actors, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, EU members and willing Global South partners, anchored in clear multilateral commitments and calibrated bilateral pledges tied to verifiable benchmarks. The General Assembly’s overwhelming vote gives moral legitimacy to such a compact; Diplomatic ingenuity can turn it into leverage.

Second, tailor diplomacy to the abstainers. The dozen states that abstained are instructive: Their decisions were often driven by bilateral ties, domestic coalitions or sober doubts about immediate feasibility. Rather than treating them as an undifferentiated bloc, Palestinian and international envoys must offer bespoke pathways to convert hedging into commitment.

For some Pacific and African states, that may mean development partnerships, climate funds and visible humanitarian cooperation; For some European microstates, clearer legal language on security guarantees and refugee solutions; For Latin American partners, concrete trade and technology cooperation linked to recognition. Diplomacy that listens and incentivizes will be far more effective than moral reproach. 

Third, Palestinian leaders must make the case domestically and institutionally. International support will always ask, implicitly or explicitly: Who will govern? The resolution presumes the post-conflict Palestinian Authority will play a central role — but its is . A credible, accountable roadmap for governance, anticorruption measures, security sector reform and inclusive political representation will make international commitments politically safer and more likely to stick.

In practice, that means immediate steps: Preparing transparent electoral timelines, beefing up civil-service capacity, publishing anticorruption benchmarks and creating independent monitoring mechanisms that give donor states confidence that their investments foster a viable state, not a failed one. 

Fourth, tie recognition to rapid humanitarian stabilizers. Where the compact signals phased recognition, donors must pair that political momentum with fast-disbursing and reconstruction pledges tied to verified protection of civilians and unfettered humanitarian corridors.

The next steps, forward or backward

A pooled “Palestine Stabilization Fund” could unlock cash within 72 hours of verified access, ensuring that diplomacy does not merely salute principles but immediately eases suffering. This practical linkage — diplomacy backed by deliveries — will prove the proposition that peace dividends are real. 

The General Assembly vote was a rare moment of international clarity. But history will judge today’s states on whether they convert a declaration into structures that make two states politically viable and materially possible.

The alternative — allowing the momentum to fade into bilateral maneuvering and symbolic votes — risks consigning another generation to conflict and displacement. The task is urgent, morally compelling and, crucially, still within reach: Craft a compact, fund it sensibly, convince the skeptics with targeted offers and demand credible Palestinian governance and verification. 

If the world can do that, it will remember the September vote as the start of a process; If it cannot, it will remember another squandered moral moment. The difference between those outcomes will be measured in lives — and that responsibility now rests on the diplomats and leaders who said yes. 

[ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Diplomacy After The Vote: Building A Better Two-State Compact appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Following this, the Monitoring Team of the UN Security Council (UNSC) Sanctions Committee explicitly TRF in its reports for the first time — a move that India has been advocating for since the 2019 Pulwama Attacks. A member state in regards to the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack that it “Could not have happened without Lashkar-e-Taiba support, and there’s a relationship between LeT and TRF.” A second member state noted that “the attack was carried out by TRF, which was synonymous with LeT.”

While these are major diplomatic wins for India and help corner Pakistan when it comes to denying its terror-sponsoring activities, it will essentially be business as usual for the latter. 

For India, a real win lies in on-ground efforts. As the pattern indicates, a terror designation does little to deter Pakistan-funded terror in Jammu and Kashmir (a northern state in India that shares a contested border with Pakistan). But intelligence-based counterterror operations have proven successful in eliminating groups like the Indian Mujahideen (IM) in the past.

Terror designations offer little immediate security��

US designations of Pakistan-backed terrorist outfits have long been viewed as a diplomatic tool India can leverage in international forums, particularly in influencing outcomes such as listings on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which is a global money laundering and terror financing watchdog. 

However, as takes center stage in the global order, these diplomatic maneuvers now hold little deterrent value. The case of the IM — a group formed through the reorganization of the declining Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) cadre — illustrates this trend.

The group was a nightmare for the Indian security landscape as IM’s operational behaviour was of maximum terror with minimum identification. The IM’s designation as an FTO by the US came in September 2011, two months after the July 13 Mumbai serial . Yet this did little to deter IM from striking Indian cities: three cases of limited intensity bombing were conducted by IM in eight months in 2013, from the Hyderabad to the Patna , resulting in and around 190 injuries.

The LeT was designated as an FTO in December 2001, but carried out the Akshardham Temple within nine months, followed by the 2003 Mumbai — demonstrating continued operational capacity.��

The US itself has faced serious threats and attacks after terror designations. Take the case of Al-Qaeda, which was designated an FTO by the US in October 1999, but less than two years later carried out one of the deadliest terror attacks of the decade: the September 11 (9/11). It was followed by continued strikes, including the USS Cole in 2000 and the Riyadh compound in 2003. Similarly, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the precursor to the Islamic State (ISIS), executed a series of hotel targeting Westerners in 2005, shortly after its own FTO designation in 2004.

In the long term, it can be seen that IM faced a strong impact from sanctions. However, despite being a weaker group, they still managed to survive (though in degraded strength) till 2017. With this in mind, it is easy to see how the impact of FTO designations on stronger and well-resourced terror groups like the LeT or Jaish-e-Mohammed remains limited.

Designations disrupt but ��Dz�’t dismantle

These examples point to a fundamental limitation: the FTO mechanism aims primarily at disruption, not dismantlement. It is most effective against groups with limited resilience and financial dependency on formal networks, and can thus collapse due to disruption. Robust terror organizations tend to endure due to three key structural advantages:

1. Safe Havens and Porous Borders: Territories with weak governance, such as parts of Africa or , provide physical bases for training, recruitment, and planning. Designation efforts have little effect without the of local and national host governments. After 9/11, Al-Qaeda shifted its base to Pakistan’s tribal areas to remain off the radar of US military operations. LeT similarly went underground with the of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) after the November 26, 2008, (26/11) in India.
2. Decentralized Operations: Decentralized and tight, cell-based networks help terror groups build multiple offshoots and use them as front organizations. This allows these groups to operate even if their leadership gets targeted by arrests or FTO sanctions. The LeT used IM and TRF, while Al-Qaeda used its regional branches such as AQI and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to bypass sanctions.��
3. Alternative Funding Sources: Some non-traditional funding sources are immune to the US’s banking sanctions, allowing terror organizations to procure arms and explosives and send them to safe havens for training through various cross-border networks. The , charitable fronts, and non-traditional funding from sympathetic donors allow groups to circumvent asset freezes and FTO-sanctioned disruptions. After their designations, Al-Qaeda used hawala networks and Gulf-based donors to finance 9/11, while LeT sustained itself through the “charitable activities” of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), a front with ISI backing, leading to 26/11.

The benefits of network-centric counterterror strategies��

Where designations fell short, coordinated multi-dimensional and intelligence-led strategies focused on dismantlement have yielded better results. This involves a : combining targeted strikes with intelligence-led efforts to degrade networks.

Targeted strikes help in eliminating leadership, and strong intelligence works to identify financial pathways, front organizations, and decentralized cells. This has driven major successes in India’s counterterror landscape, starting with the collapse of the IM. 

Beginning in 2012, Indian intelligence worked in close with the US and other countries like Nepal, highlighting a multi-specter counter strategy. They conducted sustained operations that dismantled IM’s operational and financial networks.��

in the Gulf were identified and sanctioned under the FTO, leading to a collapse of its funding streams. Some serious intelligence work led to the of key operatives, including IM’s leader Yasin Bhatkal, as well as Abdul Wahid Siddibapa, who was associated with their financial funding. With the of other key operatives in 2014, IM’s Azamgarh and Pune modules were also brought down. By 2017, the Indian Mujahideen had been effectively dismantled.

TRF and IM: Learning the right lessons

The key operational similarity between LeT’s IM and LeT’s TRF is the use of maximum terror with minimal identification, with a slight difference in operational advancement and method of engagement, which is direct but sophisticated in �ո��’s case. The IM overtly and aggressively executes attacks through bombings, but TRF relies more on covert work and sets a limited target with high symbolic value and psychological impact. 

The approach is also quite the same — they young muslims by exploiting local grievances, communal coloring and political approaches. TRF has intensified this through via limited tech capabilities, focusing on Kashmiri youth.��

Despite being a smaller organization, TRF’s efforts to develop and modernize its operational behavior make it harder to influence through designations and sanctions. Moreover, an additional difficulty with TRF lies in developing a strong and grounded counterterror strategy — not at the operational level, but at the tactical level. Several key factors explain the limited progress so far:

First, network-centric operations have not been able to penetrate �ո��’s tight, decentralized cells, likely due to in human intelligence and limited visibility into ground-level dynamics in Jammu and Kashmir.

Second, the group’s operational pattern relies heavily on and recently radicalized individuals who are not on law enforcement watchlists. This makes early detection and preemption difficult.

Third, TRF has demonstrated quick tactical adaptability. The satellite data, secure encrypted communication, coordinated hit-and-run strikes to exhaust and distract government forces, as well as the use of body-cameras and high-end weaponry, show that the outfit focuses not only on sustenance but on advancement — and is actively evolving its methods.

These challenges, while significant, are not insurmountable. Addressing them requires a shift toward more advanced network-centric operations — anchored in the integration of intelligence across domains. This means building intelligence fusion models that combine human intelligence (HUMINT) and open-source intelligence (OSINT) with technical assets such as drone surveillance, cyber forensics, and satellite imaging. Such capabilities must be embedded within a broader multi-spectrum counterterrorism strategy: one that combines targeted operations, search-and-destroy missions, and financial disruption. 

�ո��’s — particularly its financing through hawala networks and front organizations — can still be targeted in the same manner as the IM was in the early 2010s, ideally in coordination with international partners such as the US.

The dismantling of TRF will depend not on designations or sanctions, but on sustained operational and intelligence recalibration. That will require clear strategic direction — and political will — from the highest echelon in New Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir.

Perhaps the recent , which resulted in the elimination of the Pahalgam terror mastermind, is one indication of a gradual movement towards a multi-specter counterterror strategy.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post A US Terror Designation Won’t Defeat Pakistan’s The Resistance Front — Indian Ground Operations Will appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The for 2025 estimates that over 24.6 million people across Sudan “face acute hunger nationwide.” At least 12 million have fled their homes, and 3.7 million have sought refugee status in neighboring countries. Despite these staggering numbers, international attention has faltered. Donor fatigue, compounded by political distractions abroad, has left humanitarian operations underfunded and overstretched.

Sudan’s response plan falls short

In August 2024, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) a proposed peace agreement. blocking a diplomatic breakthrough and ensuring the continuation of the war. With no ceasefire in place, aid agencies cannot reach large swathes of the population. Fighting between the SAF and its rival, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has already beyond Khartoum. Battles now rage in Darfur, South Kordofan and along Sudan’s western borders.����

Before Khartoum changed hands, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali the “High-Level Humanitarian Conference for the People of Sudan” in Addis Ababa. The summit, held alongside the , drew representatives from the United Arab Emirates (), , the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The summit raised over $200 million for humanitarian aid in Sudan, pledged mostly by the UAE, far short of the $4.2 billion that say they need to address the crisis in Sudan and an additional $1.8 billion for neighboring countries hosting refugees.

Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders), one of the largest medical NGOs operating in the region, operations in multiple displacement camps after rising violence made it impossible to ensure staff safety. Other aid organizations have faced looting, armed obstruction and threats from both SAF and RSF fighters. UN officials who recently entered areas around Khartoum “unimaginable levels of destruction” and widespread trauma among civilians.��

Meanwhile, the situation continues to deteriorate on Sudan’s borders. Over Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries, with Chad bearing a heavy burden. Tensions between Chad and the SAF have escalated, with SAF officials to strike targets inside Chad. SAF General Yasir Al-Atta also accused South Sudan of harboring “traitors”, further straining relations with another neighbor.

In Darfur, fighting around the town of El Fasher threatens to draw regional actors into the conflict. A potential resurgence of the Zaghawa rebellion — an ethnic movement with roots in both Sudan and Chad — could deepen the violence. 

No peace in sight��

Efforts to mediate the crisis have so far yielded little progress. In 2024, both Chad and Ethiopia attempted to broker peace and facilitate aid delivery. Their initiatives stalled, as Sudanese generals refused to compromise. Talks scheduled for March 2025 quickly broke down after the SAF demanded for a ceasefire that RSF leaders rejected.

The crisis has also suffered from dwindling international aid. In the early weeks of his presidency, US President Donald Trump cut more than from the foreign aid budget, targeting programs run by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). These cuts basic assistance, such as vaccines, clean water and agricultural support, not only in Sudan but across several humanitarian zones in Africa. These programs could have played a vital role in preventing widespread malnutrition and disease.��

As of April 2025, UN agencies receiving less than 10% of their required funding for Sudan. Humanitarian officials have expressed deep concern that, without immediate and significant support, the crisis may spiral further. Cross-border violence, mass displacement and food shortages could destabilize the wider Horn of Africa and Sahel regions. The longer the war continues, the harder it becomes to contain its effects.��

Without a international response — and a credible commitment from Sudanese factions to pursue peace — the suffering of civilians will only intensify. Sudan’s war has already spread well beyond its frontlines. It now threatens to engulf the region.

[ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial��policy.

The post Sudan’s Crisis Worsens Amid Escalating War and Fading International Support appeared first on 51�Թ�.

March 18’s United Nations Security Council spotlighted that divide. US Interim Ambassador Dorothy Shea was the only representative to accuse Hamas rather than Israel of breaking the ceasefire, reigniting hostilities and worsening an already catastrophic humanitarian disaster in Gaza. Similarly, Israel and the US stand alone at first glance in supporting US President Donald Trump’s vision of Gaza as a high-end beachfront real estate void of much of its indigenous population.

The rest of the international community supports the Arab world’s alternative plan that calls for an end to the war, an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the creation of a Palestinian interim administration of the Gaza Strip and the temporary resettlement of Gazans in safe zones in Gaza. Meanwhile, the war-ravaged territory is reconstructed to the tune of $53 billion.

So far, it all seems straightforward. But dig a little deeper, and the fault lines begin to blur.

UAE–Israeli alignment

A series of persistent but unconfirmed reports suggest that the United Arab Emirates may be privately more in sync with Israel than with its Arab brethren regarding Hamas and Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not the only Middle Eastern leader infuriated by a last month between a senior US negotiator and Hamas. It was the first ever face-to-face US engagement with the group, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and a terrorist organization by US designation. So was UAE President Mohammed Bin Zayed, a staunch opponent of Islamist groups.

UAE ambassador to the US, Yousef al-Otaiba, a close associate of Bin Zayed, US President Donald Trump’s administration to reject the Arab plan for Gaza drafted by Egypt and adopted unanimously at a March 4 Arab summit in Cairo. Privately, UAE officials have complained that the plan failed to call for the disarming of Hamas and its removal from Gaza. Bin Zayed did not attend the conference, sending his deputy prime minister instead.

In February, al-Otaiba described Trump’s call for the resettlement of Gaza’s 2.3 million Palestinians as “difficult” and “challenging.” But when asked whether the UAE was working on a plan for Gaza, al-Otaiba responded, despite Egypt’s draft of the Arab plan already having been circulated, “Not yet. I ��Dz�’t see an alternative to what’s being proposed. I really .”

Meanwhile, Emirates Leaks, a mysterious website critical of the Emirati government, asserted that the UAE had unsuccessfully attempted to persuade South Africa to withdraw or at least weaken the genocide case against Israel it filed in the International Court of Justice. The report could not be independently confirmed.

Lines blur further

In an even greater blurring of the fault lines, the UAE, alongside Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is the largest shareholder in an investment firm headed by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, with stakes in Israeli financial services group Phoenix Holding. The Holding is in businesses listed by the United Nations Human Rights Council as operating in West Bank settlements deemed illegal under international law.

In a seemingly bizarre muddying of the lines, Netanyahu has kicked up a political storm with his firing of Ronen Bar, the head of Israel’s domestic Shin Bet security service. He did this in part for Bar’s members of the prime minister’s staff for their dealings with Qatar.

Netanyahu’s former spokesperson, Eli Feldstein, allegedly worked for a Doha-based firm that recruited Israeli journalists to write pro-Qatar stories. Two other Netanyahu staffers, Jonatan Urich and Yisrael Einhorn, allegedly helped Qatar bolster its image ahead of the Gulf state’s hosting of the 2022 World Cup.

In late March, Israeli police two suspects in the case accused of bribery, fraud, breach of trust, money laundering and illegal contact with a foreign agent. The suspects were not identified under a gag order placed on investigation details.

The staffers’ activities countered Netanyahu’s long-standing efforts to tarnish Qatar’s reputation and undermine its mediation role. The staffers Qatar to fund the Hamas government in Gaza to weaken the Palestinian polity by perpetuating the rift between the group and the West Bank-based, internationally recognized Palestine Authority.

The blurred lines contribute to Israel’s ability to do what it wants with the Trump administration’s backing, even if its actions violate agreements. One such agreement is the Gaza ceasefire, negotiated with the help of the US, Qatar and Egypt, and accepted by Israel. The blur also enhances Israel and the US’s ability to blame Hamas for the ceasefire’s collapse.

Extending the ceasefire

In the latest iteration of efforts to get the ceasefire back on track, Hamas agreed to an Egyptian to reinstate the Gaza ceasefire. Per the proposal, Hamas must swap up to six Israeli hostages and the remains of an unspecified number killed during the war. In exchange, Israeli officials will release Palestinians incarcerated in Israel, initiate negotiations on ending the war and lift the Israeli blockade. This blockade has prevented humanitarian aid from entering Gaza and cut off the supply of electricity in recent weeks.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Hamas Political Bureau member Bassem Naim said the group’s acceptance of a 50-day extension of the ceasefire’s first phase was dependent on the mediators, the US, Qatar and Egypt, guaranteeing that all parties would engage in serious second-phase negotiations that would bring an end to the war and Israel’s withdrawal from the Strip.

The problem is that whatever guarantee the mediators may give is unlikely to be worth the paper it would be written on. The US is the only country capable of pressuring Israel to comply.

“There is no force on the planet prepared to give Hamas assurances that if they give up their only card — the dead and living hostages — Israel would agree to all of its obligations. Hamas understands what Trump and Netanyahu are doing with the phases. They’re Hamas of the cards it has left,” said veteran Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller, who worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial��policy.

The post Gaza’s Fault Lines Are Less Linear Than Meets the Eye appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The failed diplomatic approach in 2018 produced two major consequences: Houthi aggression along the Red Sea and Arabian Sea and the crimes against Yemenis working for humanitarian organizations. Accounts of the for Hodeidah city from June to December 2018 depict how anti-Houthi forces were to their advance. Humanitarian and analysts warned against “destructive” military against Houthis and advocated for a diplomatic approach to prevent dire consequences for the civilian population. By the time Griffiths called for a in Stockholm, southern forces and units under Commander Tareq Saleh had reached the and advanced to a position within east of the city.

The summit concluded with a photo-op and handshake between the Legitimate Government’s Foreign Minister, Khaled al-Yamani, and Houthi chief negotiator Muhammad Abd al-Salam. What weeks and months later was a classic Houthi manipulation of the Stockholm Agreement — they retained full control over the city, port facilities in Hodeidah and Salif and the oil terminal at Ras Isa. Houthis also neutralized the created by the UN Security Council to oversee implementation of the agreement.

Victory postponed

Criticism of the UN approach to conflict in Yemen is not new. Yemenis have attacked every UN Special Envoy since (who served from 2011 to 2015), each blamed for further empowering Houthis since they joined the popular against politician and military officer Ali Abdullah Saleh. Benomar was replaced soon after Houthis launched their invasion of the city of in March 2015. Houthis went on to control 25% more territory than they did when Griffiths was appointed as the third UN Envoy to Yemen in 2018. This prompted Griffiths’s replacement.

Reality is far more complicated than a collection of events to justify criticism. However, one can’t ignore failure sustained by insisting on the same approach for a decade expecting different results. of Yemenis have suffered the of war since 2011, and there is still no end in sight for this crisis. Yemenis critical of UN officials are aware Houthi rivals also bear responsibility for a decade of armed conflict, but it is abundantly clear that actions by the UN and others directly empowered Houthis and postponed victories to dislodge the rebels from the cities of Hodeidah, Sanaa and .

While Saleh’s stepping down in November 2011 was hailed as a major diplomatic achievement, Yemenis highlight the failure of the National Dialogue and the Peace and Partnership Agreement of as preludes to the catastrophe in December 2018. Houthis learned that the UN, regional powers and the West were unable to counter their manipulation of agreements that merely granted the rebels time to regroup and . The handshake at Stockholm once again served Houthi interests, as it increased operations at ’s Red Sea port, allowed troop mobilization east of Saada city and the western province and enabled a strangle-hold over Taiz.

Crimes as consequences

Houthis and their progressive allies in the West present aggression against civilian commercial as operations supporting Palestinians in . In reality, these attacks have been an extension of Iran’s strategy and Houthi tactics to gain leverage in Yemen.

As members of Iran’s of Resistance, Houthis continue to represent a vital instrument for Iran in the southwest of the Arabian Peninsula. While they have independent goals in their fight against Yemeni rivals, they are vital to Iran’s encirclement of Saudi Arabia. Iraqi from the north, Houthis from the south and new in East Africa grant Iran indispensable advantages over Gulf monarchies, not just Saudi Arabia.

The attacks along across the Bab al-Mandab strait managed to disrupt the global economy, short of expected damage, but failed to accomplish anything in support of Gaza. The attacks on ships, including the hijacking of the and sinking of the and M/V , were not new tactics. Houthis have vessels since the start of the war. Training and weapons facilitated their new capabilities and efficiency employed from October 2023. This shows the international community that as long as they are in power and present along the Red Sea coast, they represent an enduring threat to maritime commerce.

Their strategy, as that of Iran, failed to produce expected results vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia and the UN. Houthis expected the Coalition to acquiesce on for a formal security agreement, and the UN to submit under pressure and increase the flow of aid to northern Yemen. Saudi Arabia remains hesitant to finalize the agreement with Houthis beyond the of April 2022, and lack of funds from donors decreased the of aid to Houthi controlled territory. In response, Houthis raised the stakes and engaged in so-called “hostage diplomacy;” they launched a criminal campaign last summer that dozens of Yemenis who worked for agencies and non-governmental organizations.

There is no clear path to a return to peace talks between Houthis and the Legitimate Government. The UN lacks any leverage over Houthis and has simply abandoned Yemeni nationals, which leaves their fate up to willing mediators who in turn have their own demands from the international community. Saudi Arabia faces increasing unpredictability from the US administration, risking further derailment of its . A major challenge for Houthis this time around is that the structure of the PLC serves to prevent the next Stockholm fiasco. Southern factions within the Legitimate Government will not submit to pressure for a deal that further empowers Houthis once again.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial��policy.

The post International Community Bears Responsibility for Red Sea Crisis and Houthi Crimes appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The US emerged as the global superpower thanks to World War II. In 1945, Europe was in ruins. The war caused widespread destruction in Europe because of the bombing of cities and factories. European powers lost millions of people in the war. Being far from Europe and Japan, the incurred a very low rate of civilian casualties. There was almost no destruction of US infrastructure, with the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii, as a notable exception. Naturally, the US emerged as the leader of the West. Although the Soviet Union was a US ally during the war, it competed with the US for global hegemony following the Allied victory, a period referred to as the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the US and its Western allies engaged in a brutal global competition with the Soviets and other communist states. Notable confrontations between these two power centers included the Korean War (1950–1953), the Vietnam War (1955–1975) and the Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989). Using Soviet influence as an excuse, the US intervened in many countries, including Iran. At the behest of the UK, the US overthrew the first democratically elected government of Iran. Only 26 years after the infamous 1953 coup, the Iranian Revolution deposed the Shah and established Iran’s independence from both the US and the UK.

The US tacitly supported European imperial and colonial powers when they committed some of the worst genocides in human history. The most notable include the horrendous atrocities committed in Congo, Kenya and Algeria.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the world looked forward to years of peace and prosperity. Although the US proclaimed that this new era was one of peace, it began with the Rwandan Genocide (1994), the Bosnian Genocide (1995), to the present day with the US-backed genocide against Palestinians and the takeover of Syria by al-Qaeda’s affiliates.

The of the Soviet Union did not make the world more peaceful; it worsened it under unilateral US leadership. The fall produced a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. In particular, it released nationalistic, ethical, cultural and self-determination movements in the former Soviet states. It led to social unrest, organized crime, terrorism and corruption. The ripple effects of the fall will “continue to be felt for some time yet.”

After the Soviets were gone, the US no longer faced any serious challenges to its global hegemony. However, the US considered Iran’s independence from US influence a challenge to its global domination and has supported efforts to undermine the Islamic Republic of Iran. Presently, the US efforts that have unseated Assad of Syria were meant to undermine Iran’s dominance in the region. 

Recently, reporters saw US President Joe Biden leaving a bookstore with a copy of The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi in his hand. The book describes the Palestinian struggle for their homeland. “Settler-colonial confrontations with indigenous peoples have only ended in one of three ways: with the elimination or full subjugation of the native population, as in North America; with the defeat and expulsion of the colonizer, as in Algeria, which is extremely rare; or with the abandonment of colonial supremacy, in the context of compromise and reconciliation, as in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Ireland,” Khalidi writes. 

Hopefully, Biden will read this book and realize that instigating the war in Ukraine, enabling Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and aiding al-Qaeda affiliates are immoral.

The US’s prestige is falling worldwide, all it can do is slow the fall

The world is waking up thanks to Iran. The US’s decision to back Ukraine in the war and enable Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians has placed global attention on Iran. In particular, Iran’s support of the oppressed Palestinians has been a popular move. In the US, like around the world, young people with the oppressed Palestinians.

Iran has become so notable for its global standing as a supporter of the oppressed that its archenemy, Israel, admits it. On July 25, Israeli Prime Minister , against whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, addressed the US Congress.

Hearing the loud protest outside, he felt frustrated with the protesters, crying in his speech that “Iran is funding the anti-Israel protests that are going on right now outside this building.”

Led by Iran, worldwide, people realize the US is not what it claims to be. The US is not a promoter of democracy or peace but a brutal warmonger with no regard for human rights and international law. Internationally, it has used its veto power since 1970 against UN resolutions concerning Israel, with four in the last year. In November, it vetoed the latest UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in . Recently, it blundered by the rise to power in Syria of Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) formerly part of al-Qaeda.

To stop the US’ destructive behaviors globally, China, Russia, Iran and some other countries have moved away from the US and formed the alliance. More countries are planning to do the same. Within the new alliance, China pushes for more collaboration between countries rather than subjugating them, as the US does.

No supporter of democracy, not even much of a democracy

Globally, people are becoming more aware that the US does not support democracy. Its ventures into other countries in the name of democracy are a ploy to access their resources and wealth. In pursuit of power and wealth, the US has destroyed lives. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are just a few known examples where millions of innocent people were killed and billions of dollars of infrastructure were destroyed by US-led aggression.

The US is also a very flawed democracy itself. According to a poll from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, around of Americans want the US to pursue peace with Russia. Yet, the US continues arming Ukraine against Russia. Likewise, of Americans disapprove of Biden’s handling of the “Israel–Palestine conflict,” but Biden continues arming Israel. Biden is acting as a dictator, ignoring the will of the people. This is not unique to Biden. US presidents have been getting the US in wars since its inception. Despite its global proclamation as a beacon of democracy, the US has never been a true democracy.

The US presidential system is flawed. The winner of the majority of Electoral College votes wins. In 2000 and 2016, George W. Bush and Donald Trump lost the popular vote but still became presidents because they commanded a majority of Electoral College votes. Furthermore, the US is dominated by two main parties. Third parties are not even on the ballot in many states. Big money in politics also strengthens the hand of the two main political parties.

This means that American politics makes for the strangest of bedfellows. Christian evangelicals voted for Trump despite his chauvinism, infidelity, nepotism, racism and corruption. So did many working-class Americans as well as a majority of white women and Latino men voted for this celebrity billionaire who has given and plans to give tax cuts to the rich. On the other hand, Ivy League elites largely voted for Democrats even if they had misgivings about Kamala Harris.

Giving the rich tax breaks and spending too much on the military-industrial complex has led to the US suffering the highest rate among industrial countries. The US ranks last in outcomes among the ten major developed countries despite spending nearly twice as much — about 18% of gross domestic product — on healthcare than the others. The crisis is also worse than in other Western countries and the country has the highest rate among high-income countries.

As is well known, American interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and other countries led to the expansion of the military-industrial complex. Today, the US sends its poor to war who come back with post-traumatic stress disorder if not wounds or in body bags.

The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 killed thousands of innocents. Its intervention in Libya caused a civil war that continues to this day. Today, the US is inflicting similar misery on Syria. Together with Turkey and Israel, the US is supporting HTS. Note that HTS is an affiliate of al-Qaeda. The HTS fighters are nothing but terrorists who have innocents, including 12-year-olds and Americans. That is the reason why the US put a $10 million bounty on HTS leader . Yet today the US has supported HTS to get rid of the Assad family, legitimizing the very fighters it has designated as terrorists.

Instead of continuing to support death and destruction, the US should support peace and harmony. First, Washington must stop threatening, invading and harming other countries. This includes stopping support for terrorists like al-Golani as well as dropping sanctions that hurt millions of innocents. Second, the US must stop its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. A peace deal is in the interest of the entire world. Third, the US must support a free Palestine where Christians, Jews and Muslims can live together in peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Facilitating the Rise of HTS Is the Latest US Blunder appeared first on 51�Թ�.

With the toppled President Bashar al-Assad’s departure to Moscow, Russia, the entire Assad family’s 54-year hold on Syria has reached its end. Now many in the country and the international community ask which one is the real al-Jolani.

In a recent interview, al-Jolani, the face of the Syrian rebels, that his evolution was natural. “A person in their twenties will have a different personality than someone in their thirties or forties, and certainly someone in their fifties. This is human nature,” al-Jolani said.

The real al-Jolani will likely emerge in the way he approaches the formation of a post-Assad transition government, as well as the rights, security and safety of minorities. These include the Shiite Muslim Alawites from which the Assads hail and who long supported their brutal rule.

Moreover, even those who question the sincerity of his conversion suggest that al-Jolani may be the one rebel commander who can hold Syria together. “There is no local to stand (up to) or compete with Jolani,” an associate of the rebel leader said when he still publicly identified himself as a jihadist. The former associate warned that if al-Jolani fails, Syria, like Libya, will become a state torn apart by rival armed militias.

Al-Jolani “hasn’t changed at all, but there’s a difference between being in battle, at war, killing, and running a country,” the former associate said. He suggested the rebel leader’s more moderate and conciliatory posture stemmed from a recognition that the Islamic State’s sectarian bloodlust was a mistake. He also stated that al-Jolani “now considers himself a statesman,” and claimed the rebel leader may follow suggestions that he turn the group into a political party by transferring its military wing to a reconstituted Syrian military.

Meanwhile, the HTS paramilitary group moved quickly to safeguard public buildings in Damascus and manage the presence of heavily armed factions in the capital. “We will soon ban gatherings of armed people,” said Amer al-Sheikh, a HTS security official.

Al-Jolani needs to earn international trust

On December 10, 2024, the rebels Mohammed al-Bashir as caretaker prime minister for four months. It was not immediately clear what the next step would be.

Al-Bashir ran the rebel-led Salvation Government in their stronghold in Syria’s northern Idlib region. Since HTS launched its offensive, he has assisted captured cities, including Aleppo, Hama and Homs, in installing post-Assad governance structures.

Beyond ensuring domestic security and stability, al-Jolani will need to secure international support for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of traumatised and war-ravaged Syria. To do so, al-Jolani and HTS will have to convince Syrian minorities, segments of Syria’s majority Sunni Muslims and the international community that they have genuinely changed their colors and are not wolves in sheep’s clothing.

A questionable human rights record that has persisted long after they disavowed jihadism compounds HTS and al-Jolani’s reputational problems. As recently as August 2024, the United Nations the group of resorting to extrajudicial killings, torture and the recruitment of child soldiers.

“HTS detained men, women, and children as young as seven. They included civilians detained for criticising HTS and participating in demonstrations,” the UN Human Rights Council said in a report. “These acts may amount to war crimes.”

Even so, this week, UN Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen acknowledged that HTS has sought to address concerns in recent days.

“The realities so far is that the HTS and also the other armed groups have been sending to the Syrian people,” Pedersen said. “They have been sending messages of unity, of inclusiveness… We have also seen… reassuring things on the ground.”

Pedersen was referring to rebel assurances given to minorities, a pledge not to impose restrictions on women’s clothing, amnesty for conscripted personnel of Assad’s military, the rebels reaching out to Assad government officials and efforts to safeguard government institutions.

United States officials echoed Pedersen despite the US designation of HTS as a terrorist organization.

Incidents in Damascus and Hama

Against the backdrop of his in recent years in administering the Idlib region, the last rebel-held stronghold in Syria when the civil war’s battle lines were in 2020, al-Jolani has sought to project an image of tolerance, reconciliation and ability to deliver public goods and services.

Al-Jolani turned Idlib, historically the country’s poorest province, into its , despite his autocratic rule and frequent Syrian and Russian air attacks. To his credit, there were no major reports of attacks on Christians, Alawites and other minorities or acts of revenge against representatives of the Assad regime, including the military. Further, there was no mass looting as HTS fighters took over cities and towns, including Damascus.

That is not to say that everything unfolded . One Damascus resident reported that unidentified armed men had knocked on the door of an acquaintance and asked about his religion. A neighbor returned home to find his door broken down and his apartment looted. Similarly, a nearby government building was looted despite instructions from rebel leaders against violating public property. The rebels imposed an overnight curfew in Damascus to maintain law and order.

Earlier, a man in Hama told prisoners sitting on the ground with their hands tied behind them in a on social media, “We will heal the hearts of the believers by cutting off your heads, you swine.”

HTS’s statement on Syrian chemical weapons

Meanwhile, with Israel bombing Syrian arsenals of strategic weapons, including suspected sites, HTS missed an opportunity to unequivocally garner trust. In a statement, the group said it will the country’s remaining chemical weapons stockpiles and ensure they aren’t used against citizens. This is a stark contrast to the Assad regime, which used chemical weapons on several occasions against Syrian civilians.

In the wake of Assad’s fall, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the UN chemical weapons watchdog, said it had unidentified Syrian authorities “with a view to emphasising the paramount importance of ensuring the safety and security of all chemical weapons-related materials and facilities.”

HTS responded, , “We clearly state that we have no intention or desire to use chemical weapons or any weapons of mass destruction under any circumstances. We will not allow the use of any weapon, whatever it may be, against civilians or [allow them to] become a tool for revenge or destruction. We consider the use of such weapons a crime against humanity.”

The group would have done itself a favor by offering to destroy under international supervision what chemical weapons stockpiles fall into its hands and/or ask OPCW to assist in searching for such weapons.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will the Real al-Jolani Stand Up? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The agreement is based on the terms of United Nations Security Council , which ended the previous Israeli assault on Lebanon in 2006. The truce will be enforced by 5,000 to 10,000 Lebanese troops and the UN’s 10,000-strong United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon () peacekeeping force, which has operated in that area since 1978 and includes troops from 46 countries.

The truce has broad international support, including from Iran and Gaza’s Hamas leaders. Israel and Hezbollah were apparently glad to take a break from a war that had become counterproductive for them both. Effective resistance prevented Israeli forces from advancing far into Lebanon, and they were inflicting mostly senseless death and destruction on civilians, as in Gaza, but without the genocidal motivation of that campaign.

People all over Lebanon have welcomed the relief from Israeli bombing, the destruction of their towns and neighborhoods and thousands of casualties. In the Lebanese capital of Beirut, people have started returning to their homes.

In the south, the Israeli military has warned residents on both sides of the border not to return yet. It has declared a new (which was not part of the truce agreement) that includes 60 villages north of the border, and has warned that it will attack Lebanese civilians who return to that area. Despite these warnings, thousands of displaced people have been returning to south Lebanon, often to find their homes and villages in ruins.

Many people returning to the south still proudly display the yellow flags of Hezbollah. A flying over the ruins of the Lebanese city of Tyre has the words, “Made in the USA,” written across it. This is a reminder that the Lebanese people know very well who made the bombs that have killed and maimed thousands of them.

The truce’s success seems unlikely

There are already many reports of ceasefire violations. Israel shot and two journalists soon after the truce went into effect. Then two days after the ceasefire began, Israel attacked five towns near the border with tanks, fired artillery across the border and conducted on southern Lebanon. On December 2, as a UN peacekeeper told CNN that Israel had the truce “roughly a hundred times,” Hezbollah finally with mortar fire in the disputed Shebaa Farms area. Israel responded with heavier strikes on two villages, killing 11 people.

An addendum to the truce agreement granted Israel the right to strike at will whenever it believes Hezbollah is violating the truce, giving it what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “complete military freedom of action,” which makes this a precarious and one-sided peace at best.

The prospect for a full withdrawal of both Israeli and Hezbollah forces in 60 days seems slim. Hezbollah has built large weapons stockpiles in the south that it will not want to abandon. Netanyahu himself has warned that the truce “can be short.”

Then there is the danger of confrontation between Hezbollah and the Lebanese military, raising the specter of Lebanon’s bloody civil war, which killed an estimated 150,000 people between 1975 and 1990. 

So violence could flare up into full-scale war again at any time, making it unlikely that many Israelis will return to homes near the border with Lebanon, Israel’s original publicly stated purpose for the war.

The truce was brokered by the United States and France, and signed by the European Union, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. France was a colonial power in Lebanon and still plays a leading role in UNIFIL, yet Israel initially rejected France as a negotiating partner. It seems to have France’s role only when French President Emmanuel Macron’s government agreed not to enforce the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against Netanyahu if he comes to France.

The United Kingdom also signed the original truce proposal on November 25, but doesn’t appear to have signed the final agreement. The UK seems to have withdrawn from the negotiations under US and Israeli pressure because, unlike France, its new Labour government has publicly that it will comply with the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant. However, it has not explicitly said it would arrest them.

Netanyahu justified the truce to his own people by saying that it will allow Israeli forces to focus on Gaza and Iran, and only die-hard “Security” Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir voted the truce in the Israeli cabinet.

While there were hopes that the truce in Lebanon might set the stage for a ceasefire in Gaza, Israel’s actions on the ground tell a different story. Satellite images show Israel carrying out new mass demolitions of hundreds of buildings in northern Gaza to build a new road or between Gaza City and North Gaza. This may be a new border to separate the northernmost 17% of Gaza from the rest of the Gaza Strip, so Israel can expel its people and prevent them from returning, hand North Gaza over to Israeli settlers and squeeze the desperate, survivors into an even smaller area than before.

Syria complicates the conflict

And for all who had hopes that the ceasefire in Lebanon might lead to a regional de-escalation, those hopes were dashed in Syria when, on the very day of the truce, the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) launched a surprise offensive. HTS was formerly the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front. It itself and severed its formal link to al-Qaeda in 2016 to avoid becoming a prime target in the US war in Syria, but the US still brands it a terrorist group.

By December 1, HTS managed to seize control of Syria’s second largest city, Aleppo, forcing the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian allies onto the defensive. With Russian and Syrian jets bombing rebel-held territory, the surge in fighting has raised the prospect of another violent, destabilizing front reopening in the Middle East.

This may also be a prelude to an escalation of attacks on Syria by Israel, which has already Syria more than 220 times since October 2023, with Israeli airstrikes and artillery bombardments killing at least 296 people.

The new HTS offensive most likely has covert US support, and may impact US President-elect Donald Trump’s reported to withdraw the 900 US troops still based in Syria. It may also impact his nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Gabbard is a longtime critic of US for al-Qaeda-linked factions in Syria, so the new HTS offensive sets the stage for an explosive confirmation hearing, which may backfire on Syria hawks in Washington if Gabbard is allowed to make her case.

Arab and Muslim state strategies

Elsewhere in the region, Israel’s genocide in Gaza and war on its neighbors have led to widespread anti-Israel and anti-US resistance.

Where the US was once able to buy off Arab rulers with weapons deals and military alliances, the Arab and Muslim world is coalescing around a position that sees Israel’s behavior as unacceptable and Iran as a threatened neighbor rather than an enemy. Unconditional US support for Israel risks permanently downgrading US relations with former allies, from Iraq, Jordan and Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Yemen’s Ansar Allah (or Houthi) government has maintained a blockade of the Red Sea, using missiles and drones against Israeli-linked ships heading for the Israeli port of Eilat or the Suez Canal. The Yemenis have a US-led naval task force sent to break the blockade and have shipping through the Suez Canal by at least two-thirds, forcing shipping companies to reroute most ships all the way around Africa. The port of Eilat filed for in July, after only one ship docked there in several months.

Other resistance forces have conducted attacks on US military bases in Iraq, Syria and Jordan, and US forces have retaliated in a low-grade tit-for-tat war. The Iraqi government has strongly condemned U.S. and Israeli attacks on its soil as violations of its sovereignty. Attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria have flared up again in recent months, while Iraqi resistance forces have also launched drone attacks on Israel.

An emergency of the Arab League in Cairo, Egypt on November 26 voted unanimously to support Iraq and condemn Israeli threats. US–Iraqi talks in September drew up a for hundreds of US troops to leave Iraq in 2025 and for all 2,500 to be gone within two years. The US has outmaneuvered previous withdrawal plans, but the days of these very unwelcome US bases must surely be numbered.

Recent of Arab and Muslim states have forged a growing sense of unity around a rejection of US proposals for normalization of relations with Israel and a new solidarity with Palestine and Iran. At a meeting of Islamic nations in Riyadh on November 11, Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin-Salman publicly called the Israeli massacre in Gaza a for the first time.

Arab and Muslim countries know that Trump may act unpredictably and that they need a stable common position to avoid becoming pawns to him or Netanyahu. They recognize that previous divisions left them vulnerable to US and Israeli exploitation, which contributed to the current crisis in Palestine and the risk of a major regional war that now looms over them.

On November 29, Saudi and Western officials told Reuters that Saudi Arabia has on a new military alliance with the US, which would include normalizing relations with Israel. It is opting for a more limited US weapons deal.

The Saudis had hoped for a treaty that included a US commitment to defend them, like treaties with Japan and South Korea. That would require confirmation by the US Senate, which would demand Saudi recognition of Israel in return. But the Saudis can no longer consider recognizing Israel without a viable plan for Palestinian statehood, which Israel rejects.

On the other hand, Saudi relations with Iran are steadily improving since they restored relations 18 months ago with diplomatic help from China and Iraq. At a meeting with new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Qatar on October 3, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal Bin Farhan, “We seek to close the page of differences between the two countries forever and work towards the resolution of our issues and expansion of our relations like two friendly and brotherly states.”

Prince Faisal highlighted the “very sensitive and critical” situation in the region due to Israel’s “aggressions” against Gaza and Lebanon and its attempts to expand the conflict. He said Saudi Arabia trusted Iran’s “wisdom and discernment” in managing the situation to restore calm and peace.

The ball is in Trump’s court

If Saudi Arabia and its neighbors can make peace with Iran, what will the consequences be for Israel’s illegal, genocidal occupation of Palestine, which has been enabled and encouraged by decades of unconditional US military and diplomatic support?

On December 2, Trump on Truth Social that if the hostages were not released by the time of his inauguration, there would be “ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East.” “Those responsible,” he warned, “will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America.”

Trump and many of his acolytes exemplify the Western arrogance and lust for imperial power that lies at the root of this crisis. More threats and more destruction are not the answer. Trump has had good relations with the dictatorial rulers of the Gulf states, with whom he shares much in common. If he is willing to listen, he will realize, as they do, that there is no solution to this crisis without freedom, self-determination and sovereignty in their own land for the people of Palestine. That is the path to peace, if he will take it.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Truce in Lebanon: Can Diplomacy Rise from the Ruins? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The UN has been a nightmare. It is as dysfunctional as the League of Nations. The world has not seen peace even for a day since the UN’s inception in 1945. Delegates should have foreseen the UN’s failure in 1945. The organization came into existence for the UK, the US and the Soviets to expand their hegemony across the world. They projected peace for themselves, and not necessarily for the rest of the world.

How the Allies became the United Nations

On September 1, 1939, started with Germany invading Poland. The United Kingdom (UK) and France declared war on Germany as allies. The Soviet Union (Soviets) invaded eastern Poland on September 17. In June 1941, the Soviets joined the Allies. The Big Three (the UK, the US and the Soviets) formed a united organization of nations to maintain their global peace and security. The Allied powers met and signed the , pledging collaboration in fighting aggression. It proclaimed that “the only true basis of enduring peace is the willing cooperation of free peoples in a world in which, relieved of the menace of aggression, all may enjoy economic and social security.”

The US Constitution strictly limits the president’s power and rests the war declaration with Congress. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt short-circuited the Constitution, by authorizing the US to finance and arm the UK and France. In March 1941, Congress put this policy into law in the form of the without the constitutional process of declaring war. Germany and its allies, Italy and Japan (the Axis Powers), of course, considered the US to be aiding the enemy in war. 

The US later entered the war formally. In December 1941, Japan’s air force attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii, catching the US by surprise. Within days, that attack triggered the US to declare war on Germany. Within hours, Germany also declared war on the US. That month, China joined the Allies while resisting Japan’s expansion in China since 1937.

In August 1941, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill signed the pledging to stop territorial expansion, engage in free trade, collaborate with other nations, have access to “high seas and oceans”, stop the use of force, and work for a world peace free of “fear and want”, where all individuals are free to choose their form of government and enjoy economic advancement and social security. In January 1942, about four weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Big Three (the UK, the US, and the Soviet Union) and China, along with 22 other countries, signed a document pledging to accept the , which is referred to as the Declaration by the United Nations.

During World War II, the devastating effect of that war encouraged the the Big Four, to put aside their differences and collaborate in the war. To avoid such a war in the future, they began planning for the world. As the discussion progressed, the idea of a united world organization emerged. In October 1943, the Big Four signed the , recognizing “the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

In November- December 1943, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met for the first time in Tehran, Iran. They discussed the post-war arrangement and partitions. Roosevelt and Churchill assured Stalin that he could expand Soviet territory into Poland and Germany. President Roosevelt was so infatuated with Stalin that he called him Uncle Joe. “I began to tease Churchill,” the American President boasted, “… Winston got red and scowled and finally Stalin broke into a deep, hearty guffaw. It was then that I called him Uncle Joe.” This cavalier attitude of President Roosevelt regarding Eastern Europe is a typical example of a public servant intoxicated with power, and turning into a despot. Such a cavalier is responsible for the US presidents’ empowering the Zionist genocide against Palestinians and the takeover of Palestine. At the end of the Tehran meeting, they agreed on the Tehran Conference. They said: “We are sure that our concord will win an enduring peace. We recognize fully the supreme responsibility resting upon us and all the United Nations to make a peace which will command the goodwill of the overwhelming mass of the world’s peoples and banish the scourge and terror of war for many generations.”

The victorious Allies founded the UN

In October 1944, the Big Four met at Dumbarton Oaks, in Washington, DC. They proposed a United Nations consisting of the following:

• A General Assembly, composed of all the member nations oversees an Economic and Social Council. Nowadays, it oversees other councils, too.
• A Security Council is composed of eleven members, five permanent and six chosen by the GA for two-year terms.
• An International Court of Justice.
• A United Nations Secretariat.

After the war, they all wanted to be in of the global issues. The US had risen to the most powerful one among the Big Three but felt needed Soviet cooperation to finish the war. The Soviets did not trust the UK or the US. They insisted on restoring the old Russian Empire and succeeded. 

In April 1945, delegates from 46 nations attended the and discussed and approved the UN. They set up the UN objectives to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights…to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”&�Բ�����;

On June 25, 1945, the delegates met in San Francisco. After days of meetings, they unanimously passed the UN Charter. The major debacle was the veto power of the Big Five (the UK, the US, France, the Soviets, and China). Less powerful nations feared that if a veto power threatened peace, the Security Council would lose its significance. They wanted more power distribution. Finally, they went along in the interest of global peace. 

On September 2, 1945, the war ended. The Big Three decided to expand the United Nations by inviting other nations to join it. 

The shortcomings of the victors’ peace

To ensure their global hegemony, they planned the UN Security Council (UNSC) in the UN. The UK insisted on limiting the UNSC to the UK, the US and the Soviets. The US wanted China to be included because of its strong resistance against Japan, which freed the US to support Europe. To ensure Western control, the UK insisted on adding France to the Council. That is how the Big Five surfaced. The Soviets felt outnumbered by the West and asked for veto power, which was granted to all permanent members. 

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the only organ in the UN in which all member nations vote. Regardless of size or population, each member nation has only one vote. A simple majority decides procedural questions while a simple majority or a two-thirds vote decides substantive ones, depending on importance. It is mainly a deliberative body empowered to make recommendations to the UN Security Council (UNSC) regarding international issues. 

In contrast, the UNSC is primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security. It is an exclusive club. Nowadays, it has 15 members, 5 of whom are permanent members and endowed with veto power on every issue. The permanent members are the US, the UK, China, France, and Russia, also known as the Big Five. The GA chooses the other ten for two-year terms.

Like the League, the UN’s primary purpose has been to preserve peace and security. The UN members have promised not to use force except in self-defense and to use force collectively to preserve peace. In apparent violation of the UN Charter, the veto powers granted to certain member states have led to conflicts and wars, rather than preventing them. Until the fall of the Soviets in December 1991, the world faced two superpowers, the US and the Soviets, competing for global influence, a period known as the Cold War. They incited proxy wars nearly everywhere. 

Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US emerged as the world’s sole superpower. This shift in global dynamics has led to military interventions and interference in various countries, resulting in significant human suffering and destruction. Presently, the US is responsible for much of the global deaths and destruction, particularly in Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The US complicity in the genocide against Palestinians is the talk of the world these days.

Given these ongoing challenges, it is clear that the current state of the UN is not conducive to achieving lasting global peace. Meaningful reform or even the dismantling of the organization may be necessary. Adding Brazil, Germany, India, Japan or another country is unlikely to address the fundamental issues.

[ and edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can You See Why the UN Is Bad at Peace? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The only conflict where peace negotiations seem to be on the agenda is Ukraine. In April, both Vice President-elect JD Vance and Senator Rubio a $95 billion military aid bill that included $61 billion for Ukraine.

Rubio recently on NBC’s TODAY Show, saying, “I think the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong when standing up to Russia. But at the end of the day, what we’re funding here is a stalemate war, and it needs to be brought to a conclusion… I think there has to be some common sense here.”

On the campaign trail, Vance made a that the best way to end the war was for Ukraine to cede the land Russia has seized, for a demilitarized zone to be established and for Ukraine to become neutral, i.e. not enter NATO. He was roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats who argue that backing Ukraine is vitally important to US security since it weakens Russia, which is closely allied with China.

Any attempt by Trump to stop US military support for Ukraine will undoubtedly face fierce opposition from the pro-war forces in his own party, particularly in Congress, as well as perhaps the entirety of the Democratic Party. Two years ago, 30 progressive Democrats in Congress wrote a letter to President Joe Biden asking him to consider promoting negotiations. The party higher-ups were so incensed by their lack of party discipline that they came down on the progressives like a ton of bricks. Within 24 hours, the group had cried uncle and the letter. They have since all voted for money for Ukraine and have not uttered another word about negotiations.

So a Trump effort to cut funds to Ukraine could run up against a bipartisan congressional effort to keep the war going. And let’s not forget the efforts by European countries and NATO to keep the US in the fight. Still, Trump could stand up to all these forces and push for a rational policy that would restart the talking and stop the killing.

Netanyahu prepares for US support

The Middle East, however, is a trickier situation. In his first term, Trump showed his pro-Israel cards when he brokered the between several Arab countries and Israel; moved the US embassy to a location in Jerusalem that is partly on occupied land Israel’s internationally recognized borders and the occupied Golan Heights in Syria as part of Israel. Such unprecedented signals of unconditional US support for Israel’s illegal occupation and settlements helped set the stage for the current crisis.��

Trump seems as unlikely as Biden to cut US weapons to Israel, despite public opinion favoring such a halt. Additionally, a recent UN human rights showed that 70% of the people killed by those US weapons are women and children.

Meanwhile, the wily Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is already busy getting ready for a second Trump presidency. On the very day of the US election, Netanyahu his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, who opposed a lasting Israeli military occupation of Gaza and had at times argued for prioritizing the lives of the Israeli hostages over killing more Palestinians.

Israel Katz, the new defense minister and former foreign minister, is more hawkish than Gallant. He has led a to falsely blame Iran for the smuggling of weapons from Jordan into the West Bank.

Other powerful voices, National Security Minister and Finance Minister , who is also a “minister in the Defense Ministry,” represent extreme Zionist parties that are publicly committed to territorial expansion, annexation and ethnic cleansing. They both live in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

So Netanyahu has deliberately surrounded himself with allies who back his ever-escalating war. They are surely developing a war plan to exploit Trump’s support for Israel, but will first use the unique opportunity of the US transition of power to create facts on the ground that will limit Trump’s options when he takes office.

A US war with Iran would be catastrophic

The Israelis will doubtless redouble their efforts to drive Palestinians out of as much of Gaza as possible. This will confront Trump with a horrific humanitarian crisis in which Gaza’s surviving population is crammed into an impossibly small area with next to no food, no shelter for many, disease running rampant and no access to needed medical care for tens of thousands of horribly wounded and dying people. The Israelis will count on Trump to accept whatever final solution they propose, most likely to drive Palestinians out of Gaza, into the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt and farther afield.

Israel threatened all along to do to Lebanon the same as they have done to Gaza. Israeli forces have met fierce resistance, taken heavy casualties and have not advanced far into Lebanon. But as in Gaza, they are using bombing and artillery to destroy villages and towns, kill or drive people north and hope to effectively annex the part of Lebanon south of the Litani river as a so-called “buffer zone.” When Trump takes office, they may ask for greater US involvement to help them “finish the job.”

The big wild card is Iran. Trump’s first term in office was marked by a policy of “maximum pressure” against Tehran. He unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal, imposed severe sanctions that devastated the economy and ordered the of the country’s top general, Qassem Soleimani. Trump did not support a war on Iran in his first term, but had to be of attacking it in his final days in office by General Mark Milley and the Pentagon.

Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, recently to Chris Hedges just how catastrophic a war with Iran would be, based on US military wargames he was involved in. He predicts that such a war could last ten years, cost $10 trillion and still fail to conquer the country. Airstrikes alone would not destroy all of Iran’s civilian nuclear program and ballistic missile stockpiles. Once unleashed, the conflict would very likely escalate into a regime change war involving US ground forces in a country with three or four times the territory and population of Iraq, more mountainous terrain and a thousand-mile-long coastline bristling with missiles that can sink US warships.

But Netanyahu and his extreme Zionist allies believe that they must sooner or later fight an existential war with Iran if they are to realize their vision of a dominant Greater Israel. They believe that the destruction they have wreaked on the Palestinians in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, including the of their senior leaders, has given them a military advantage and a favorable opportunity for a showdown with Iran.

Biden could de-escalate the Middle Eastern conflict, but won’t��

By November 10, Trump and Netanyahu had spoken by phone three times since the election, and Netanyahu said that they see “eye to eye on the Iranian threat.” Trump hired Iran hawk , who helped him sabotage the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018, to coordinate the formation of his foreign policy team.

So far, the team that Trump and Hook have assembled seems to offer hope for peace in Ukraine, but little to none for peace in the Middle East and a rising danger of a US–Israeli war on Iran.

Trump’s expected National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is best known as a China hawk. He has voted against military aid to Ukraine in Congress, but he recently that Israel should bomb Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities. That would be the most certain path to a full-scale war.

Trump’s new UN ambassador, Elise Stefanik, has led moves in Congress to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. She led the questioning of US university presidents at an antisemitism hearing in Congress, after which the presidents of Harvard and Penn resigned.

While Trump will have some advisors who support his desire to end the war in Ukraine, there will be few voices in his inner circle urging caution over Netanyahu’s genocidal ambitions in Palestine and his determination to cripple Iran.

If he wanted to, Biden could use his final two months in office to de-escalate the conflicts in the Middle East. He could impose an embargo on offensive weapons for Israel, push for serious ceasefire negotiations in both Gaza and Lebanon and work through US partners in the Gulf to de-escalate tensions with Iran.

But Biden is unlikely to do any of that. When his own administration sent a letter to Israel last month, threatening a cut in military aid if Israel did not allow a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza in the next 30 days, Israel responded by doing just the opposite: actually cutting the number of trucks allowed in. The State Department claimed Israel was taking “steps in the right direction” and Biden to take any action.

We will soon see if Trump is able to make progress in moving the war in Ukraine towards negotiations, potentially saving the lives of many thousands of Ukrainians and Russians. But between the catastrophe that Trump will inherit and the warhawks he is picking for his cabinet, peace in the Middle East seems more distant than ever.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will Trump End or Escalate Biden’s Wars? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In Gaza, Israel appears to be launching its “” to drive the most devastated and traumatized 2.2 million people in the world into the southern half of their open-air prison. Under this , Israel would hand the northern half over to greedy developers and settlers who, after decades of encouragement from the United States, have become a dominant force in Israeli politics and society. The of those who cannot or refuse to move south has already begun.

In , millions are fleeing for their lives. Israel is blowing thousands to pieces in a repeat of the first phase of the genocide in Gaza. Every person it kills or forces out and every building in a neighboring country it demolishes opens the way for future Israeli settlements. The people of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia ask which of them will be next.

Israel attacks UNIFIL

Israel is not only attacking its neighbors — it is at war with the entire world. The nation is especially threatened when the world’s governments convene at the United Nations and in international courts to try to enforce the rule of international law. Like every other country, Israel is legally bound by the rules of the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and other multilateral treaties.

In July, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967 is , and that it must withdraw its military forces and settlers from all those territories. In September, the UN General Assembly passed a giving Israel one year to complete that withdrawal. If Israel fails to comply, as expected, the UN Security Council or the General Assembly may take stronger measures. These could include an international arms embargo, economic sanctions or even the use of force.

Now, amid the escalating violence of Israel’s latest bombing and invasion of Lebanon, Israel is attacking the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). This peacekeeping force’s thankless job is to monitor and mitigate the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shiite militia and political party in Lebanon.

On October 10 and 11, Israeli forces fired on UNIFIL positions in Lebanon. At least peacekeepers were injured. UNIFIL also accused Israeli soldiers of deliberately firing at and disabling the monitoring cameras at its headquarters, before two Israeli tanks later crashed into its gates, destroying them. On October 15, an Israeli tank at a watchtower in what UNIFIL described as “direct and apparently deliberate fire on a UNIFIL position.” UN missions is a war crime.

This is far from the first time Israel has attacked the soldiers of UNIFIL. The force has the worst death toll of any of the UN’s 52 peacekeeping missions since 1948. Since UNIFIL took up its positions in southern Lebanon in , Israel has UN peacekeepers from Ireland, Norway, Nepal, France, Finland, Austria and China. The South Lebanon Army, Israel’s Christian militia proxy in Lebanon from 1984 to 2000, killed many more, as have other Palestinian and Lebanese groups. In fact, 337 UN peacekeepers from all over the world have trying to keep the peace in southern Lebanon, which is sovereign Lebanese territory and should not face repeated Israeli invasions.��

A full 50 countries contribute to the 10,000-strong UNIFIL peacekeeping mission, anchored by battalions from France, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Nepal and Spain. All those governments have strongly and unanimously Israel’s latest attacks, and that “such actions must stop immediately and should be adequately investigated.”

Israel works to dismantle UNRWA

Israel’s assault on UN agencies is not confined to attacking its peacekeepers in Lebanon. The vulnerable United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), staffed by unarmed civilians, is under an even more vicious assault by Israel in Gaza. In the past year alone, Israel has and fired on UNRWA schools, warehouses, aid convoys and UN personnel, killing nearly workers.

UNRWA was created in 1949 by the UN General Assembly to provide to Palestinian refugees after the 1948 (catastrophe). The Zionist militias that later became the Israeli army violently expelled over 700,000 Palestinians from their homes and homeland, ignoring the UN partition plan. They forcibly seized much of the land the UN plan had allocated to form a Palestinian state.

In 1949, the UN recognized all that Zionist-occupied territory as the new state of Israel. The state’s most aggressive, racist leaders concluded that they could get away with making and remaking their own borders by force — the world would not lift a finger to stop them. Emboldened by its growing military and diplomatic alliance with the US, Israel has only expanded its territorial ambitions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now brazenly stands before the whole world and displays of “Greater Israel” that include all the land it illegally occupies. Meanwhile Israelis openly talk of parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Israel has long desired to dismantle UNRWA. In 2017, Netanyahu the agency of inciting anti-Israeli sentiment. He blamed UNRWA for “perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem” and for its elimination.

After Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, Israel 12 of UNRWA’s 13,000 staff of involvement. The agency immediately suspended those workers, and many countries pulled their UNRWA funding. However, a UN report later that Israeli authorities did not provide “any supporting evidence” to back up their allegations. Since this revelation, every country that previously supported UNRWA except the has restored its funding.

Israel’s assault on the refugee agency has only continued. There are now three in the Israeli Knesset. One aims to ban the organization from operating in Israel, another to strip UNRWA’s staff of legal protections afforded to UN workers under Israeli law and a third to brand the agency as a terrorist organization. Israeli members of parliament are also proposing legislation to UNRWA’s headquarters in Jerusalem and use the land for new settlements.

UN Secretary General Guterres that if these bills become law and UNRWA is unable to aid the people of Gaza, “it would be a catastrophe in what is already an unmitigated disaster.”

The US obstructs resolution

Israel’s relationship with the UN and the rest of the world is at a breaking point. When Netanyahu the General Assembly in New York in September, he called the UN a “swamp of antisemitic bile.” But the UN is not an alien body from another planet. It is simply the world’s nations coming together to try to solve our most serious common problems. One of these problems is the endless crisis that Israel’s actions are causing for its neighbors and, increasingly, the whole planet.

Now Israel wants to ban UN Secretary General António Guterres from even entering the country. AsIsrael invaded Lebanon on October 1, Iran responded to a series of Israeli attacks and assassinations by launching 180 missiles at Israel. Guterres put out a statement deploring the “broadening conflict in the Middle East,” but did not specifically mention Iran. Israel responded by him persona non grata in Israel, a new low in relations between Israel and UN officials.

Over the years, the US has partnered with Israel in its attacks on the UN. It has used its in the Security Council 40 times to obstruct the world’s efforts to force Israel to comply with international law.

US obstruction offers no solution. As chaos grows and spreads and the US’s unconditional support gradually pulls it deeper into the conflict, this policy can only fuel the crisis.

The rest of the world is looking on in horror. Many world leaders are making sincere efforts to activate the collective mechanisms of the UN system. US leadership helped build these mechanisms in 1945 so that the world would never again be consumed by global conflict and genocide after World War II.

A US arms embargo against Israel and an end to US obstruction in the UN Security Council could tip the political power balance in favor of the world’s collective efforts to resolve the crisis.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Israel’s Surging War on the World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

India and China are major regional powers in Asia and among the of the 21st century. Despite being neighbors, a stark contrast exists between their domestic policies, political systems, foreign policies, market economies, ideologies etc. Before acknowledging their present disputes, it is necessary to consider their initial relationship and ambitions.

India was under British colonial rule for nearly two centuries, declaring independence on August 15, 1947. It constructed a democratic political structure influenced by the Western states. Conversely, China faced a two-decade-long between Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from 1927 to 1949. The CCP gained complete control of mainland China and proclaimed the resulting People’s Republic of China would be based on Marxist ideology.

India was among the first non-communist countries to recognize the legitimacy of the new Chinese state. These two new states set in motion a favorable bilateral relationship. This era of brotherhood was publicly by the slogan, “Hindi Chini bhai bhai” (“Indians and Chinese are brothers”). However, this positive relationship would not last long.

India and China’s rising tensions

As early as the 1950s, suspicion and distrust grew between the nations surrounding China’s interest in Tibet, a buffer land between India and China. In 1951, China Tibet. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai attempted to ease tensions by signing the Panchsheel Pact in 1954. Then in 1959, the Chinese government the McMahon line, the border between India and Tibet (China). China started claiming the Indian territory of the Aksai Chin Plateau, and the India–China relationship further deteriorated when India discovered a Chinese road in the region.��

Border disputes arose between the nations, leading to the 1962 . The conflict ended with India’s defeat and China capturing areas of the Assam plains in northeast Aksai Chin and Demchok in northwest India. Relations worsened still when India gave to the Dalai Lama, a spiritual and temporal head of Tibet, and China Pakistan’s war efforts against India. Historians can trace periods of skirmish and negotiation alike to the 1960s.

In 2017, a major took place in Doklam, Bhutan. This area is claimed by both China and Bhutan and is an important juncture for all three nations, including India. While India accused China of building an illegal road in Bhutan’s territory, which caused security concerns for both India and Bhutan, China accused India of intrusion in its territory.

What started as a border dispute soon spilled over into foreign policy, dictating bilateral and multilateral relations as well as forming alliances. Asia, specifically South Asia and Eastern Asia, has become a testbed for both India and China to flex their power and influence. The pro-Chinese governments of India’s neighbors — Pakistan, the Maldives and now even Bangladesh — pressure India to change its 1984-esque “” attitude. Similarly, China is surrounded by pro-Indian governments — Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines — which cooperate with India militarily.

China has undertaken its Belt and Road and invested extensively in building sea routes to foster infrastructure development in other nations. The goal is to increase trade and trade relations with Asia. Meanwhile, India collaborates with the United States, Australia and Japan in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (or ) to counter China’s presence in the Indian Ocean. The Quad’s goal is to unify a multilateral coalition to resist Chinese influence, which could embolden other nations to join and counterbalance China’s dominance.

China has made many such advances to keep India under check. With this rise of Chinese dominance in market and international politics, India has become a major element to balance Chinese regional power.

International relations in the 20th century evolved with the start of new alliances and multilateral engagements. To make these intertwined relations more prominent, globalization connected national economies, forcing even the socialist nations to open their markets for trade. In the 21st century, any action taken by states unilaterally impacts other international players as well. As major regional powers, the fastest-developing economies and two of the most populous countries in the world, India and China have undeniably become crucial international forces.

The rift between India and China that started with border disputes and ideological differences is now a matter of international concern, with both equilibrating one another. Border issues are in themselves complicated problems faced by majority nations, solutions to which are never secure for both parties. Given the current international arena, ambitions and geopolitical nature of the power struggle, even if the border crisis were solved, a permanent settlement between India and China is infeasible for the foreseeable future.

Cooperation is still possible

Rup Narayan Das, author of the , India-China Defence Cooperation and Military Engagement, describes India and China’s defence cooperation as a “complex mix of conflict and cooperation.” Having no mutually delineated Line of Actual Control (LAC) and differences in perceptions of the LAC, alternative periods of skirmishes and negotiations are common. But to bring stability in the border regions and foster understanding, India and China a Border Defence Cooperation on October 23, 2013. Under this agreement, neither side can use military strength to attack the other, and both sides must share information about their weapons and combat operations, among other things.

The 2020 Galwan Valley , which killed 20 Indian soldiers and an undisclosed number of Chinese soldiers, revealed the persisting atmosphere of distrust between the armies. Fortunately, communications through diplomatic and military channels have made steady progress to solve the Western border issue, said Senior Colonel Wu Qian. In light of the recent exchanges, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said that about 75% of the “disengagement problems” with China have been sorted out. Likewise, Qian that the troops have “ on the ground at multiple locations in Eastern Ladakh,” including the Galwan Valley.

India and China are also part of different international groups that quintessentially demand collaboration: BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), G21 and the United Nations. As BRICS continues to grow and challenge Western economic dominance, especially the hegemonic position of the US dollar, a faltering of India–China cooperation would be detrimental to BRICS’s development. India initially contributed to the SCO and helped it increase its international reputation; but as it sees the organization being China-dominated, India has been its participation.

With increasing globalization and the common concerns of mankind, India and China have emphasized the need to from traditional technologies to green technologies, electric vehicles, low-carbon urbanization and adaptation. Many regard the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol agreement as most appropriate for international cooperation. While these organizations provide a forum for dialogue and cooperation, they also lead to discontent and competition. One long-standing is the matter of getting India a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, as well as China’s objections to this goal. China has caused delays and indecisiveness in the UN by skipping summits, opposing proposals and disagreeing.

Expanding trade can bring economic prosperity

Economic cooperation is one of the most important areas for India and China to agree upon. After all, the is expanding; it amounted to $113.83 billion in bilateral trade in the 2023 fiscal year.

“We feel that the economic relationship with China��has been very unfair and very unbalanced. We ��Dz�’t have the same market access there, while they have much better market access in India,” Jaishankar at the Global Centre for Security Policy in Geneva.

Notwithstanding the colored balance of payment (BOP), India and China’s economic relationship complements the other nation. Where China excels in cost-effective manufacturing, India specializes in cost-effective design and development. India offers China a populous market for its many products, and China has emerged as India’s largest in recent years. Although both countries have become investment destinations, bilateral investment has yet to grow.

In May 2014, China invited India to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). As of August 14, 2024, 48 projects (25 sovereign and 11 non-sovereign) have been for $10.45 billion financing. The New Development Bank (NDB), which established its office in Shanghai, its India Regional Office in Gujarat International Finance Tec-City in June 2022. India is the biggest borrower in NDB, with 19 projects approved with a commitment of $6.92 billion as of August 31, 2022. With an increasingly integrated economy and a symmetrical BOP, India and China’s relations can prosper and negotiations can be more effective.

In contemporary international relations, cooperation and fallouts are an inevitable phenomenon. India and China are no exceptions. The commendable aspect of the India–China relationship is their mutual respect for communications and negotiations. Despite the antithesis between their prevalent ideologies and their role in the balance of power, the two have mostly maintained stable bilateral relations with short periods of squabble. They must now maintain the status quo in international politics. While alliance or friendship are not possible options in the international arena, stability and collaboration are expected and attainable.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can India and China Overcome Old Disputes for Practical Cooperation? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As we got closer, things became clearer. I could make out the map of Kurdistan — my home nation — on the protestor’s banners. Kurds are an ethnic group spread across neighboring in Armenia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. Although Kurdistan has never achieved independence as a state, its borders are widely recognizable.

Via the Central Intelligence Agency.

The protest was precisely in front of the United Nations Office, whose picturesque, flag-adorned lawn was quiet aside from the few dozen protestors. The protestors accused Turkey of plotting genocide against Kurds — a claim that is .

Kurds have faced a century of . In the 1930s, the young Turkish Republic brutally put down rebellions in Kurdish areas, tens of thousands of civilians. More recently, Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime carried out a in Iraq’s Kurdish-populated north. Today, the regime of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan continues to carry out against Kurds in Syria while their political rights at home. It is hard not to feel the desperation of a people that, even here in the world capital of diplomacy, seems to go unheard.

Who is Abdullah ����������?

Flags featuring Kurdistan’s borders and posters of former Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ö���������� festooned the protest in Geneva. The protestors chanted slogans calling for Ö����������’s release. The 75-year-old man has spent the last 25 years of his life in a Turkish prison.

Many Kurds adore Ö����������. They affectionately refer to him as Apo (“Uncle”). Born in 1949 to a Turkish Kurd family, once attempted to enlist in the Turkish army. As a young man, he dropped out of Ankara University after being jailed for distributing leftist leaflets. Although he has never attained a college degree, Ö���������� enjoys a reputation as a man of intelligence and education — at least according to my dad.

Ö���������� took his university exposure to Marxism to heart, and he has remained a lifelong leftist. After his university experience, Ö���������� became an advocate for Kurdish independence. In 1977, he and two comrades published a , “The National Road to the Kurdish Revolution,” which laid the foundation for the PKK’s philosophy. Kurdish liberation was to be attained by any means necessary, including violence.

Two years later, ���������� and his comrades from Turkey to Syria. There, they began recruiting local ethnic Kurds and training them as guerrillas. These fighters became the core of the PKK. Five years later, the PKK started its armed campaign, fighting Turkish forces and assuming control of a small in southeastern Turkey. The PKK insists that it only targets Turkish military and has never admitted to attacks against civilians.

Turkey, the US, the EU and much of the international community declared ���������� and the PKK . Many Kurds, however, view him as a revolutionary.

Ö����������’s reign as PKK leader lasted 15 years before his imprisonment in 1999. Turkey has him of kidnapping Western tourists, killing civilians and even targeting his own people who dared to challenge him during this time. Ask one of his supporters, however — including my dad — and you will hear a story of Turkish intelligence fabricating narratives and creating setups.

���������� went on to successively to Lebanon, Russia, Greece and several other countries to avoid capture by Turkish authorities. All the while, he remained in charge of the PKK. In 1999, Kenya ���������� and extradited him to Turkey. A Turkish court sentenced him to for treason.

���������� did not get a fair trial

After the arrest, Kurds all over the world at Kenyan embassies, as well as Turkish, Greek and American ones, to no avail.

In 2004, Turkey — hoping to join the EU — the death penalty. Thus, Ö����������’s sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Ö����������’s trial unfair. The court pointed out that Turkey Ö����������’s lawyers — including both Turkish and Dutch citizens — from seeing their client. The court recommended a retrial, which Turkey refused.

���������� attempted to bargain his freedom by negotiating a ceasefire between the PKK and the Turkish government. Not only was the attempt unsuccessful, but the ceasefire also failed to stick. The PKK the first ceasefire in 2004. Another ceasefire started in and ended in 2011 and a third started in and ended in . All the while, ���������� has to advocate for a negotiated agreement for Kurdish autonomy in Turkey along lines similar to in northern Iraq.

This brings us to July 17. A quarter century after his arrest, Ö����������’s supporters are still protesting for him. A few dozen independent Kurds in bright yellow vests have to stand in front of the UN building in Switzerland and plead a case that the ECHR has already ruled on. Turkey still will not listen.

As I sat on the bus back to my hotel, I read about ���������� and asked my dad questions about him, I hear two different perspectives: one from world powers (the US, the EU) and the other from a Kurdish man who insisted the plight of the Kurds should have been in the Red Cross and Red Crescent museum.

The logical side of me struggles with the inconsistency. If Ö���������� is a terrorist, why didn’t Turkey simply convict him in a fair trial? If Ö���������� is a hero, why does he have such a checkered story?

I decided that, at the very least, Ö���������� deserves a new trial. Turkey’s refusal does not prove Ö���������� innocent, but it speaks volumes on the country’s position in Kurdistan. Why are they afraid of making their case in court?

Further, when with the US and the EU finally put pressure on NATO- and Council of Europe-member Turkey to stop hiding behind “terrorism” as an excuse and end its persecution of an ethnic minority? Has the West ever been shy about prodding the Middle East before?

Yet the Kurdish diaspora seems condemned to speak out alone. This protest in Geneva has been recurring since January 2021. All the while, Ö���������� remains isolated on Mralı Island, a prison similar to Alcatraz, in the Sea of Marmara. Turkey emptied the prison island for Ö����������, keeping him alone for ten years from 1999 to . Since then, with no visits from family or lawyers, Ö����������’s only company is a few other convicts. Even now, the old man is just a few hours a week of face time with fellow human beings.

As far as we can foresee, the Kurdish diaspora will have to keep protesting.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Turkey Still Refuses Ö���������� a Fair Trial After 25 Years appeared first on 51�Թ�.

They claim to be enforcing Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, which , “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” By their reasoning, Russia violated Article 2.4 by invading Ukraine. Thus, any compromise or negotiated settlement is unconscionable, regardless of the consequences of prolonging the war.

Other countries have called for a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, with all aspects of the conflict to be settled at the negotiating table, based on the preceding article of the UN Charter, Article 2.3: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

These countries also refer to the purposes of the UN, defined in Article 1.1, which include the “settlement of international disputes” by “peaceful means.” They also point to the dangers of escalation and nuclear war as an imperative for diplomacy to quickly end this war.

As the Amir of Qatar the General Assembly, “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.”

Climate, the West and war

This year, the General Assembly has also been focused on other facets of a world in crisis: the failure to tackle the , the lack of progress on the that countries agreed to in 2000, a neocolonial economic system that still divides the world into rich and poor and the desperate need for structural reform of a UN Security Council that has failed in its basic responsibility to keep the peace and prevent war.

Successive speakers highlighted the persistent problems related to US and Western abuses of power: the occupation of Palestine, cruel and illegal US sanctions against Cuba and many other countries, Western exploitation of Africa that has evolved from slavery to debt servitude and neocolonialism, and a global financial system that exacerbates extreme inequalities of wealth and power across the world.

Brazilian President Lula da Silva on Ukraine:

The war in Ukraine exposes our collective inability to enforce the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. We do not underestimate the difficulties in achieving peace. But no solution will be lasting if it is not based on dialogue. I have reiterated that work needs to be done to create space for negotiations… The UN was born to be the home of understanding and dialogue. The international community must choose. On one hand, there is the expansion of conflicts, the furthering of inequalities and the erosion of the rule of law. On the other, the renewing of multilateral institutions dedicated to promoting peace.

After a bumbling, incoherent by President Biden, Colombian President Gustavo Petro :

We are not thinking about how to expand life to the stars, but rather how to end life on our own planet. We have devoted ourselves to war. We have been called to war. Latin America has been called upon to produce war machines, men, to go to the killing fields. 

They’re forgetting that our countries have been invaded several times by the very same people who are now talking about combatting invasions. They’re forgetting that they invaded Iraq, Syria and Libya for oil. They’re forgetting that the same reasons they use to defend Zelenskyy are the very reasons that should be used to defend Palestine. They forget that to meet the Sustainable Development Goals, we must end all wars.

But they’re helping to wage one war in particular, because world powers see this suiting themselves in their game of thrones, in their hunger games, and they’re forgetting to bring an end to the other war because, for these powers, this did not suit them. What is the difference between Ukraine and Palestine, I ask? Is it not time to bring an end to both wars, and other wars too, and make the most of the short time we have to build paths to save life on the planet?

… I propose that the United Nations, as soon as possible, should hold two peace conferences, one on Ukraine, the other on Palestine, not because there are no other wars in the world — there are in my country — but because this would guide the way to making peace in all regions of the planet, because both of these, by themselves, could bring an end to hypocrisy as a political practice, because we could be sincere, a virtue without which we cannot be warriors for life itself.

Petro was not the only leader who upheld the value of sincerity and assailed the hypocrisy of Western diplomacy. Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the Grenadines :

Let us clear certain ideational cobwebs from our brains. It is, for example, wholly unhelpful to frame the central contradictions of our troubled times as revolving around a struggle between democracies and autocracies. St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a strong liberal democracy, rejects this wrong-headed thesis. It is evident to all right-thinking persons, devoid of self-serving hypocrisy, that the struggle today between the dominant powers is centered upon the control, ownership, and distribution of the world’s resources.

On the war in Ukraine, Gonsalves was equally blunt: 

… War and conflict rage senselessly across the globe; in at least one case, Ukraine, the principal adversaries — the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Russia — may unwittingly open the gates to a nuclear Armageddon… Russia, NATO, and Ukraine should embrace peace, not war and conflict, even if peace has to rest upon a mutually agreed, settled condition of dissatisfaction.

Calls for peace from Europe to Africa

The Western position on Ukraine was also on full display. However, at least three NATO members (Bulgaria, Hungary and Spain) coupled their denunciations of Russian aggression with pleas for peace. Katalin Novak, the President of Hungary, :

… We want peace, in our country, in Ukraine, in Europe, in the world. Peace and the security that comes with it. There is no alternative to peace. The killing, the terrible destruction, must stop as soon as possible. War is never the solution. We know that peace is only realistically attainable when at least one side sees the time for negotiations as having come. We cannot decide for Ukrainians about how much they are prepared to sacrifice, but we have a duty to represent our own nation’s desire for peace. And we must do all we can to avoid an escalation of the war.

Even with wars, drought, debt and poverty afflicting their own continent, at least 17 African leaders took time during their General Assembly speeches to call for peace in Ukraine. Some voiced their support for the African Peace Initiative, while others contrasted the West’s commitments and expenditures for the war in Ukraine with its endemic neglect of Africa’s problems. President Joao Lourenço of Angola clearly why, as Africa rises up to reject neocolonialism, peace in Ukraine remains a vital interest for Africa and people everywhere:

In Europe, the war between Russia and Ukraine deserves our full attention to the urgent need to put an immediate end to it, given the levels of human and material destruction there, the risk of an escalation into a major conflict on a global scale and the impact of its harmful effects on energy and food security. All the evidence tells us that it is unlikely that there will be winners and losers on the battlefield, which is why the parties involved should be encouraged to prioritize dialogue and diplomacy as soon as possible, to establish a ceasefire and to negotiate a lasting peace not only for the warring countries, but which will guarantee Europe’s security and contribute to world peace and security.

Altogether, leaders from at least 50 countries spoke up for peace in Ukraine at the 2023 UN General Assembly. In his closing statement, Dennis Francis, the Trinidadian president of this year’s UN General Assembly, noted, “Of the topics raised during the High-Level Week, few were as frequent, consistent, or as charged as that of the Ukraine War. The international community is clear that political independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity must be respected, and violence must end.”

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post World Leaders Speak Up for Peace In Ukraine Amidst Global Crisis appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Sure, the Palestinians have international law, the United Nations, and a large swath of public opinion on their side. That and $3 will get you a latte.

The latest outbreak of horrendous violence—the slaughter of Israeli citizens by Hamas, the slaughter of Palestinian citizens by Israeli forces—has frequently been linked to the specific suffering in the Gaza strip. Nominally governed by the militants of Hamas, Gaza has been rightly compared to an open-air prison where Israel subjects the residents to all the indignities of the incarcerated. The environment is tightly controlled. There is terrible overcrowding. Only a designated number of Palestinians are allowed out on work release. These intolerable conditions have nurtured dreams of resistance: the more intolerable the conditions, the more violent the resistance.

But there is another desperation at work here, fueled by a fury at being sidelined by geopolitics. Even as they lose more and more land to Israeli settlers, Palestinians have had to listen to promises that this agreement or this pact or this set of negotiations will accord them something approximating a state or a secure homeland or some measure of dignity. And it just hasn’t happened.

The most recent deal, which would result in Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic of Israel, has also included some sops thrown at the Palestinians. According to murderous Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman, the would “reach a place that will ease the life of the Palestinians.”

Say what?!

Forget about an independent state, which had long been the Saudi demand. This time around, Riyadh would settle for some unspecified version of prison reform: better meals, more exercise in the yard outside, perhaps conjugal visits. As if Palestinians ��Dz�’t merit even an asterisk in the agreement, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu refused to enumerate even these minor concessions.

Disrupting this imminent deal seems to have been at least one motivation for the attacks launched last week. But if it’s true that Hamas had been planning this assault for one or even two years, then it’s necessary to look at the other geopolitical conditions that have pushed Palestinian militants to act and the Israeli government, equally militant under Netanyahu’s extremist reign, to wage war in return.

Arab-Israeli Conflict

As befits a country obsessed with power politics, American presidents have long been focused on the very sources of power in the Middle East—namely, fossil fuels. Oil undergirded the longstanding U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia, a regressive, authoritarian state that has nevertheless thumbed its nose at the United States by funding anti-Western extremism throughout the world. Securing access to oil was one reason the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and unseated Saddam Hussein. If the Middle East consisted of nothing but sand and date palms, the United States would have expended as much geopolitical capital there as it has in Patagonia and Mauritania.

The other locus of U.S. interest in the region has been Israel. Over the years, Israel has been the top recipient of U.S. military assistance. In 2021, for instance, it , 11% of the entire U.S. foreign assistance budget. To make this alliance more secure, successive U.S. administrations have dreamed of ending the nearly 80-year-long conflict between Arab countries and the Zionist state. Beginning in the 1990s, the road to that rapprochement ran through the Occupied Territories. If the United States could push the Israelis and Palestinians toward a two-state solution, so the thinking went, Arab-Israeli peace would follow.

Beginning with the Trump administration, however, the United States reversed the equation, focusing more on negotiating agreements between Israel and the Arab states that secondarily dealt with Palestinians. Through the Abraham Accords, the brainchild of Trump’s son-in-law and foreign policy neophyte Jared Kushner, the United States brokered a deal between Israel and both the UAE and Bahrain. Then came normalization between Morocco and Israel, at the expense of U.S. recognition of Moroccan claims to Western Sahara. In one of its last acts, the Trump administration presided over an agreement between Sudan and Israel, which has so far stopped short of full normalization.

Not only has the Biden administration adopted the Abraham Accords as part of its own foreign policy in the Middle East, it has attempted to build on them by pushing the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. If it can make the bed for these strange bedfellows, the United States can accomplish a task started during the Obama administration: refocusing U.S. attention away from the Middle East and toward Asia in particular. Because of its need for heavy crude, the United States still imports some oil from the Persian Gulf — of total imports in 2022. But beginning in 2019, America began to produce more energy than it . No longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil and having brought Israel in from the cold, the United States is poised to downgrade the Middle East in geopolitical importance.

Israel and oil are not the only pull factors for the United States in the Middle East. Since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the United States has also sought to contain Iran and its partners, including Hezbollah and Hamas. The progress made during the Obama administration to secure a nuclear agreement with Tehran was unraveled by Trump, which also led to the discrediting of the political pragmatists in Iran and their loss in the 2021 elections. A sign of the erosion of U.S. influence in the region could be measured recently when China negotiated a ��é�ٱ�Գٱ� between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Less animosity between the leading Shia (Iran) and Sunni (Saudi Arabia) countries in the region should be good news for Palestinians. Despite much rhetorical support, however, the major states in the Middle East have largely failed to stand up for the Palestinian cause, beginning with Egypt’s involvement in the Camp David Accords in 1979. “Seeking to maintain good relations with the superpower, Arab regimes allowed Washington — Israel’s main supplier of weapons and military support — to take control of peace efforts in the region,” Imad Harb of the Arab Center Washington DC. “This left no space for Arab leaders to positively impact decision-making regarding the Palestinians. Slowly but surely, the rights of the Palestinian people dropped down the priority list of Arab governments which saw the US as the main guarantor of their political survival and narrow economic interests.”

This high-level abandonment of the Palestinians has proven unpopular with folks on the street in the Middle East, who have taken a very of the Abraham Accords and their successors. Demonstrations in support of Palestinians have spread rapidly throughout the in the wake of Israel’s blockade of Gaza and preparations for a ground invasion. But if the United States is unable to influence Israeli policy — and several administrations indeed attempted to push back on Israeli occupation policy and its treatment of — then these public protests won’t have much impact either.

The Russia Factor

Hamas has counted on both Iranian and Russian support over the years. Iran has provided and, through Hezbollah, training as well. Despite much work by intelligence agencies, however, no Iranian fingerprints have been found on the latest attack by Hamas.

Russia, meanwhile, adopted the Soviet foreign policy of supporting the Palestinian cause. Although some Russian weapons have ended up in the hands of Hamas, it’s that there has been a direct military relationship. Indeed, Russia has tried hard to maintain good relations with Israel, and it thinks of itself as a potential arbiter of conflict in the region.

At the same time, the Hamas attacks fit comfortably into the Kremlin narrative that the tide is turning against Ukraine because now the West’s attention is divided. As far as Russian President Vladimir Putin is concerned, U.S. and European governments are experiencing donor fatigue, which is accentuated by the new demands for assistance from Israel.

But the Biden administration is likely to use the Hamas attacks to bundle to Ukraine with support for Israel, making it that much more difficult for Republican lawmakers, who are currently hamstrung by their inability to choose a House speaker, to vote down the package.

Putin, meanwhile, has placed calls to various leaders in the region. The Kremlin has its own version of the Abraham Accords: the Authoritarian Accords. The Russian leader has good relations with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Iran’s Ebrahim Raisi, and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, not to mention Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas. If he weren’t saddled with the conflict in Ukraine, Putin might actually be able to bring everyone to the table. But a leader’s convening power is undercut when he has broken international law by invading a neighboring country and helped to drive up the global prices of food and energy. In such an environment — Russia down, United States on the way out — Israel acts without meaningful constraints.

What’s Next

The situation in the region is indeed bleak. An Israeli ground assault on Gaza will have horrendous consequences — for Palestinians, probably for Israel, and for the prospects of regional peace. Israel will try to eliminate Hamas, an entity it once in order to undercut the authority of the more secular PLO. But Israel has never been able to eradicate any of its adversaries in the past. So, should it proceed with an invasion, Israel will face an occupation of Gaza as difficult to maintain as ��ܲ�������’s seizure of a part of Ukraine.

It might seem that any kind of rapprochement between Israel and Palestine is off the table for another generation. But some analysts harbor hopes, however slender. , a former Obama national-security adviser, “The U.S. should establish a small contact group of important players, including Saudi Arabia, to validate and sell a post-conflict plan. This would entail the handoff of Gaza to the U.N., once the guns have cooled, pending the invigoration of the Palestinian Authority and commitment to Palestinian national rights.” Perhaps, under cover of providing public solidarity with Israel, Biden quietly pursued such an option during his recent trip to the region.

The key point here, though, is “once the guns have cooled.” The sooner the guns cool, the better. That means an immediate ceasefire.

Israel should learn the lessons of the past, including the ones that the United States learned after September 11. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq might have satisfied, in whatever misguided fashion, an immediate desire for revenge. But keeping the guns hot ended up killing more than twice as many Americans as died on that day in 2001. The costs—in shattered lives, in outlays for the military campaigns—continue to negatively affect the United States. And those costs are dwarfed by the impacts on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

What should Israel do instead? It’s certainly easy to preach restraint from a distance. But here’s the reality that Israel needs to face: even if it somehow eliminates Hamas, it won’t eliminate the conditions that brought Hamas to power in Gaza. Israel has to grapple with the reality of Palestinians. They can’t be wished away.

The dispossession of the Palestinians has been a non-stop tragedy — for the dispossessed obviously but also for the occupiers, who have known no real security. An independent Palestinian state at first might only externalize the risks that Israelis face. Over time, though, the two historically stateless peoples, who have both been used as pawns for centuries, can find common cause as neighboring states — like Germany and France after World War II or today. Fratricide, as the latest events have proven once again, only benefits the one percent of extremists on both sides.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How to Cool the Guns in the Middle East appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The UN would typically be expected to support such a worthwhile endeavor. Indeed, when Greek Cypriots planned and built roads to Pile, the UN never criticized, restricted, or blocked them. However, when Turkish Cypriots wish to build roads or infrastructure – the UN has taken action immediately.

Suddenly, numerous new UN instruments are contravening the standard customs and processes of the TRNC. The UN has lost its impartiality in Cyprus and is applying different regarding its decisions involving Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots.

Inconsistent UN Actions

The TRNC has never hesitated to open up discussions with the UN and its southern neighbors, especially when the well-being of its can be improved – something that the Pile-Yiğitler road project would unquestionably achieve. Yet, at every turn, the goodwill and good faith attempts of Turkish Cypriots have not been reciprocated.

Pile is the only town in the buffer with both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. However, only Turkish Cypriot residents face constant checkpoints and when entering or leaving their homes. They are desperate for reasonable access into their village from the TRNC to finally have proper access to their humanitarian needs.

Since establishing the buffer zone, two new roads have been built from the Greek side into Pile. The Greek authorities even built a and theater in the buffer zone. However, when the Turkish Cypriot authorities tried to build a single road, the full of the UN’s might came down.

How can this double standard continue to be applied by the UN? Do they not see that this clearly violates their neutrality and demonstrates a clear and enduring bias? Turning a blind eye to Greek Cypriot projects and then blocking a Turkish Cypriot humanitarian endeavor is frankly outrageous.

This is a dangerous situation to be in. By minimizing Greek Cypriot restrictions and applying full restrictions to Turkish Cypriots, the UN is essentially removing any possibility of Turkish Cypriots living in Pile. Indeed, Turkish Cypriots have increasingly been forced to leave their homes as living in Pile becomes untenable without free access to healthcare, education and food.

It feels like a deliberate strategy to turn the only joint village in the buffer zone – one in a strategically important location – into a Greek Cypriot community. The UN is not to be trusted because it refuses to respect and honor its with our government.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Revealing Analysis: The UN Is Not Impartial In Cyprus appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The secretary-general lauded the country’s contribution to sustainable development goals. In his words, “India’s recent development journey is characterized by high impact programmes delivered at scale. This includes the world’s largest food-based social protection scheme and the massive expansion of access to clean water and sanitation services.”

Guterres also noted that India is the biggest provider of military and police personnel to UN missions. Importantly, India has provided the first all-women UN police contingent for a peacekeeping mission. More than 200,000 Indian men and women had served in 49 peacekeeping missions since1948.

One False Note

Yet Guterres was not all sweetness and light when it came to India. He gave a speech at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. During his , he gave India some unwanted advice. Guterres said, “As an elected member of the Human Rights Council, India has a responsibility to shape global human rights, and to protect and promote the rights of all individuals, including members of minority communities.” He went on to add, “India’s global role will benefit if concrete actions are taken in support of the rights and freedoms of journalists, human rights activists, students and academics.”

Guterres comes from Portugal. He could do well to remember that his forefathers brought the to India. Vasco da Gama arrived in 1498 to kick off an era of rape, murder and theft by Europeans in Asia. Unlike the British, the Portuguese did not leave in good grace. The largely pacifist Jawaharlal Nehru whom Guterres quoted had to send troops to kick the Portuguese out of Goa in .

Given the historical record, Indians do not take kindly to Europeans, and especially the Portuguese, preaching to them. The trope of India becoming less inclusive and pluralist has been bandied in Western newspapers. In New York, where Guterres resides, The New York Times has poured pure poison about India in its recent articles. The story is simple. It goes something like this. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is a Hindu fascist party. It marginalizes minorities, tramples freedoms and weakens the rule of law. Ipso facto, white knights in shining armor have to ride to India’s rescue.

By preaching to India about human rights, Guterres displayed a breathtaking lack of sensitivity. Indians have noted that the likes of Guterres ignore their history of conquest, colonization and continued plunder while merrily preaching to India. India has played its part and is playing more than its part as a force for global good.

Some Key Facts

India conducts elections regularly. The BJP recently lost to the opposition Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the sensitive border state of Punjab, which was partitioned in 1947. West Bengal, another border state, is ruled by the Trinamool Congress (TMC). India has been a democracy for much longer than Guterres’s Portugal. Few remember that Portugal only became a democracy in 1975. In India, power changes hands from the BJP to the AAP or the Communists to the TMC peacefully. India is the world’s largest and most diverse democracy.

Modi’s BJP Lost to Mamata’s TMC Because of Bengali DNA

READ MORE

India also has a vibrant legal tradition. Indian courts are slow but they are not dominated by the political elite. Unlike the US where judicial appointments are a game of political football, the Supreme Court Collegium has complete autonomy to appoint judges to India’s highest court. The prime minister or parliament has no say. This is unimaginable in most countries where the political elites appoint judges. Unlike American presidents, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not appointed a single judge. Judges have appointed their fellow judges. Most of them come from elite English-speaking families that historically owe their allegiance to the Congress Party still run by the Nehru dynasty.

India upholds human rights of its citizens resolutely. Are there abuses? Of course. No country with over 1.3 billion with so many religions, ethnicities, languages, castes and communities can avoid some incidents. Yet it is in the US where Guterres resides that one in three black men “today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as can one of every six Latino boys — compared with one of every 17 white boys.” The also observes that, since 1970, “the number of incarcerated people has increased sevenfold to 2.3 million in jail and prison today, far outpacing population growth and crime.” India does a lot better in protecting rights of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and all other minorities than the US.

The World This Week: Dallas Shines Light on America’s Dark Soul

READ MORE

Importantly, India has made great progress in improving the rights and plight of women. The government banned the practice of triple talaq. Muslim men cannot utter “talaq, talaq, talaq” and get rid of their wives. The human rights of over 80 million Muslim women have improved thanks to this measure. As per , “India is on the greatest toilet-building spree in human history.” In 2018, it reported that, since Prime Minister Narendra Modi took over in 2014, his government built an estimated 80 million toilets. By now, the number has crossed over 110 million. This means that women do not have to go out into the fields to defecate or urinate. Their health, welfare and dignity have dramatically improved.

India also vaccinated hundreds of millions against COVID-19 for free. It distributed vaccines to citizens regardless of class, caste, religion, sexuality or any other discriminating factor. It fed the poorest sections of the population during the pandemic too. India even sent of wheat to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan when millions faced hunger and starvation after the US abandoned this tragic country to its grim fate.

India’s humanitarian measure for Afghanistan gives the lie to of The Washington Post calling the BJP government anti-Muslim. If Ayyub’s claims are true, why would a Hindu fascist government feed millions of Muslims living under the Taliban? 

Americans forget that the Taliban gave refuge to of an Indian plane in 1999. This hijacking of a plane from Kathmandu in Nepal to Kandahar in Afghanistan is seared into India’s consciousness. The BJP was in power then and humiliatingly released three terrorists who have killed thousands since. One of the three released was responsible for abducting and killing the American journalist . Another founded Jaish-e-Muhammed that attacked the Indian parliament in 2001 and launched the devastating Mumbai attacks in 2008. The third continues to send jihadis to Kashmir. 

Despite this record, the allegedly Hindu fascist government negotiated with its Taliban counterpart and buried the hatchet. India not only fed millions in Afghanistan but also enabled their . As per , “India invested billions in development projects” in Afghanistan. The BJP government’s humanitarian assistance has saved the lives of millions of Muslims despite the fact that the Taliban government has supported jihad against India.

Less Preaching, More Respect

As a guest in India, Guterres demonstrated subcutaneous racism when preaching to his hosts. He forgot that the institution he represents is frozen in time. The winners of World War II sit in the Security Council, the masters’ table. Others sup at the servants’ table without any veto power. The masters still talk down to nations they perceive as servants.

Guterres is not from one of the five veto-wielding nations in the Security Council. Yet he comes from a country that inaugurated the European imperial age. is still the national epic of Portugal. It is a story of Vasco da Gama’s voyage to India. Unlike the , this epic does not mention that “da Gama began a campaign of terror against Muslim shipping off the Malabar Coast.” In 1502, this greatest of Portuguese heroes captured Meri, a ship full of Muslims returning from their Hajj to Mecca. He burnt the 400 men, women and children on board. It took four days for all of them to die. Unlike da Gama, Guterres is not a bloodthirsty imperialist. However, like many Americans and Europeans, he suffers from the . The likes of Guterres rarely give former colonies like India their due.

But as Nobel laureate Bob Dylan sang, The Times They Are A-Changin’. Portugal no longer has an empire. Instead, it is drowning in debt. tells us that Portugal’s debt-to-GDP hit a record 135.2% in May. Other European countries are also facing a debt crisis. To make matters worse, Europe is suffering from double-digit and rising interest rates that make both further borrowing and servicing more expensive. The Russia-Ukraine War has proven to be an unmitigated disaster for this war-scarred continent.

Other dominant powers are not doing too well either. The US stands weakened on the global stage after it abandoned Afghanistan so cavalierly. Saudi Arabia and have thumbed their nose at Uncle Sam and a petroyuan trade is emerging. China is suffering from Xi Jinping’s hubris and a catastrophic zero-COVID policy. The UK has yet another new government after a third world style economic crisis. To balance its , this government is planning big tax rises and spending cuts.

Given such a grim global scenario, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva has been very complimentary about India. In her , “India deserves to be called a bright spot on this otherwise dark horizon because it has been a fast-growing economy, even during these difficult times, but most importantly, this growth is underpinned by structural reforms.” India has come a long way from 1991 when it went through a thanks to decades of failed Nehruvian socialist economics.
Now, Guterres’s fellow European Georgieva is praising India for its sound economic management. A projected of 6.8%–7.1%, a robust democracy, magnanimous humanitarian aid even to hostile states, massive contributions to the UN and dynamic multiculturalism make India a force for global good. White saviors must realize that India needs less preaching, more respect. A seat at the UN Security Council would be a good start.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Portuguese UN Chief Preaches to India: Is it White Savior Complex? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There is also another important overlooked fact about wars of the 19^th century. They amplify the four horsemen of the apocalypse of the 21^st century: global warming, nuclear war, food insecurity and pandemics.

It is clear that we need a new definition of national security.  This new definition needs to focus on what actually makes individuals more secure in their daily lives. Competition between nations will continue in the realm of technologies, economics and trade but we need international cooperation to confront the four horsemen — this new phenomenon could be termed coopetition.  In a way, we have stumbled into this transition already with such organizations as the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, the United Nations, etc. 

However, we still think about national security in a 19^th century way. By changing our definition, we can hasten the transition to better policies both nationally and globally. The need for such a change is highlighted by the Russia-Ukraine war.  From a 19^th century point of view, Russian leaders feel they need a buffer zone to protect Russia. In turn, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) feels compelled to avoid appeasement of an aggressive dictator that in their view led to World War II. From a 21^st century national security point of view, the Russia-Ukraine war is making each of the horsemen more dangerous.

Global Warming

Greenhouse gases are released every time a gun is fired, a bomb goes off, a building catches fire, an armored vehicle burns and so on and so forth. The transportation systems that bring all the military personnel and equipment to the battlefield release more greenhouse gases. The manufacture of weapons releases greenhouse gases as well. Finally, when the war is over and reconstruction starts, there will be an increase in greenhouse gases because of reconstruction.

Now, it can be argued that the Russia-Ukraine war may hasten Europe’s move away from fossil fuels and lead to reliance on sustainable forms of energy.  It can also be argued that the rise in fossil fuel costs around the world will lead to a reduction in consumption. But, so far, we are not seeing that transpire. Instead, the fossil fuel industry is adapting to the new situation.

Nuclear War

We have two nuclear-armed groups separated by several hundred miles talking of tactical nuclear weapons. We have soldiers firing at nuclear power plants. Emotions are running high. Egos are involved. Casualty rates appear to be quite high. It appears that soldiers are taking drastic actions, either out of frustration or under direct orders or a mix of the two. There are reports on Russian-controlled media for national . Individual Russian civilians have called for the use of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t take much to imagine something going wrong: a nuclear accident, a rogue officer ordering a launch or even the top leadership ordering a tactical low-grade nuclear strike.

Since the end of World War II, nuclear weapons have not been used. Even the use of tactical nuclear weapons has been unthinkable. That is, unthinkable till now. Political leaders are talking about being prepared for such an eventuality. If tactical nuclear weapons become thinkable, what happens to strategic nuclear weapons? If tactical nuclear weapons are used a few miles on the other side of your border, what are the radiation effects on you? Does all this make the people in your nation more secure?

Food Insecurity

The United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres,has , “We all see the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine. But beyond its borders, the war has launched a silent assault on the developing world. The crisis could plunge up to 1.7 billion people, more than a fifth of humanity, into poverty and hunger on a scale not seen in decades.”

If you are a well-off individual in a country where food prices go up, but there is plenty of supply. Would you care if 20% of humanity falls into poverty, hunger and despair? Even in a Hobbesian worldview, the answer has to be yes. Despair among 20% of the global population is bound to breed trouble for all. Desperate people do desperate things: crime, corruption, terrorism and illegal immigration are just the tip of the iceberg.

In short, if my neighbor’s house catches fire, my house is at risk as well. If I want to ensure my security, I need to make sure my neighbor’s house doesn’t catch fire. And right now 20% of humanity is soon going to have their house on fire. This isn’t good for my security or anybody’s security. 

Pandemics

We are still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, we might be entering a new era of pandemics. Some authors have been arguing that “environmental devastation threatens to unleash new zoonotic diseases as well as long-dormant bacteria and viruses to deadly effect.”

The Russia-Ukraine war is adding to the risk of pandemics. Refugees are now living in close proximity even as wartime conditions undermine their immune systems. We could do well to remember that the end of World War I led to an influenza pandemic. It killed more people than the war itself. That could happen again.

The Right Tools for the Right Problems

A screwdriver and a hammer are both good tools, but using a screwdriver to hammer in a nail is suboptimal, if not stupid. In the US, both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon have been examining the four horsemen’s risks to national security. Intelligence and defense Institutions in other countries have been doing the same.

Yet there is an argument to be made that the DNA of these institutions equips them for 19^th century challenges. They are unable to really think through the risks of global warming, nuclear war, food insecurity and pandemics. They do not know how to manage the 21^st century horsemen of the apocalypse. These institutions were designed for conflict, not cooperation or coopetition. Yet they command top of mindshare and the lion’s share of funding.

The time has come to define national security differently. We must examine what enhances the security of an individual and work towards achieving it. This will require people, processes, organizations and technologies focused on cooperation rather than conflict. We will have to build upon previous attempts at cooperation and collaboration as well as engage in new thinking, new development and new research to tackle the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Russia-Ukraine War Proves That We Must Define National Security Differently appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Climate change is one of those trends, which most people now agree constitutes the biggest general threat to the future of humanity. They also acknowledge that various approaches to solving the problem have been suggested and, though little has been accomplished, at very high levels of political authority commitments have been made. The passive formulation – “commitments have been made” –reflects the culpable passivity of the actors in question.

Alongside climate change – and contributing directly to its aggravation – is another very general problem related specifically to human institutions: wealth and income inequality. No one can ignore this question either, but, unlike the climate crisis to which every human being is equally exposed, those who are on the good side of inequality may feel less urgency about solving it, since it would inevitably imply reducing what they tend to believe are their “hard-earned” privileges. This has produced a specific quandary to the degree that literally every person exercising political power in every corner of the world happens to find themselves on the “good side” of inequality (i.e. even the most modest among them are members of the wealthy class).

The Secretary General exercised his privilege as the world’s teacher this past week when he the state of play in terms of global economics. “Inequalities,” he reminded the world, “are still growing inside countries, but they are now growing in a morally unacceptable way between north and south and this is creating a divide which can be very dangerous from the point of view of peace and security.”

If that wasn’t bad enough, he got more specific. “That is why it is so concerning that the war in Ukraine has to a large extent kept out the focus on climate action. We need to do everything we can to bring again the climate issue as the most important issue in our collective agenda. It’s more than the planet, it is the human species that is also at risk.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Collective agenda:

A list of things to do that, in a global culture dominated by the notion of competition, will never be done by any nation unless every other nation acts first.

Contextual note

The above definition explains a well-known phenomenon usually referred to as “dragging one’s feet.” Guterres is very familiar with the pattern. It consistently plays out with every issue of major importance, from nuclear disarmament to climate change, clean water, wealth inequality, and the list goes on.

By focusing on the Ukraine war, the teacher now appears to go beyond the usual generalities.. With a tone of tragic disappointment, Guterres timidly expresses a suspicion that the Ukraine war is distracting the world’s attention from a far more pressing global crisis: climate change. With a slight change of tone, and a willingness to challenge the powers that be, the secretary general’s remark might be perceived as an impertinent question.

Impertinent questions rarely receive pertinent answers. The authorities thus challenged have multiple strategies for dodging their consequences. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask them. Even if no pertinent answer can ever be expected, formulating such questions accomplishes two goals. The first is personal. It focuses the questioner’s attention  by raising a moral issue. The second goal is public. It signifies that the observers may be becoming wise to strategies designed to reduce them to silence. There is however a risk. Once those who refuse to answer the question understand that they are finally being challenged, they will most likely double down in their attempt to dodge the truth. This may go beyond mere “fake news” to include censorship and even persecution.

Anyone who doubts that that could happen in a democracy need simply meditate on the example of Julian Assange. He was guilty of asking a single impertinent question. After publishing a series of undeniable facts contained in official documents, he implicitly asked the question, without needing to formulate it out loud: “What does this mean?” That was the height of impertinence.

If Guterres is right about the current state of the world, the time is ripe for all of us to start shouting out impertinent questions. The legacy media will do its damnedest to keep out of print and off the airwaves, but if the voices of the world begin speaking up, they will eventually be heard. At 51�Թ� we are inviting the public to participate in the salutary exercise of formulating impertinent questions. We will be initiating a campaign for all our readers and followers to submit impertinent questions.

To get the ball rolling, here is the long version of the first in our rubric of “Impertinent Questions.”

Given the link António Guterres has established between the dangerously deepening crises related to climate and inequality, could it be that one significant but unacknowledged factor in the motivation that led to triggering and now prolonging a cruel war in Eastern Europe is that it removes the pressure to act on the most serious issues politicians in the West should be focusing on?

Now we can reduce it to its essentials as we highlight the question to make sure no one sees it merely as a random, isolated thought in the middle of this column.

Has the United States nurtured the conditions that triggered a war and is now prolonging it in order to avoid being held to account for failing to address the issues the world most needs to resolve?

Historical note

Impertinent questions are traditionally dismissed as stupid questions, ones that ��Dz�’t even deserve to be asked or even thought about. Everyone is already supposed to know the answer.

Three and a half centuries ago, Isaac Newton asked the impertinent question: “If the apple falls, does the moon also fall?” Any wise person at the time would unhesitatingly answer: “No, it doesn’t.” Because it is empirically true that the moon doesn’t fall, Newton should have shut up and lived with the answer. He didn’t and the rest, as they say, is history!

Historians have the duty to go beyond the superficial in their quest to understand the dramatic events of the past. For example: Did Brutus plot to kill Julius Caesar simply to prevent, as he claimed, a tyrannical quest for absolute power? Some historians who have asked themselves that question that “Brutus, in fact, acted in defense of his own class and a system which was already dying.” Both explanations may be true. But asking the question may reveal that Brutus was even more interested in preserving the privileges of the corrupt oligarchy he identified with.

Many people have asked a similar impertinent question about British Prime Minister, Maggie Thatcher’s reasons for going to war with Argentina in the Falklands. The act sealed her popularity, strengthening her image as “The Iron Lady.” Reviewing the events of the time, Simon Jenkins pointed out in a 2013 in The Guardian that her government had been “on the brink of collapse.” He noted that although “Thatcher could hardly be held directly responsible for the Argentinian invasion, it was certainly the result of her style of rule and one-track approach to policy.” At the time, patriotism quelled any serious contradictory debate. Once she had achieved victory, people began noticing that it resembled a textbook illustration of the art of wagging the dog.

To some, Thatcher’s “style of rule and one-track approach to policy” may seem eerily similar to that of US President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken with regard to Ukraine. Like Thatcher, they cannot “be held directly responsible for the…invasion.” But ever since Caesar’s time, those who wish to know the truth have been asking the most obvious impertinent question: Cui bono? (Who profits?).

If, as Guterres suggests, the Ukraine war is distracting the world’s attention from the urgency of addressing climate change, shouldn’t that merit our asking the same question? 

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Time is Ripe for Impertinent Questions appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Rwanda has a tragic past. For 100 days in 1994, around 800,000 Rwandans were massacred in Rwanda by the ethnic Hutus in what has become known as the. Once, the country was run by the ethnic minority Tutsis. In 1959, they were overthrown by the ethnic majority Hutus. Thousands of Tutsis escaped to neighboring countries. Some of the Tutsis in exile united to set up the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which began fighting against the Hutu government until a peace treaty was signed in 1993. In April 1994, a plane carrying Rwanda’s Hutu president and high-ranking officials was shot down, killing all on board. Blaming the RPF, Hutu extremists began the slaughters of the Tutsis and their Hutu sympathizers. 

The RPF maintained that the plane was shot by the Hutu extremists in order to blame the RPF and rationalize genocide. Meanwhile, French forces present in Rwanda watched the massacres, but did nothing. The French government has denied this persistently until recently. After 27 years of denial, France was finally forced by its own government commission to officially admit its complicity in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. In May 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron, spoke at the genocide memorial in Rwanda’s capital Kigali, where many of the victims were buried. He Rwandans to forgive France for its role in the 1994 genocide. “Only those who went through that night can perhaps forgive, and in doing so give the gift of forgiveness,” Macron said. 

United Nations Measures to Prevent Genocide

TheUnited Nations (UN) clearly states that the countries are bound to suppress “acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means,” a “settlement of international disputes” or resolution of situations that could lead to violence. In 1946, the UN General Assembly in its defined genocide and considered it an international crime. 

In 1948, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the, defined genocide as, “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” In the case of disputes, the convention made the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the final legal authority on genocide. In 1949, the prohibited willful killings, torture, property destruction, unlawful deportation or confinement, and the taking of civilians as hostages.

More recently, international law has sought to prevent genocide. In May 1993, a Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former (ICTY) was established. The ICTY indicted a number of the perpetrators of the Bosnian genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Those indicted include Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity.

In August 1993, the Rwanda government signed a peace treaty with RPF, known as “Arusha Accords.” In October, the UN Security Council (UNSC) established the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda () to assist the parties executing the peace agreement. The UNAMIR was supposed to monitor the progress in the peace process and help form the transitional government.

As mentioned earlier, the plane carrying the Rwandan Hutu President was shot down in 1994 and the Hutu government blamed the RPF. The next day, on April 7, 1994, government forces and Hutu militia began killing Tutsis, moderate Hutus and the UNAMIR peacekeepers who were among their first victims.

On June 22, 1994, after two and a half months of killings, the UN finally authorized a French-led multinational operation, “Operation Turquoise”, which set a protection zone in Rwanda to help victims and refugees. On July 15, 1994, RPF took over the country and stopped the 100 days of killings. In August 1994, whatever was left of the UNAMIR took over the French-led multinational operation and provided shelter to thousands of refugees.

In November 1994, the International Criminal Tribunal for (ICTR) was established. Headquartered in Arusha, Tanzania, the ICTR was supposed to “prosecute persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and neighboring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994.” So far, ICTR has brought to justice 93 persons “responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda in 1994.”&�Բ�����;

French Support of Genocidal Hutu-led Regime

In April 2019, the US law firm Levy Firestone Muse released A Foreseeable Genocide, a based on million pages of documents after years of interviews and investigation. The report found France to be a “collaborator” of the Hutu government in the genocide. The French were aware that the regime planned to exterminate the Tutsis. 

As per the report, the “French government was unwavering in its support for its Rwandan allies even when their genocidal intentions became clear, and only the French government was an indispensable collaborator in building the institutions that would become instruments of the Genocide.” The report concluded that “the Government of France bears significant responsibility for having enabled a foreseeable genocide.”

In March 2021, a French commission that France bore “heavy and overwhelming responsibility” for the Rwanda genocide. After this finding, the French government could no longer deny its involvement in the genocide. Under international pressure, the French president was finally forced to apologize for supporting the Hutu-led genocidal regime in Rwanda in 1994.

US Support for RPF

Even as the French backed a genocidal regime, the US supported the rebel RPF. Helen C Epstein, a visiting professor at Bard College, chronicled the secret role of the US in the Rwandan genocide in a tour de force in . Rwandan President Paul Kagame was “then a senior officer in both the Ugandan army and the RPF, was in Kansas at the United States Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, studying field tactics and psyops, propaganda techniques to win hearts and minds.” He flew back to lead Uganda-backed RPF against the genocidal Hutu regime.

Kagame and the RPF were not blameless either. Epstein tells us that Robert Flaten, the then US ambassador to Rwanda, witnessed the terror caused by the RPF invasion of Rwanda. Apparently, “hundreds of thousands of mostly Hutu villagers fled RPF-held areas, saying they had seen abductions and killings.” Flaten urged the George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush Senior) administration “to impose sanctions on Uganda, as it had on Iraq after the Kuwait invasion earlier that year.” Instead, the US and its allies doubled aid to Yoweri Museveni’s government. Uganda’s defense spending ballooned to 48% of the budget. Strongman Museveni allocated a mere 13% for education and 5% for health, even as AIDS was ravaging the country and killing thousands.

In 2022, Museveni continues to rule Uganda while Kagame is the big boss of Rwanda. There has been relative peace in the region but both regimes are based on the barrel of the gun. Under the Belgians, the Tutsis “formed an elite minority caste in Rwanda” and “treated the Hutu peasants like serfs, forcing them to work on their land and sometimes beating them like donkeys.” Today, the Tutsis continue to occupy the top echelons of the Rwandan state. The Hutus may be better treated than a few decades ago but they are clearly second class citizens in their own land.

Time for Action

Like many other countries, Rwanda is still waiting for justice. It is another example of the failure of the UN to stop genocide, save victims, and bring to justice all guilty parties. In 1994, the UN only acted after 75 days of killings. Even then, it chose France, a biased party, to lead the operation. The UN has acted belatedly, inadequately and irresponsibly repeatedly. Genocides in Cambodia, the Balkans and other places are proof of that fact.

The UN usually serves the interests of the powerful and ignores the poor. Thus, we cannot rely on the UN to prevent genocides, crimes against humanity and other atrocities. It is we the people who must assume responsibility and support political leaders who strive for global peace and harmony.

In the hope of avoiding another genocide, we must demand that our political leaders take the following actions:

First, ICTR must continue its work until all individuals, Rwandan or not, are brought to justice. Its mandate must be expanded to include the forces of other countries who watched but chose not to take any action to stop the ongoing killings.

Second, France, which has already appointed a commission, must now form a criminal tribunal to investigate those who collaborated with the genocidal Hutu government in 1994. French troops who watched the killings, but chose not to act, should also be brought to justice. The French cannot be tried by the ICTR because France is a permanent member of the UNSC and will veto any such proposal. So, we must put pressure on France to bring its citizens to justice.

Third, France must make reparations for the loss of lives, injuries, human displacements, and property destruction caused by its illegal collaboration and complicity with the Hutu government. has a GDP of over $2.7 trillion compared with Rwanda’s $10.4 billion. France must put its money where its mouth is and allocate at least $20 billion, amounting to less than 1% of its GDP, to compensate the victims of the genocide.

Fourth, the US must form a bipartisan committee to investigate its officials who played a dubious role in Rwanda or Uganda in the 1990s. Those who knew about killings and did nothing to prevent them must be brought to justice just like their French counterparts. Like France, the US is a member of the UNSC and its citizens cannot be tried by ICTR. So, it is up to American citizens to demand a reckoning of the dark days of the 1990s.

Fifth, the US must also pay reparations for the loss of lives, injuries, people displacements, and property destruction that occurred during the genocide. The US GDP is much larger than France and the US could easily give Rwanda $20 billion, about 1% of its GDP.  If the bipartisan committee discovers systemic support of genocide, then this amount should be higher. This money should be spent to build infrastructure, educate people, improve healthcare, create means of production and much more.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Those Responsible for the 1994 Rwandan Genocide Must Be Brought to Justice appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The US and Ukraine have consistently and emphatically denied any even potentially offensive operations. The debate became complicated last week when at a Senate hearing, US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland admitted that the laboratories exist and were conducting research that might have dangerous consequences if it fell into Russian hands. She revealed nothing about the nature of the research. Various US officials explained that the research existed but aimed at preventing the use of such weapons rather than their development. That disclaimer may or may not be true.

Try This Game to Evaluate Levels of Disinformation in Times of War

READ MORE

At the United Nations meeting, the US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield categorically denied any activity with these words: “I will say this once: ‘Ukraine does not have a biological weapons program.’” As The Guardian, the ambassador then “went on to turn the accusation back on Moscow” when she accused Russia of maintaining a biological weapon program. That may or may not be true. In fact, both accusations have a strong likelihood of being true.

ABC News the issue in these terms: “Russia is doubling down on its false claims that the U.S. and Ukraine are developing chemical or biological weapons for use against invading Russian forces, bringing the accusation to the United Nations Security Council on Friday.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

False claims:

Hypotheses that are likely enough to be true but difficult to prove conclusively

Contextual Note

The basic claim made by ABC News is true, at least if we reduce the message to the incontestable fact that the Russians brought the “accusation to the United Nations Security Council on Friday.” What may or may not be true is the reporter’s assertion that these are “false claims.” As noted above, the Russian claims may or may not be true, meaning they may or may not be false.

For news reporting in times of war, propaganda becomes the norm. It trumps any form of serious inquiry, that the legacy media in the US bases its reporting on two complementary suppositions: that everything US authorities tell them is true and that most everything Russians claim is false. Those same reporters who suppose their side is telling the truth and the other side is lying also suppose that their readers share the same suppositions. In times like these, propaganda is the most effective and especially the most marketable form of communication.

The second sentence in the ABC News article adds a new dimension to the assertion. It complains that a “web of disinformation, not only from Russian state media but also Chinese propaganda outlets and even some American voices, have increasingly spread the conspiracy theory this week.” The metaphor of a spider’s web conveniently brings back the sinister logic of the McCarthy era, when certain Americans were accused of being witting or unwitting vectors of communist propaganda. And it inexorably links with the idea of spreading a “conspiracy theory.”

It’s worth stopping for a moment to note that each sentence in the ABC News article is a paragraph. Single-sentence paragraphing is a journalistic technique designed to make reading easier and faster. Subtle writers and thinkers, such as Al Jazeera’s Marwan Bishara, can sometimes employ the to create a percussive effect. But in times of heightened propaganda, the popular media resorts to the practice to short-circuit any temptation on the reader’s part to think, reason, compare ideas or analyze the facts. In journalistic terms, it’s the equivalent of aerial bombing as opposed to house-to-house combat.

The third sentence in the ABC News article delivers a new explosive payload, this time with appropriately added emotion (“heightened concern”) and a horrified hint at sophisticated strategy (“false flag”). It speaks of “heightened concern among U.S. and Ukrainian officials that Russia itself may be planning to deploy chemical or biological weapons against Ukrainian targets or as part of a so-called ‘false flag’ operation.”

In just three sentences, the article has mobilized the standard web of associations journalists use for propaganda masquerading as news. The vocabulary may include any of the following terms: “disinformation,” “fake news,” “false flag,” “conspiracy theory,” “propaganda,” “misinformation,” and, on occasion, the more traditional pair, “deception and lies.”

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The article’s fourth sentence is a quote from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: “This makes me really worried because we’ve been repeatedly convinced if you want to know Russia‘s plans, look at what Russia accuses others of.” That is a trope the Biden administration has been using throughout this controversy. Zelensky has read the script and the journalist is there to transcribe it.

Historical Note

The still-developing history of COVID-19 that has been with us for nearly two and a half years should have taught us at least two things. Governments have a penchant for presenting a unique version of the truth that insists no other version is possible. They also excel at putting in place a system that suppresses any alternative account, especially if it appears to approach an inconvenient truth. Whether you prefer the wet market or the lab leak theory is still a matter of debate. Both narratives have life in them. In other words, either of them may or may not be true. For a year, thinking so was not permitted.

The second thing we should have learned is that the kind of experimentation done in biological and chemical research labs will always have both a defensive and an offensive potential. From a scientific point of view, claiming that research is strictly limited to defensive applications makes no sense. Even if the instructions given to research teams explicitly focus on prevention, the work can at any moment be harnessed for offensive purposes. Victoria Nuland appeared to be saying just that when she expressed the fear that Russians (the bad guys) might seek to do something the Ukrainians and Americans (the good guys) would never allow themselves to do.

Or would they? That is the point Glenn Greenwald in citing the history of the weaponized anthrax that created a wave of panic in the days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. George W. Bush’s White House, followed by the media, clearly promoted the idea that the “evidence” (a note with the message “Allah is Great”) pointed to the Middle East and specifically at Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Even before 9/11, Bush’s White House had the Pentagon to “accelerate planning for possible military action against Iraq.” In January 2002, the president officially launched the meme of “the axis of evil” that included Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

In retrospect, even though no legacy news media will admit this, the most credible interpretation of the anthrax attacks that killed five Americans was as a failed false flag operation designed to “prove” that Iraq was already using biological weapons. As the White House was preparing for war in Afghanistan, it sought a motive to include Iraq in the operations. The plan failed when it became undeniable that the strain of anthrax had been created in a military lab in the US.

Years later, the FBI “successfully” pinned the crime on a scientist at Fort Detrick called Bruce Ivins, the Lee Harvey Oswald of the anthrax attacks. The FBI was successful not in trying Ivins but in pushing him to commit suicide, meaning there would be no review of the evidence or reflection on the motive for the attacks. This at least is the most likely explanation because it aligns a number of obvious and less obvious facts. Nevertheless, even this narrative accusing the Bush administration of engineering what was essentially a more lethal version of a Watergate-style crime may or may not be true. 

The moral of all these stories is that in times of conflict, everything we hear or read should be reviewed with scrutiny and nothing taken at face value. And just as we have learned to live with unsolved — or rather artificially solved — assassinations of presidents, prominent politicians and civil rights leaders, we have to live with the fact that the authorities, with the complicity of an enterprising media skilled at guiding their audience’s perception, will never allow us to know the truth.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Finding a Way to Diss Information appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Clubs such as the G7 itself and the “climate club” envisaged by the German presidency are often able to make quicker decisions and act faster than more inclusive multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. Despite this, a speedboat, for all its pace and maneuverability, cannot cross the ocean on its own. So, too, the G7 cannot tackle any global challenges alone.

Time for a Sober Look at the Ukraine Crisis

READ MORE

The German G7 presidency has thus announced in its program that it intends to forge close links with the UN and the G20 in particular, with the goal of achieving a “fair and rules-based multilateralism.” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also underscored the importance of pioneering initiatives and partnerships within the framework of an “inclusive and networked multilateralism.”

In his , “Our Common Agenda,” building on the commitments in the  adopted by the member states on the occasion of the UN’s 75^th  anniversary, Guterres develops numerous ideas for how to strengthen international cooperation. He  for progress to be made wherever there are common interests.

So, is what belongs together growing together? Unfortunately not (yet), as the G7 program is rather abstract and dutiful in its references to the UN. However, the German G7 presidency has an opportunity to change this and implement shared priorities on a collective basis.

Tether “Strong Alliances for a Sustainable Planet” to the UN

Both the G7 and the UN are opting for pioneer projects and partnerships with non-governmental stakeholders, such as the COVAX vaccination drive and the G7 initiative for infrastructure projects in poor countries. It is positive to see the UN secretary-general not shying away from dealing with these formats and advocating for their greater use in order to implement global goals, most notably those of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 2015 Paris climate agreement. While many UN member states may support such partnerships, there is no  on this kind of multilateralism beyond mere inter-governmental relations.

In order to achieve the greatest possible impact, it is important for the G7 that as many states as possible consider its initiatives to be beneficial and legitimate. To this end, it would be worthwhile to tether these initiatives to the UN system, which would ensure that partnerships meet human rights standards, are transparent in their design, monitored on an ongoing basis and further developed in line with the needs of the target groups.

The UN secretary-general has proposed strengthening the existing UN Office for Partnerships, which is not currently in a position to carry out the aforementioned tasks. After the failure of earlier reform attempts, due not least to financing issues, digital solutions are now to be employed. The G7 should support the development of an effective UN hub and link its own initiatives through this hub. This could help the G7 generate acceptance and, at the same time, galvanize other partners. By subjecting partnerships to this kind of quality control, the UN could strengthen its central role in global governance.

“Investing in a Better Future” — With the UN

Like the German G7 presidency, the UN secretary-general places a particular focus in his report on future issues in conjunction with matters of justice. The world organization needs to become far better at avoiding shipwreck — that is the UN must respond more inclusively and justly to acute and future transnational crises. Developing greater strategic foresight, taking increased account of the interests of young people and future generations, and bringing key players together quickly in the event of the outbreak of new crises — these are the ambitious proposals for placing the UN further into the center of global problem-solving.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Here, too, the member states are divided when it comes to the increase in authority and knowledge for the UN that would go hand in hand with these measures. The issue of upgrading the UN is also contested within the G7 due to concerns about effectiveness and sovereignty and given the influence of states such as China and Russia.

In view of overlapping interests with regard to major concerns for the future, the G7 should, nonetheless, insist upon pooling the existing capabilities of the UN system more effectively, while at the same time supporting the targeted development of the UN’s strategic capacities politically and financially. This can be done via voluntary contributions or, beneficially in some cases, the  of the regular budget. In 2021, the G7 committed in the  to make crisis management more effective and fair in the future. This year, the G7 should discuss the role of the United Nations in this.

Currently, member states are  in the UN General Assembly which of the secretary-general’s proposals they intend to support, while preparation processes for the G7 summit are also underway. It is time to consider processes as one whole and bring them together for a future-proof multilateralism.

*[This  was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions relating to foreign and security policy.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How the G7 and UN Can Make Multilateralism Sustainable appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Fiji’s Women Are Living the Reality of Climate Change

READ MORE

When leaders of almost 200 countries get together regularly under the Conference of the Parties (COP) banner, bringing their diverse set of social, financial and environmental challenges to solve the climate change diabolical problem, words do matter. But then those words need to be followed by action. Urgent action!

And if the previous 25 COP summits have taught us anything, it is that the promises and pledges have missed the mark, and actions have left the global problem of climate change wanting — and wanting a lot more than it has received so far. By that, I mean the promises and subsequent actions have fallen short of ensuring with a level of certainty that global warming remains below 1.5°C by 2100.

Nevertheless, the more optimistic observers believe that the 1.5°C target is still alive. But in the of Alok Sharma, president of the recent COP26 summit in Glasgow, “its pulse is weak, and it will only survive if we keep our promises. If we translate commitments into rapid action.”

The Bad News

So, what has COP26 promised future generations? Or how long is a piece of elastic band? I ��Dz�’t mean that to be a cynical question, because setting targets, making long-term promises in a rapidly changing world is indeed a very difficult task for any world leader. Ultimately, will the collective promises, even if implemented, be enough to keep global warming below 1.5°C?

Clearly, we won’t know what the resulting carbon abatement outcomes will be. And therein lies one of the problems of all COP26 outcomes: great uncertainty. That’s because there are many moving parts, many variables and unknowns, many players.

Depending on who one listens to, the likely outcome of COP26 could be anywhere between limiting global warming to within 2°C and 3.6°C. The analysis suggests widespread agreement between a number of assessments and that current policies will lead to a best estimate of around 2.6°C to 2.7°C warming by 2100 (with an uncertainty range of 2°C to 3.6°C). 

If countries meet both conditional and unconditional  (NDCs) for the near-term target of 2030, projected warming by 2100 falls to 2.4°C (with an uncertainty range of 1.8°C to 3.3°C). If countries meet their long-term net-zero emissions promises, global warming would be reduced to around 1.8°C (1.4°C to 2.6°C) by 2100, though temperatures would likely peak at around 1.9°C in the middle of the century before declining. But that’s if all the “ifs” do actually take place.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

And what happened to the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5°C? The reality is that to meet the Paris accord, coal must be phased out of the power sector in member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) by 2030 and globally by 2040. As there’s a lot of coal “in the pipeline” in China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and Australia, there’s little chance of that happening. And the best COP26 was able to deliver was a “” (not out) of fossil fuels.

The other main problem with COP agreements and pledges generally is that countries develop and express their own promises in isolation, which in aggregate are supposed to achieve the slowing of global warming. As such promises — expressed through NDCs — are not legally binding, the best pressure that can now be applied is a new cost (the penalty for exceedance). To date, only diplomatic pressure has been used, a name-and-shame form of influence on the international stage.

Was There Any Good News?

Not that there isn’t any good news — there is. The three main pillars of attention (adaptation, mitigation and finance) have been strengthened. And there’s evidence that emissions are being reduced. Let’s not forget that just seven years ago, it seemed quite plausible that the world was heading toward 4°C warming by 2100, and a number of factors have resulted in the warming curve being significantly flattened.

COP meetings involve numerous sessions, side events, different agendas and groups that explore, present and discuss the many aspects of climate change. So, what the general public receives is a summary and highlights of the parties’ promises and pledges, and the main decisions and outcomes. So, we ��Dz�’t always hear about the minor achievements.

For example, a significant achievement was that more than 100 countries promised to end and reverse , which has in the recent past led to a significant reduction in much-needed carbon sinks.

The Paris Rulebook, the guidelines for how the Paris Agreement is to be delivered, was also , after six years of discussions. This will allow for the full delivery of the landmark accord, after agreement on a transparency process that will hold countries to account as they deliver on their targets. This includes a robust framework for countries to exchange carbon credits through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 

To promote approaches that will assist governments in implementing their NDCs through voluntary international cooperation, the framework now allows a price on carbon, which countries exceeding their NDCs would bear.

As before, and necessarily, there has also been much emphasis put on adaptation programs and financial support from developed countries for developing countries already affected by the impacts of climate change.

Then there are other minor changes that will be taking place. The International Sustainability Standards Board will the new global standard next year to replace a confusing mixture of disclosure practices that some companies now use to assess the impact of climate change. The new standard will see companies provide a more complete view of enterprise value creation — showing the inter-connectivity between sustainability-related information and financial information. This should make the data on which investment decisions are made more reliable and comparable.

What Now?

So, what happens next? Leaders have been “encouraged” to go back to their desks and strengthen their emissions reductions and align their national climate action pledges with the Paris Agreement.

COP26, more than all previous COPs, has heightened the participating countries’ awareness of the severity of climate change and its impacts, particularly on developing countries. It has led to a much higher level of awareness of the urgency of actions required. There’s also now no doubt of the enormous tasks ahead to avert the anticipated global impacts.

Watch this space, while the universe looks on.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post When It Comes to Climate Change, Promises Matter appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The planet faces enormous threats at the moment. The pandemic is still raging throughout the world. Climate change is an immediate risk. Wars continue to devastate Yemen, Ethiopia and Syria.

The Wicked Problem of Climate, Blah, Blah, Blah

READ MORE

Given these crises, the United Nations is needed more than ever. And yet the body could not compel Bolsonaro to get vaccinated or risk the fallout of preventing him from speaking to the General Assembly.

This problem of rogue actors has long bedeviled the United Nations. But the rise of right-wing populists who insist on their sovereign (and often selfish) right to do whatever they please poses an additional challenge to the international community.

Vaccines

Nation-states frequently use the principle of sovereignty — the exclusive authority to determine the rules within national boundaries — as a justification for their actions. The COVID-19 pandemic is only the most recent example of the shortcomings of sovereignty. With little regard for the common good, the richest countries made sure to secure more than their fair share of vaccines. The World Health Organization, UNICEF and the World Bank tried to ensure access to vaccines for poorer countries by setting up Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. It was supposed to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021. So far, it has managed to distribute only 240 million.

The problem has largely been one of supply, given the huge purchases of vaccines by richer countries. But there is also the challenge of delivering doses to countries where medical infrastructure is weak. As a result, the reports that, as of September 21, just 3.31% of people in low-income countries have been vaccinated with at least one dose, compared to 61.51% of people in high-income countries.

Let’s face it: The rich run the world and the United Nations just doesn’t have the power to change that.

Climate Change

Nor has the UN risen to the challenge of climate change. Here the problem is one of brokering effective compromises. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is the body responsible for convening the Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting every year. In Paris, COP21 in 2015 did manage to produce a binding treaty on climate change. But the commitments made by all the parties to the agreement were not sufficient to reduce carbon emissions fast enough to prevent a catastrophic increase in global temperatures.

Moreover, the commitments were voluntary. The US delegation insisted on this because it feared that Congress would reject any binding pledges. It’s no surprise, then, that carbon emissions are expected to rise this year by , the second-largest increase in history.

The fault here again lies mostly with the richest countries — China, the United States, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia — that have been the biggest emitters of carbon. But rich countries have also refused to provide enough money to help poorer countries transition to cleaner energy. In 2009, rich countries promised to mobilize $100 billion by 2020 for this transition. A dozen years later, the fund is still  short.

Other Problems

Of course, many countries face another deadly scourge: war. Imagine how many lives would be saved, how much reconstruction could take place, and how waves of refugees could be reduced if the UN were able to conduct a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, establish an on-the-ground presence in Syria and separate warring parties in Tigray province in Ethiopia. Instead, the UN is relegated to the task of providing humanitarian assistance. Its program in Syria, with a target of $4.2 billion a year, is the largest in the world.

But humanitarian assistance is a never-ending drain in the absence of security on the ground. Most of the peacekeeping budget of the UN goes to the existing 13 missions. The Biden administration has  to pay down the over $1 billion peacekeeping bill it owes the UN, but the UN is going to need a lot more than that to play an effective role in bringing peace and security to the most conflict-torn areas of the world.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

For one thing, the UN doesn’t have the capability to respond quickly to emergencies around the world. An  could fill that gap. It has some support internationally and it’s even come up twice as bills in the US Congress. Without a permanent, professional corps of emergency responders, the UN will constantly be one step behind in dealing with crises around the world.

The Underfunded UN

This is not an easy time for the United Nations. It is underfunded. Proposals to reform its governance have largely gone nowhere. It has been forced to cobble together ad hoc responses to the world’s biggest problems.

But perhaps the biggest challenge to the UN is the refusal of nation-states to delegate sufficient authority to international institutions. Right-wing populists like Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro attacked “globalists” on a daily basis. They have done as much as possible to destroy international agreements, but they’re not alone. ��ܲ�������’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping have insisted that they have the right to do whatever they want within their own national borders. Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines is resisting any “interference” in his drug war as part of an investigation into his government’s human rights abuses. Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua has similarly pushed back against UN criticism of his human rights record. Most strong-arm leaders eye the UN skeptically.

Without a lot of money or institutional credibility and facing a strong anti-internationalist philosophy, the United Nations has a great deal of difficulty compelling its members to protect human rights, the environment or the rule of law. Look how ineffectual it was in dealing with Jair Bolsonaro.

Without credible enforcement mechanisms, the UN will be incapable of making the Bolsonaros of the world behave responsibly. And unfortunately, the disease of Bolsonarism is spreading.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The UN Faces a Crisis appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The continuing persecution of LGBTI+ people is tragically under-acknowledged by the multilateral system. A failure to use the United Nations as a platform to raise these issues is a failure to understand one of its core purposes. There are no rights explicitly related to sexuality or gender identity in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 1 of the declaration accounts for factors such as language, religion and nationality, but relegates sexual and gender identity to “other status.”

Football Is Ready for Openly Gay Players

READ MORE

Those who oppose LGBTI+ rights still have room to use the excuse that such rights are not fundamental, not universal or are beholden to regional and local interpretation.

Oppressive States

Free & Equal, the UN’s flagship for promoting LGBTI+ rights, is a welcome step for the cause, using influential artists and activists as champions. Likewise, the 2017 standards of conduct for on tackling discrimination against LGBTI+ people provides more resources for countering discrimination at the organizational level. The  of Victor Madrigal-Borloz as the UN’s independent expert on these issues was also a commendable move, in that it made LGBTI+ rights somebody’s job.

While they do show support, none of these steps do anything to modernize the fundamental architecture of the UN system. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently signed a series of constitutional  to introduce a formal ban on same-sex marriage, showing that LGBTI+ hate is entrenched even in permanent member states of the Security Council, the UN’s most powerful branch. Campaigns and guidance may change some behavior, but they do not embed LGBTI+ rights into the UN’s cornerstone principles and agreements, meaning these rights still lack basic parity of esteem with other human rights.

The United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission (OHCHR)  that a specific set of LGBTI+ rights is unnecessary. Yet their absence leaves space for oppressive states to claim that they are less important or more fundamental than other rights. A campaign to introduce and ratify a set of specific rights safeguarding all aspects of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sexual characteristics should be a priority for all countries. Doing so would send a strong message of solidarity to those LGBTI+ people living in repressive societies.

The Yogyakarta Principles  a ready-made framework for codifying rules protecting sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) into universal rights frameworks. A coalition of states publicly declaring its support for the principles would pile on the pressure at the UN, as would pushing for General Assembly votes for their adoption.

There are currently 10 UN human rights bodies, overseeing the protection of rights in areas including disability and migrant status. There is no treaty body safeguarding the rights of LGBTI+ people. Calls for the introduction and ratification of a new treaty providing safeguards for sexuality and gender identity would send a powerful message of support throughout the multilateral system.

National Level

Alongside multilateral action, countries should be stepping up their game at the national level. Having robust policies on support for LGBTI+ rights would bolster countries’ credibility and authority when pushing for reform at the UN level. For instance, Germany recently announced comprehensive new  for the promotion of LGBTI+ rights abroad.

Other states would do well to follow suit, providing comprehensive diplomatic training on LGBTI+ issues so that in-country staff can better understand the challenges and potential remedies around LGBTI+ persecution. Shoring up embassies’ commitment to offer support and protection for those facing persecution will also send a strong message to host governments that LGBTI+ discrimination will not be tolerated anywhere.

Those countries with strong track records of support for LGBTI+ rights should also be working harder through existing UN mechanisms. More action should be taken through existing UN fora. The UN General Assembly’s  and Human Rights Council sessions should be regular venues for .

Here, sustained diplomatic and reputational pressure should be applied to countries that continue to persecute people based on their sexuality and/or gender identity at an institutional level. Using these venues to declare the many and varied forms of LGBTI+ persecution as a global crisis would demonstrate solidarity to those facing persecution and send a strong message of resolve to those perpetrating it.

The resistance of certain states to particular rights is not a reason to believe that some types of discrimination are unavoidable. It is imperative to speak louder. More liberal countries that advocate for these rights should use every avenue to translate their vocal support into action, leading to tangible and long-lasting reforms at the UN and state levels. The current lackluster approach is a shame to all countries that purport to support equality for LGBTI+ people. They must do better.

*[51�Թ� is a media partner of .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Growing LGBTI+ Hate Shows the UN’s Need to Adapt appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Wealth Inequality Breeds Health Inequality

READ MORE

The declaration marked the heyday of multilateral optimism. But contrary to the millennial vision of global governance, international affairs today are dominated by entrenched mistrust between governments.

Sadly, the above-mentioned article by the six world leaders does not explain what went wrong in the 21^st century. Without such an analysis, however, appeals for changing course risk being little more than aspirational talk. To really make multilateralism great again, we have to ask: Why did things go astray?

The Adverse Effects of Nasty Surprises

Harold Macmillan, the British prime minister between 1957 and 1963, is frequently as having said that what he feared most in politics were “Events, dear boy, events.”&�Բ�����;This catchy phrase points to the proverbial overlooked elephant that has rampaged through international affairs in the last two decades. Apparently, unexpected events, escalating into major crises and global disruptions, have driven the international community apart and contributed decisively to the demise of multilateralism.

To their credit, the world leaders are aware of this. They accurately state that major crises remind us of how interdependent we are, referencing the global financial crisis of 2008 and the current COVID-19 pandemic. However, there have been far more important disruptions in the past two decades: the 9/11 attacks in 2001; the popular revolts in the Middle East in 2011, which escalated into civil wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen; the eurozone crisis; ��ܲ�������’s annexation of Crimea in 2014; the 2016 Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom; and the presidency of Donald Trump in the United States. More could easily be added to the list.

These disruptions shattered international cooperation. Economic crises intensified cleavages within as well as between societies. Austerity and social inequality championed populist and anti-liberal sentiments that were expressed through battle cries of “take back control” and “America First.” Following 9/11, the 2003 war in Iraq split the West, whereas the military confrontations in Libya and Syria continue to divide the international community. Russia was suspended from the G8 after its territorial aggression against Ukraine, closing an important channel of communication with the Kremlin.

The cumulative effect of these disruptions has been a significant decline in the willingness of governments to collaborate. International organizations and multilateral agreements have become political battlegrounds. Many administrations, including those in the United States, China, Russia, India, the United Kingdom and the European Union, prioritize policies such as decoupling, self-sufficiency and strategic autonomy. Consequently, the COVID-19 pandemic is unfolding as a dual crisis of global connectivity and global governance.

Credible Foresight Creates Trust in Multilateral Cooperation

In their article, the world leaders shied away from the conclusion that global disruptions are not only a result of, but also an important catalyst for many governments retreating from multilateralism. That is why they are missing the low-hanging fruit for policy innovation: Avoiding nasty surprises by cultivating anticipatory governance — for instance, by investing in multilateral foresight and forecasting capabilities.

Hardly any of the major disruptions in international affairs have come as a surprise. Genuine “black swans” are very rare: The 9/11 Commission Report pointed out that several American agencies had been collecting evidence that al-Qaeda was planning attacks; there were plenty of reports from the Middle East and North Africa region analyzing the widespread dissatisfaction with repressive governments and bad governance; experts had frequently warned about the global financial crisis, the eurozone and the pandemic; and the referendum in the United Kingdom and the elections in the United States could only have had one of two outcomes. So, the lack of preparations for the unexpected results had more to do with wishful thinking than surprise.

The exception to the rule is the annexation of Crimea. That the Kremlin would drastically change course instead of waiting out the developments in Kiev, which had proved a winning strategy for Moscow after 2004, came as a real surprise. But in all other cases, plenty of unheeded warnings lined the road to the tragedy of multilateralism.

Of course, governments’ reluctance to trust forewarnings is understandable. The track record of expert predictions is not that impressive. Quite often, they turn out to be wrong. And crying wolf has consequences: Policymakers might be criticized by their opponents, the media, courts of auditors or the public when they order, for example, vaccines but a pandemic does not materialize as expected. This happened in 2009 with the swine flu , when policymakers in Europe and the United States learned a lesson that partly explains the inadequate preparations for COVID-19.

But some predictions are better than others. Research has  that the best forecasters achieve up to 30% higher prediction accuracy than analysts with access to classified material. Diversity and multi-perspectivity are important criteria for the success of forecasting teams that consistently outperform their competitors. Policymakers should harvest this knowledge. Investing in multilateral  and forecasting capabilities promises not only to increase timely awareness of future events. Collectively anticipating risks and opportunities could also stimulate international cooperation and joint policymaking.

*[This was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions related to foreign and security policy.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will Multilateralism Be Great Again? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Today, there are 1.2 billion people aged 15 to 24 years, making up 16% of the world population. So, to achieve the SDGs, countries around the world probably need the support of young people. The youth can build on their creativity, dynamism and talents to make the world a better place to live and to tackle the challenges faced by the international community.

Young people would benefit from the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as the SDGs are officially known as. However, they are also active contributors in the development of the goals. The engagement of young people in sustainable development efforts is pivotal to achieving inclusive and stable societies.

Africa’s Mixed Record on Keeping Up With UN Goals

READ MORE

In September 2016, the Office of the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth the first class of the Young Leaders for the Sustainable Development Goals. Their mission is to advocate for the UN SDGs, promote creative ways of engaging youth in fulfilling the goals and working with different UN departments toward accomplishing the 2030 Agenda.

Kristeena Monteith, a young Jamaican, was UN’s Young Leaders of the Sustainable Development Goals for 2018. She is also the creative producer of the Talk Up Radio show run by young people and broadcast nationally in Jamaica.

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Monteith about the role of young people in the realization of the SDGs, the challenges ahead of democratic institutions and the media portrayal of youths.

The transcript has been edited for clarity. This interview took place in 2019 at the 3rd International Youth Forum on Creativity and Heritage along the Silk Roads in Changsha, China.

Kourosh Ziabari: What skills and abilities do you think young people need in order to be able to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals?

Kristeena Monteith: We need to develop a sort of social awareness of the issues affecting the world. I feel like sometimes we are, even in our own societies, unaware of what is affecting the people, but then on a global level, we’re even less aware of the different issues.

So, first of all, develop an appreciation for the fact that people deserve dignity, people deserve a level of quality of life right across the board — regardless of whether they are or they’re not like you — and then from there, you can start to really invest in understanding what exactly these people need. So, one thing that the Sustainable Development Goals give you is a framework within which to understand what quality of life could mean to people right across the board — whether it’s access to health services, access to quality education, or whether it’s on a bigger policy level being able to support themselves and their families and having financial stability in their countries.

All of these things matter because we’re trying to build a world where people feel comfortable, [and] feel like they can live to their best ability. So, once you pass the cultural understanding, then you need to be able to leverage your own skills, whether that is your writing or your talent as a business person. It’s about turning the things that interest you and the things that you are innately passionate about into putting them at the service of the world on a larger scale.

So, whatever skills it is, it doesn’t matter what exactly your skills are. It’s about framing a way to turn that into helping to build a more equal society and a world where everybody has the potential to live fully.

Ziabari: What organizations or entities do you think are responsible for giving young people these skills and capabilities in order to be able to work for the SDGs?

Monteith: That’s actually a very important question because you [need] to have support for developing this sort of mindset at every single level. So, every major institution in a young person’s life — whether it’s their family, school, church or religious institution — as you go along each and every one of these institutions, must have a sort of mindset of what we’re doing. [That is] building a better, more equal world for everyone. And so each and every one of them will put their power into different people from the standpoint of trying to embrace them and trying to help them to understand what skills they need to develop to contribute.

So, if it’s a multi-sectoral, multi-angle interest in creating that sort of sustainable future, then that’s where you’ll get the sustainability from because all of us are working towards a joint goal. So, at every single level, every stakeholder, every business, every church, every mosque, every synagogue, each and every one of us has to achieve if not all of the goals, [then] at least one you feel passionately about. Understanding how they interrelate with the other ones is all people really need to support young people along that journey.

Ziabari: Do you think that governments, especially in developing countries, are properly listening to young people and addressing their concerns on employment, education, social justice, health and wellbeing, equality and other similar concerns?

Monteith: I think there are some governments that are trying. I know for a fact that the government of Jamaica is trying. They’re trying to listen, they’re trying to balance this really politically diverse and complicated world that we live in and the region that we are in — with the global superpower, the USA — and the fact that we need money from China to build and to improve infrastructure. So, there’s a lot of tension going on.

Then, you have to balance that with being a sovereign nation, having to put your citizens just at the forefront of what you do. And so, you have very complex geopolitical issues that are playing out, and within that, you have a growing world population of young people who don’t necessarily know how they fit in the process of how much our issues should be prioritized — how much the things that we want and we need in order to live fully and to participate should be prioritized.

And I think a lot of times, governments don’t recognize the power of the youth voice. If you’re building sustainability, the people who are going to be here [the] longest are the youth. So, you have to find ways to incorporate them into what you’re doing and to also facilitate them in developing a voice that, first of all, they can support you and your agenda. Because if you want sustainability, if you want longevity, if you want to produce policy that outlasts your administration, you have to invest in young people. That’s the only way to do that.

Ziabari: Right, that’s interesting. You are a [2018] young leader for the Sustainable Development Goals and have worked closely with different international organizations. Do you think the United Nations specifically as well as other international bodies are doing enough to make sure that the voices of the young people are heard? Can you give us examples?

Monteith: Well, I think with the UN at the moment, from what I’m seeing from my perspective, there’s a lot of capacity-building happening. So, they’re creating pathways for meaningful interaction. You have the SDG Young Leaders, you have Generation Unlimited, and they’re creating these pathways where empowered young people who are creative and passionate can have that sort of platform from which they can launch projects and they can call upon other young people in their societies.

But on the other hand, I feel like they have a very massive platform, and there are some ways in which it could be utilized even to a greater extent, whether it’s beyond just the SDGs or the UN youth strategy. I think we need to send a greater message to governments [and] to businesses of the power of the youth voice.

And we have a youth envoy, Jayathma Wickramanayake, whose platform is very important, She is in direct touch with the UN secretary-general, and I know she uses her platform very well. But I would love to see more than one UN youth envoy. I mean, she has a very much a global perspective [and] she has a whole team behind her informing her, but this is still one young person out of the population.

Then you look at the head of the UN and the heads of the UN [agencies]. They are always, without fail, very old people, and right across the board it’s always the case. And I know with age comes experience and they’ve built long careers of long service and very good service, but I feel like as we go along the lines, we have to be pulling young people up with us and helping them to develop capacity.

So, you need to see more visibility of young people at the decision-making levels at the top of some of these UN boards. I think it would send a greater message if we saw more young people there.

Ziabari: Please tell us more about your work on Talk Up Radio. I know you offer opportunities to young people to have conversations with governments, leaders and authorities and ask them questions. How have been the reactions on both sides? Have these conversations generated concrete results, including changes in government policies?

Monteith: What we’re trying to do is to bring government leaders and young people together in more tangible ways, beyond just voting. We need to create more avenues so young people can make their voice heard and also to access accurate, youth-friendly political information. Because as [I said] throughout the [2019] International Youth Forum on Creativity and Heritage along the Silk Roads in China, a lot of the times, communication that [comes] from the government is hugely in legal and political speak, and we don’t speak like that and don’t understand that language.

So, we’ve been trying to bridge that sort of gap, but also, we’ve been trying to get politicians to use social media more often to be more accessible on a one-to-one basis. So, even on Talk Up Radio, when we bring the ministers of government into the studio to talk to young people, it’s not just the four or five young people in the room. Usually, for the two weeks leading up to that event, we’ll be putting up calls on social media for young people to send in questions via WhatsApp, via Facebook, etc. So that we have a body of questions that have come from all over the island, and then we pose those questions in the room to the minister.

Change at the political level is often a very long process. It’s never just, OK, this is a very good solution and let’s get it into parliament right now. Oftentimes, it has to be vetted and investigated and there needs to be some academic backing to it. But what we’ve seen is that, especially in the case of one minister in particular — i.e., the minister of health in Jamaica — he has changed his language in some sense in how he approaches issues. So since we spoke to him about issues like period poverty, we’ve seen period poverty enter the political landscape as a term.

And then you’ve heard from business leaders and people in society saying that they’re going to develop solutions to this — even from across the other parliamentary body, the PNP [People’s National Party], that’s the other party. They’ve actually different ministers and different opposition leaders that have come up with ideas as well. So, it’s that kind of change that we’re noticing where once an idea gets to the mainstream, then more people start to engage with it.

And I feel even that is a level of success. Obviously, we would love to see more tangible results, but we have to admit that political change is a very long process. And we’re hoping that as we go along and a new budget is stabled and new discussions are being held, these things would also come up and from this forum [in 2019]. I’m hoping to go back and have a conversation of that kind with the minister of culture, trying to get her into the studio to actually talk to young people about issues that were raised, like cultural preservation, incorporating young people and their energies and their creativity into cultural practice in a more tangible way. So, we would push the issue beyond, whether or not they bring it up.

Ziabari: Let’s get back to the SDGs. You may admit that the Sustainable Development Goals are not a priority for some or many governments, especially those with less-democratic and more repressive regimes. How do you think these countries should be involved in efforts to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals and make it a priority for the benefit of their own people?

Monteith: Well, you know, it’s a very complex, political situation because even as we [go] along, we recognize that nations are sovereign — they have all rights over what they do within their borders. Even if what they do will have negative repercussions for the globe, we still cannot impose our will on them. So, the best thing to do is really to sensitize the people of that country to what the SDGs are and why they’re important, and [then] hope that you can spark behavioral change. There is a level of respect and diplomacy that has to be maintained as we go along because we have to recognize state powers [as] that’s what they are. They were elected by the people — [though] sometimes not. But within those borders, we don’t really have jurisdiction over how the government behaves.

So, with people, you can reach out heart to heart, mind to mind and change them or sensitize them, give them the information in order to put pressure on their own government, and in that sense, you do empower them politically to advocate for the things that they want. Because if they see that the SDGs are important and their government doesn’t, it’s upon them now to rise upon perhaps and elect another government or to reach out to the world for help in more tangible ways.

There are structures in place, for example, when coups are happening or when countries are calling for liberation or that kind of thing. There are policies in place across the UN, across different bodies in order to support such movements. But especially in regimes that are less democratic, I feel like the real change will have to come from the people. They will have to be the ones that will lead it because we literally cannot impose any sort of power on them. So, it will have to come from the people.

Ziabari: What do you think, as a young leader, can be done to help young people affected by war and conflict in the Middle East and North Africa to regain their confidence, reassert their identity and become proactive, involved members of their societies, especially if they are suffering from trauma and distress?

Monteith: I have two ideas about this. First of all, I come from a small country in the Caribbean, and I see that we do not have any clue — especially the young people — about many things, including what’s happening in these regions because we’re so far removed and it’s so different from our reality that it almost doesn’t make sense to us. So, the first thing I think we need to do is to ensure that information is flowing from these areas and is accessible to youth.

Young people in Jamaica need to understand what’s happening in Syria, what’s happening in Lebanon, what’s happening in Egypt, what’s happening in Libya. We need to be aware of that because we’re global citizens. No longer [do] our people [live] in one area for their entire lives, and [no longer do] issues that are happening elsewhere [not] affect them. Increased migration to Europe comes with restrictions for who else can go there.

So, these issues will affect us, as these governments in Europe have to spend more on accommodating people from these areas, and they’ll have less in terms of international aid to send to our country. We need to understand the connections in terms of what’s happening and that issues happening in one place are not necessarily divorced from what we will experience in our place.

Let’s be honest: Anybody can enter war at any time. Conflict does not take much to kick off — it really is something that’s fragile. Peace is fragile. Peace has to be worked on constantly and being able to understand the issues that lead to the rise of certain instabilities in certain areas can only help us to make our own democracy safer and stronger.

But on another level, I think we need to be able to support people from these regions in telling their own stories. They need to be the ones that are leading how these stories are told, and we need to hear their authentic voices at the UN. At every level, we need to make space for them.

In our organizations, we have SDG young leaders who are from the Middle East. We need to ensure that we have that voice there so that we’re not getting an outside interpretation of the issue — so we’re getting the actual, accurate depiction from within. And I think that’s how you bridge the gap [and] that’s how you create the change that can be lasting.

Ziabari: Do you think the media are doing a good job when it comes to relaying information from the Middle East, North Africa, this part of world to the other parts of the planet and are making people aware of the realities of the region? Or do you think the coverage is distorted and is not helpful for young people across the world to understand what’s happening in conflict zones?

Monteith: In general, I think Western media are not paying enough attention to what I said before, which is to give people opportunities to tell their own stories. So, I think we have one understanding of how politics flows and we don’t necessarily give these people the opportunity to speak for themselves. So, even on Talk Up Radio, we’ve interviewed young people from Egypt, from Lebanon and what we did was just give them the opportunity to speak and tell their own stories and to interpret the conflicts and what’s happening from their own perspective.

So, in Western media, I don’t think we do a good enough job of doing that, and I don’t think we understand the importance of doing that. I remember being at a journalism conference in 2015, and the issue raised with the heads of CNN and BBC was that the news from outside of the dominant north tends to be one-sided — we only get reported on when we’re in conflict. We only get reported on when there are massacres and people are dying and there are natural disasters. I never hear in the news that Jamaica is doing financially well or something good has happened. I imagine that the same thing happens to different areas around the world, whether it’s the Middle East or Africa, for example, especially sub-Saharan Africa.

The media has an opportunity to set an agenda in terms of how people understand issues. When you don’t see something in the media, you tend to not think it’s important. I’m not seeing enough coverage of the aftermath of the Arab Spring, [and] I’m not seeing enough coverage of what’s happening right now on the ground and how people are feeling. The only place to get that information is [to] form our independent media, and you have to seek those sources because they don’t ascend to the mainstream. So, if you’re not, for example, a journalist, you might not be really interested in going to look for that information. And I think with social media, we do have some opportunities to do that, but I know it doesn’t have the same power — it doesn’t have the same reach or the same legitimacy as mainstream media.

Mainstream journalists have to do a better job, whether it’s bringing people from these areas into the actual platforms that they own or even going there and giving [the people] the voice. We have to do better.

Ziabari: There are many stereotypes and cliches attached to different cultures and countries, and there are many people who buy into such narratives. What do you think young people can do to bridge the gaps between cultures and civilizations, debunk the myths and make sure that stereotypes do not prevail?

Monteith: Let’s speak from my Jamaican perspective. We know what the world has said about us. We know how we’re perceived in a lot of places. I mean, governments make it quite clear in whether or not they give us visa-free access or how we’re treated in airports or the ways in which the media and movies and music depict us. To be honest, we do have a generally positive perception of our own world as fun and creative people, but there are some political issues to do with violence in our country and biased ways we’re perceived, and we have to counteract that with our own knowledge of who we are and being confident in who we are as we go throughout the world.

And so you will find Jamaicans living in every single country you go to because we’re not afraid to venture beyond our borders and represent ourselves as a sovereign nation of power and history and legacy. But beyond that, we also have to advocate at every single level for the reassertion of our power as a country. It’s not enough for governments to simply be biased in how they deal with us or for media to be biased in how they treat us and for us to say nothing about it. No! Jamaicans will always be calling out when there’s been negative portrayals of us in media.

We have to actively fight that perception. So as young people in different regions, I think yes, you can use social media and put out a more nuanced, more accurate version of who you are as a people and your culture and your country. But when there has been negativity, when it’s been maligned by people, you have to call that out. You have to speak truth to power at every level. So do both: Try to reassert a positive image and be confident in who you are, but also when there’s negative and when there’s a slant, call it out, talk about it and really say to these media organizations that no, you’re doing a disservice to my culture when you do this.

Ziabari: Racism and racial discrimination are plagues that are affecting many modern societies currently. Can you think of practical ways to combat racism, and do you think there’s anything that young people can do in this fight?

Monteith: First of all, we have to understand racism. I think too often, racism is reduced to discrimination, it’s reduced to prejudice and it’s reduced to micro-aggressions. While those things are bad, they’re not necessarily racism. Racism is a system, it’s a structure, it’s an ideology. It’s a huge undertaking that is across societies, that is bigger than individual nations and it’s asserted in policy. It’s asserted in how we interrelate as countries. It’s asserted in this sort of hierarchy that we have with Europe at the top and Africa at the bottom. It’s asserted with white people, light-skinned people being portrayed in positive ways and then the darker you get, the worse off you are in every single society.

When I look at Myanmar and I look at the Rohingya people, they are darker-skinned a lot of the time. When I look across the world, wherever you go, you have dark-skinned people. They tend to be at the bottom of the totem pole. And I need for countries that may not necessarily have black people per se to understand how they are perpetuating racism when they create this class division between the lighter-skinned people, the fair-skinned people in their societies and the darker ones. The same thing happens in India — the same thing happens in a number of countries around the world. So, we have to understand the global flow of racism and the ways that we perpetuate it. To practically fight it, they are a number of ways.

One, you have to think about media representation of people of darker skin. Too often we are villains. Too often we are stupid. Too often we have no agency, no power. Too often our countries are portrayed in ways that do not give us any agency and so you perpetuate racism, you perpetuate human indignity when you do that. We have to make it very apparent that these things are very violent. You know, when you portray people this way, you’re not just hurting their feelings, you’re doing actual violence against them — you’re sanctioning their murder sometimes. You have to do better. We have to call it what it is. Because a lot of times, we’re not talking enough about it and we’re not doing enough about it. We are brushing it under the rug.

And we need to do that on a larger scale. So, when companies have poor advertising campaigns, the backlash has to go beyond social media opprobrium. It has to go into them actually losing money because we as people stand for something greater than commercialism. We’re not going to support your business if you’re portraying black people and people of color in a bad way. We’re not going to patronize you at all. We’re not going to do anything with you because that kind of value is completely against what we stand for. So, we have to make a great stand in what we do. Sometimes, we talk a big game but we don’t actually take proper actions. And as young people, we have to do that because we are one of the largest economic blocs. We pay for a lot of things, we buy a lot of things. So, we have power in commercialism in that sense.

Ziabari: And a final question: We live in the age of social media and super-quick connections online. How can young people use these platforms to promote peace, understanding and intercultural dialogue?

Monteith: Talk to each other, first of all. Forums of this nature [the International Youth Forum] are very unique in that we meet a lot of people from a lot of different countries and then we get to add each other on Facebook and on Instagram, and so we get to understand how each person perceives their own nation and the issues that are happening. So, we need to take up the mandate of investigating what’s happening in these countries and consuming media from these countries in more tangible ways.

Young people have the opportunity to even see, very literally, what’s happening in different countries right away. If you go on Instagram and if you search the hashtag for Kingston, you’ll see our culture, you’ll see our national heritage, you’ll see our natural environment, you’ll get a real perception of who we are. And that helps to break some of the barriers. That helps to break some of the stereotypes. So, we need to do that on a greater scale.

I feel like more of us need to understand the importance of international solidarity, of understanding what it means to be a global citizen, of understanding the fact that our countries are not far apart, they’re not so divorced from each other in terms of issues.

So, as we use social media to access that kind of content, we have to really internalize it as a way of living where we look at each other and we don’t see somebody from a foreign country who means nothing to me. We see people and we understand that the same wishes and wants, interests and passions that we have, those people have their own as well. Those people are experiencing a life in very similar ways sometimes. You know, they have similar passions, and as long as we can relate on a human-to-human level through social media, I think we’ll be slowly moving in the right direction.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Governments Must Recognize the Importance of the Youth appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Global Pandemic Exposes Gender Inequality

READ MORE

For gender rights activists, this year’s (mainly virtual) gathering is especially meaningful as 2020 marks 25 years since the Beijing Platform for Action — the comprehensive roadmap to gender equality — was signed onto by 189 governments. The General Assembly will be commemorating the anniversary with a high-level meeting on October 1, and focused attention on the status of women and girls could not come at a more critical time. 

The coronavirus pandemic has had a uniquely heavy impact on women and girls, especially those from marginalized communities, and we are in danger of losing progress toward equality that we have spent decades tirelessly fighting for.

The public health, societal and economic ramifications of the pandemic have forced more girls into , increased rates of online , multiplied women’s care burden, limited access to reproductive and sexual health care services, and trapped millions of women at home with their abusers. More women are vulnerable to exploitation in order to afford food and housing, girls who surmounted numerous barriers to attend school have now been denied access to education, and the overrepresentation of women in the informal labor sector means that millions have been excluded from formal relief packages.

Words and Deeds

While COVID-19 — the disease caused by the novel coronavirus — has brought these harmful practices into sharp relief, the pandemic did not invent gender inequality. Child marriage, female genital mutilation, the unequal division of labor, gender-based violence, exploitative work conditions — all of this existed long before the world had even heard of COVID-19.

In fact, many countries even have laws that uphold and promote these practices, legally codifying the mistreatment of women and girls. Or, despite constitutional guarantees of equality, they make exceptions for religious or customary law, which is often discriminatory, particularly when it comes to family law.

Every five years, the organization I work for, Equality Now, reviews states’ compliance with the they made in Beijing to “revoke any remaining laws that discriminate on the basis of sex” and publishes its findings in a Words and Deeds report. In each edition, we discover that countries around the world still have laws that make it difficult, if not impossible, for women and girls to equally participate in social, political and economic life. 

Since we have been tracking and calling attention to non-compliance with the Beijing Platform for Action, significant progress has been made in repealing and amending these laws. For instance, “wife obedience” is no longer mandated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or in Algeria. In Kuwait, women can obtain a without their male guardian’s permission, and in France, women are no longer forbidden from working at night.

There’s Still Work to Be Done

Despite these advancements, many sex discriminatory family laws remain on the books. Our 2020 report highlights numerous such examples.

In Burundi, for instance, the husband is legally the head of the household, and in Indonesia, men are permitted to have multiple wives while women may marry only one man. Japan requires a waiting period before women can remarry — no such provision exists for men. Women in Iran can be imprisoned for not adhering to prescribed Islamic dress codes. And in India and the Bahamas, there are no criminal penalties for marital rape. In addition, a few countries, such as the United States, lack a constitutional guarantee of sex equality, making it harder to challenge discriminatory laws still in existence.

These laws embed discrimination and legitimize the notion that women and girls are less deserving of equality, respect and power. It is an uphill battle to change cultural and societal perceptions of gender when misogyny is quite literally the law of the land. The women’s movement has been calling attention to this fact for decades, and advocates around the world have put their lives on the line to reform discriminatory laws and legal systems. 

So, while governments gather at UN General Assembly to chart a path forward from COVID-19, they must not only recognize the gendered impact of the pandemic, but they must also acknowledge that existing legal systems contributed to this devastation. If there had been better laws, policies and protections in place, then the effect on women and girls would have been less catastrophic.

On the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action, it is more vital than ever that states recommit to their promise and take action to end discrimination in the law, at a minimum. A successful, more equal, post-coronavirus world depends on it.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Time to End Sex Discrimination appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The international response was swift. The United Arab Emirates described the incident as a “sabotage attack,” while the United States immediately blamed Iran. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Norway launched a joint investigation into the attack, concluding that a “state actor” was behind it.

The events triggered a series of dangerous incidents around the Gulf, including two further attacks on tankers in June, the and shooting down each other’s drones, and the detention of and tankers by both sides. Most recently, on September 14, oil facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia were struck in drone and cruise missile attacks. Yemen’s Houthi rebels claimed responsibility, but the US and Saudi Arabia blame Iran. The Iranians deny any involvement in the attack.

The UN General Assembly

As world leaders gather in New York for the 74th United Nations General Assembly, tensions remain high in the Gulf as Iran continues waging its campaign of “maximum resistance” against the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” agenda that a handful of other Western states have been behind to varying degrees. Despite nuclear disarmament and arms control being key aspects of the General Assembly’s agenda, the UN is unlikely to play an integral role in reducing tension between the US and Iran, given the strong-willed nature of these countries.

Nevertheless, it remains the vital interest of all parties to prevent US-Iran brinkmanship from erupting into war, especially one that so directly involves some of the world’s most powerful militaries and has been playing out around the Strait of Hormuz, a highly-strategic chokepoint in the Gulf through which of the world’s oil passes. Any interruption of international shipping through this narrow strait would have a seismic impact on the global economy, as well as a drastic rise in oil prices.

Since May 2018, when the US withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) over a host of issues, including non-nuclear ones like Iranian conduct in the Middle East (i.e., support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Houthi rebels in Yemen and the Syrian regime) and its ballistic missile activity, the US has re-imposed sanctions on Iran. Such sanctions threaten European businesses that deal with Iran and have resulted in European firms pulling out of the Islamic Republic despite their keenness to enter Iranian markets after the JCPOA’s watershed passage and implementation in mid-2015 and early 2016, respectively.

The Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign has strained the Iranian economy.  With the reimposition of US sanctions, Iran’s GDP contracted by in 2018. Additionally, at the start of last year, Iran’s crude oil peaked at 2.8 million barrels per day (bpd). By March 2019, that dropped to 1.1 million bpd.

Although Tehran stuck to its nuclear commitments under the JCPOA by practicing a policy of “strategic patience” that rested on the assumption that European countries could circumvent US sanctions from excessively harming Iran’s interests, Iranian officials have concluded that such an approach has not succeeded. Consequently, Iran has gradually pulled back from its commitments under the nuclear deal. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani recently announced that Iran has begun working on “” of faster centrifuges, a direct violation of the deal.

Within this context, Iran has left the West worried over its nuclear plans as it looks East to Asian countries to export its oil. Giorgio Cafiero, the CEO of Gulf State Analytics, a Washington, DC-based political risk consultancy group, describes the strategy’s economic aspect, saying, “Given that a number of countries, most importantly China, are still buying Iranian oil, it seems difficult to imagine the US policy aimed at bringing Iran‘s oil exports to zero as proving successful.” As many experts see it, Washington’s maximum pressure agenda maxed out over the summer, raising questions about what else the US could do outside of military action to pressure Iran into changing its conduct.

With the Iranian government undeterred by US actions, the burden of maintaining what is left of the nuclear deal rests with European partners and their efforts to ease the blow of US sanctions on Iran. This comes at an especially difficult time as the United Kingdom deals with the Brexit saga and right-wing, populist and nationalist governments in mainland Europe challenge the EU’s capacity to promote global cooperation.

The efforts to incentivize Iran to uphold its end of the bargain under the JCPOA have been unsuccessful, given the country’s recent nuclear developments. Addressing the European role in the tensions since the 2018 pullout, Cafiero says, “Because the US dominates the global banking industry, European states have been unable to chart an independent course in relation to Iran and the nuclear deal.”

A War of Words

With rising tensions between the US, Europe and Iran, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members have effectively found themselves in the crossfire during this summer’s series of detained and attacked tankers. That said, it is important to recognize that Saudi Arabia’s approach vis-à-vis Iran has not been subdued.

Last year at the 73rd UN General Assembly, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir condemned Iran, : “Iran continues its terrorist activities and hostile behavior. The kingdom expresses its support to the new American strategy in dealing with Iran … Achieving peace and stability in the Middle East requires deterring Iran‘s expansionist and subversive policies.”

Similarly, UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed cited Iran’s “nefarious” interventionist policies, attributing it to the region’s escalation in violence. In his address last year, “Certain countries, particularly Iran, are prone to attacking the security of the region, spreading chaos, violence and sectarianism.”

The Iranian side also traded bellicose rhetoric at last year’s General Assembly, foreshadowing the rise in tensions that erupted a year later. President Rouhani harsh statements directed at the United States. He said that “by violating its international commitments, the new US administration only destroys its own credibility and undermines international confidence in negotiating with it.” He also condemned the rhetoric launched against the Iranian regime, describing it as “ignorant, absurd and hateful … filled with ridiculously baseless allegations.”

As the parties gather for this year’s UN General Assembly, the rhetoric and addresses are somewhat unpredictable, especially after US President Donald Trump recently fired John Bolton, his third national security adviser since 2017. Bolton, known for his hawkish foreign policy on Iran — which included pushing for regime change and war — was a chief proponent of the maximum pressure strategy. However, to a source close to Bolton, Trump and his now-former national security adviser were at odds over the president’s apparent suggestion of lifting sanctions on Iran as a negotiating incentive.

With Bolton’s departure, Washington’s foreign policy toward Iran might become less hawkish. Additionally, there is the possibility of American and Iranian diplomats coming together at the negotiating table, with speculation about Trump meeting with Rouhani.

That said, the recent attacks targeting Aramco facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia, which resulted in the state-owned oil company’s production being halved, may cut the prospects for diplomatic outreach between Washington and Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s tweet attributing the strikes to Iran raises questions about whether hardline figures in the Iranian regime may have provoked the perpetrators to carry out these attacks, with the aim of derailing any potential diplomatic outreach between the US and Iran in the aftermath of Bolton’s ouster.

The Iranian leadership’s rhetoric at the General Assembly will be highly informative in terms of understanding Tehran’s approach to dealing with the Trump administration. Depending on if and how US foreign policy shifts, as well as how suspicious Tehran regards any potential change in Washington’s Iran strategy, the Islamic Republic may continue its criticism of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia, as it has done during previous UN gatherings.

Moreover, the other address to keep a close eye on at this year’s assembly is the UAE’s, given its recent of support for Trump’s maximum pressure campaign. This comes at its realization that continued backing of the increasingly hostile US approach toward Iran may lead to a war in the Gulf, in turn jeopardizing the UAE’s own regional interests.

Notable examples of Abu Dhabi’s shift in Iranian foreign policy include its cautious response to the May 12 tanker attacks, labeling them as “sabotage” by a “state actor” but not directly pointing fingers at Iran. Additionally, the UAE initiated diplomatic to Iran in July. Whether or not these shifts will be reflected publicly at the UAE’s General Assembly address remains to be seen.

Overall, with this buildup of tensions involving such strong-willed countries that lack permanent status in the UN Security Council (UNSC), it is unlikely that the United Nations will be able to foster any sort of multilateral rapprochement.

If anything, the UN will most likely just pay lip service to the mounting tensions in the Gulf and verbally demand a de-escalation.

*[ is a partner institution of 51�Թ�. Updated on September 24, 2019: An earlier version of this article contained comments by Karen Young, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, which have been removed at her request.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Tensions Mount in the Gulf as World Leaders Gather at UN appeared first on 51�Թ�.

of the Indian Constitution had effectively given semi-autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir in the aftermath of India’s partition in 1947. Modi’s abrogation of this essential constitutional principle, upon which regional peace (of a kind) has relied since partition, illustrates what in both Hindi and Urdu is commonly described as a zidd, or obstinate posturing. This zidd is maintained by both India and Pakistan at the expense of their own populations, and at the expense of Kashmiris. While it might be tempting to view Modi’s unilateralism as just a facet of his populist politics, at the heart of it he is simply acting in accordance with the demands of the zidd.

Kashmir Is More Than a Pawn

Kashmir is more than just a pawn that is subject to the power play of two regional rivals, both of whom are equipped with nuclear arsenals ready to go at a moment’s notice. It is also a sword of Damocles, wittingly hung by each other’s successive administrations over the heads of both countries, to use whenever the occasion desires. In the middle of the muddle is Kashmir, a land of outstanding natural beauty and home to a people of indefatigable patience and endurance.

Scroll down to read more on this 360° series

Modi’s gamble, “temporarily” moving all decision-making to the central government in New Delhi, is the latest test of Kashmiri . If his actions are partly due to frustrations over a lack of leadership in Kashmir, it still does not explain, or excuse, the continuation of draconian laws against Kashmiri civilians.

These measures, notably the of 1990 and the of 1978, are reinforced by a suppressive military , denial of basic freedoms and a blanket ban on access for both media and human rights groups. Although human rights violations in Kashmir — torture, disappearances, — have been well-documented, and despite a fairly damning UN in 2018, there has been an absence of outrage from people other than Kashmiris themselves.

In the zidd scenario, it is usually Pakistan that is accused of having an obsession with India over Kashmir. But Modi’s move, which follows hot on the heels of another disastrous adventure by him only a few months earlier, where he dispatched fighter jets into Pakistani territory in alleged hot of terrorists, indicates that India is perhaps equally as obsessed with Pakistan. That previous incident, which occurred in February, is now widely regarded as a debacle and Modi’s first significant miscalculation as head of the world’s largest democracy. It also gave Pakistan a rare opportunity to prove its own diplomatic mettle and up the ante in the zidd, when its forces downed an Indian fighter jet and then — amid much gloating — its pilot.

Whilst acknowledging Pakistan’s vested interest in keeping India on its toes vis-à-vis Kashmir, these recent events are entirely relevant in what it tells us about Modi’s own disregard for mutually accepted standards of behavior according to international and India’s own constitution. of that constitution commits him “to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations … and, encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.” His current posture is nothing less than an egotistical affront to India’s honor.

Pakistan’s posture, on the other hand, has been progressive and relatively consistent. This is a testament to Prime Minister Imran Khan’s determination to change the way Pakistan does business, at home and abroad. His emphasis on finding “political and legal” solutions rather than military ones reflects a wider change of attitude in Pakistan’s political culture.

Involving the UN

In this context, it makes sense for Pakistan to reiterate its call, perhaps naive but again consistent, for UN . That might be more idealism than realpolitik, and relate more to Pakistan’s longer-term aims, but it reveals how India’s internal shift has broader, external implications. Pakistan’s diplomatic maneuvering, therefore, should not be dismissed entirely.

In 2003, of Jordan described the United Nations as “a necessary institution that plays a constructive role in post-conflict arenas.” If Pakistan is genuine about finding a resolution through the UN, it too must show meaningful movement toward effectively dealing with the problem of Islamist militancy in Kashmir and within its own borders.

(1948) gives the UN authority to “investigate any dispute or any situation which might, by its continuance, endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.” (1948) calls on both India and Pakistan to refrain “from doing … or permitting any acts which might aggravate the situation.”

If the UN considers itself relevant to the South Asian quagmire, it should seek to play a preventive role as a historical mediator. Modi’s incursion into Pakistani territory earlier this year and the subsequent abrogation of Article 370 arguably aggravate “the situation,” which in turn should warrant attention.

UN involvement could also help identify a united and effective leadership among Kashmiris, both within the region and among the diaspora. Such an outcome — an empowered Kashmiri civic leadership that is finally taken seriously by the international community in the same way, perhaps, as the Kurds are today — would prevent both sides of the belligerent divide to behave differently.

In the meantime, Modi’s ziddi moves over Kashmir, illustrating his personal failure to address both what is going on in Kashmir and how to handle the relationship with Pakistan, may be a taste of similar things to come. Choosing to so pertinaciously rattle the delicate web of bilateral understanding in the world’s hottest hotspot takes the zidd to a new and dangerous level, and can only increase the possibility of unintended consequences.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Kashmir Reaches a New and Dangerous Level appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Countries that have invested in human capital, infrastructure and decent systems of social protection have made more progress than others in reducing extreme poverty, according to Mahmoud Mohieldin, the World Bank Group’s senior vice president for the 2030 Development Agenda, United Nations Relations, and Partnerships.

At the same time, entrepreneurs and corporations must accept responsibility for shaping their business environments, notes Djordjija Petkoski, a senior fellow at Wharton’s .

In this video, Mohieldin and Petkoski discuss these and other ways to meet the United Nations’ , or SDGs.

*[This feature was originally published by , a partner institution of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Localization Can Help Overcome Extreme Poverty appeared first on 51�Թ�.

To travel is a universal human right. There are references to this in national constitutions and international covenants, such as Article 13 of the .

People travel for a number of reasons: experiencing new cultures, reuniting with loved ones, attending sports events, studying or receiving medical treatment, just to name a few. Tourism contributes to of global GDP. It creates jobs, boosts foreign exchange and empowers local economies. According to a 2018 by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), travel and tourism created 313 million jobs in 2017. It is expected that the industry will create 413.5 million jobs in 2028. The report predicts there will be more than $1,400 billion invested on travel and tourism in 2028.

France and Spain for the crown of the world’s most popular destination. In 2017, France received 86.9 million tourists, while Spain received 81.8 million international visitors. They are followed by the United States, China and Italy.

The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) is the UN agency responsible for the promotion of tourism. Headquartered in Madrid, it encourages the implementation of the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism. The UNWTO publishes the World Tourism Barometer, which is a monitor of short-term tourism trends across the world and an indicator of the number of tourist arrivals per country.

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Zurab Pololikashvili, the secretary-general of the World Tourism Organization, about the importance of tourism as a driver of the global economy and the challenges of promoting sustainable tourism.

The transcript has been edited for clarity.��

Ziabari: Tourism is considered by the UNWTO as a way of achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals by reducing poverty and driving economic growth. How is this possible?

Pololikashvili: Tourism is far more than tourism alone. From infrastructure and communication to food production and transport, tourism’s considerable economic weight gives it the responsibility and the power to play a key role in the sustainable and responsible development of economies and societies.

Not only has tourism been a sector of consistently above-average growth for eight straight years, with 1.3 billion international tourist arrivals recorded in 2017, but the sector’s cross-cutting nature and wide global reach make it an effective tool to contribute to all of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

By advancing our work to step up innovation and digitalization, and developing the Tourism for SDGs platform as a co-creation space for SDG implementation ideas and initiatives, the UNWTO encourages positive change in governance and business strategies toward the long-term sustainable development of tourism.

Ziabari: Public awareness should be raised so that countries treat tourism as a priority. How does the UNWTO support its member states when it comes to the provision of tourism-related education and dissemination of knowledge?

Pololikashvili: The UNWTO is the UN’s special agency to promote tourism’s many benefits on societies and the economy. We have a comprehensive development vision for tourism: making it a policy priority, building capacity through meaningful partnerships and, importantly, establishing thought leadership in knowledge and policy creation. We carry out technical cooperation and capacity-building projects all over the world to enhance tourism knowledge. We hope to be more active still under our expanded tourism education program, the UNWTO Academy, with activities such as online master classes for meetings and business tourism.

We also support current tourism training hubs in member states all over the world, and encourage that they join our TedQual certification program, through which we assure quality and improvement for tourism education centers worldwide.

Building capacity for tourism also requires improved training sensitive to the sector’s needs. If we are to create better jobs, we must develop the skills needed as the sector undergoes a digital revolution and tourists’ demands change. For this reason, we will be focusing 2019’s activities on our priority of education and employment.

Ziabari: I noted that the UNWTO’s work on child protection and preventing all forms of child and youth exploitation in the tourism sector spans over more than 15 years. Is sexual exploitation or child trafficking a serious concern or has enough progress been made to address these issues?

Pololikashvili: The UNWTO was one of the first international organizations to focus specifically on ending all forms of child and youth exploitation in the tourism sector. We have been actively involved in raising awareness of this issue for the past 20 years. This is, sadly, an ongoing concern that transcends tourism.

The digital era has brought widespread use of internet and mobile technologies and, unfortunately, predators have found new ways of contacting and tricking their victims online. The use of these new tools and platforms calls for adapted methods to fight child exploitation effectively.

The UNWTO is now working toward the adoption of potentially its first convention: the UNWTO Framework Convention on Tourism Ethics. The ballot vote on its adoption is scheduled for the next general assembly. The convention’s Article 5.3 makes explicit reference to fighting any form of exploitation of children within tourism activities.

The second paragraph calls upon all states ” concerned [to] penalize without concession by the national legislation of both the countries visited and the countries of the perpetrators of these acts, even when they are carried out abroad.” This aims to create extraterritorial jurisdiction on this matter, as this is a legal loophole that obstructs advancement in condemning the crime of youth exploitation.

Ziabari: What are the major obstacles to the fulfillment of the “right to tourism” as stipulated in Article 7 of the Global Code of Ethics?

Pololikashvili: The right to tourism stipulated in the code originates from Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.” It also draws upon Article 7.d of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: “Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.”

There are also other aspects that should not be neglected. For the UNWTO, it is important to raise awareness of the need for accessible tourism destinations, services, products and facilities for all as a fundamental aspect of equality and respect for human rights. With 15% of the world’s population, about 1 billion people, estimated to live with some form of disability, making tourism facilities accessible is also a good business opportunity.

Furthermore, disadvantaged segments of a population having access to tourism can have a tremendous impact in prompting pro-active behavior, self-esteem and inclusion.

Ziabari: Are you concerned about the politically motivated ban imposed by President Donald Trump on the citizens of five Muslim-majority countries and its impact on the right of those citizens to travel to the United States?

Pololikashvili: Bans on citizens traveling are opposed to the spirit and objectives of the UNWTO and the recognition of tourism as a celebration of our world’s diversity of places and cultures. For tourism exchange to work, the destination needs to be welcoming, open, tolerant and respectful — for tourism is a bilateral or multilateral experience.

Growth in migration, like growth in tourism, is a consequence of globalization. Unfortunately, the negative aspects of migration seem to be the only stories that attract headlines. However, in line with the UN’s approach to migration, the UNWTO sees clearly that migration makes important social and economic contributions to destination countries, culturally enriching their societies, enhancing tourism products and providing labor for the tourism, hospitality and catering sectors.

Migration in itself is also a clear generator of tourism demand. There is a two-way flow of expatriates visiting their countries of origin, and their relatives and friends visiting them in their new host countries. Migrants’ remittances and income from tourism can also have a real impact on poverty reduction. It can enhance investment in tourism-related projects and community infrastructure in expatriates’ countries of origin.��

Ziabari: Article 5 of the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism says that tourism is a beneficial activity for host countries and communities. There are many countries that are either unaware of the importance of tourism or seem unwilling to prioritize tourism. Is there anything that can be done so that all countries are convinced to pay adequate attention to the tourism sector?

Pololikashvili: Tourism accounts for some 10% of the world’s GDP and jobs, boosts foreign exchange, drives entrepreneurship and development in many countries and regions, and promotes intercultural dialogue and tolerance. Tourism also has an extraordinary potential to contribute to the socioeconomic empowerment and advancement of women, youth, indigenous people, people with disabilities and other disadvantaged population segments.

However, the rise of tourism has created challenges that must not be ignored. Without concerns for sustainability and responsibility, tourism can develop in detrimental ways: damaging the environment, depleting natural resources and biodiversity, disrupting social and cultural values, ignoring disadvantaged groups and even exploiting human beings.

© Zarya Maxim Alexandrovich

For these reasons, it is important for countries to have well-planned, comprehensive tourism policies. Tourism development and management is a transversal policy issue. It touches upon many other issues such as urbanization, transport connectivity, environmental impacts, labor, trade, and security. So, it needs to be included in overall national development agenda.

Ziabari: What does the UNWTO do to promote travel facilitation in order to boost economic growth globally? Can you provide us with some examples of the most notable achievements your organization has made in this regard?

Pololikashvili: The UNWTO has conducted research on global visa openness. Our index score for visa openness has increased from 31 in 2014 to 37 in 2018, meaning that more and more countries are establishing favorable travel facilitation measures that help to make tourism safer and more seamless.

One recent achievement of our work on visa facilitation has been the change in visa regime in Qatar. In 2014, Qatar commissioned a visa facilitation study for the country, which the UNWTO prepared based on its global openness data. Qatar responded with many visa facilitation improvements, including allowing nationals of 88 countries to enter visa-free and free-of-charge. As a result, Qatar’s visa openness ranking leapt to 8th in the world, from 177th back in 2014.

Ziabari: What do you think about the stringent visa policies of some countries, mostly EU member states, for citizens of the global south? Do you agree that harsh visa policies block easy and sustainable tourism and that, sometimes, the imposed restrictions are redundant and unnecessary?

Pololikashvili: Facilitating seamless travel is crucial to the continued promotion of tourism as a development vehicle and potential pillar of achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Over the past years, we have seen a more differentiated approach to visa policies emerge. Countries now use evaluation and decision-making mechanisms that go beyond patterns of mirroring overall trends, reacting to competitors’ behavior or reciprocating the actions of the origin country of tourists.

However, at this point in history, more nuanced answers to visa facilitation challenges are needed — answers that find an effective balance between prioritizing ease of travel and respecting national jurisdiction and sovereignty. The UNWTO will continue to assist our partners to find this balance. Only then will we be able to promote a truly safe and seamless travel experience.

Ziabari: What sort of feedback do you receive about the periodical World Tourism Barometer that you publish? Do all countries cooperate with you closely to provide figures and data on their tourism sector, arrivals, expenditure and other information you need?

Pololikashvili: We collect data from as many countries as we can. There are some information gaps due to a lack of data received.

Some countries have pointed out the need for knowledge exchange and more financial and technical support to modernize data sources. In response, we are looking for more cooperation between all relevant institutions and the private sector toward this modernization process.

Ziabari: Do you think the global community is sufficiently aware of the importance of modern forms of tourism, including eco-tourism and gastronomy tourism?

Pololikashvili: Raising awareness amongst this community of the many different forms of tourism and their benefits forms the central task of UNWTO, as I mentioned earlier.

Throughout 2018, we increased our outreach on some of the more modern forms of tourism, such as gastronomy and sports tourism, as well as innovation and the digital advances we see in the sector. As such, we have spearheaded competitions to find the startups with the most disruptive ideas and initiatives in tourism, specifically within the gastronomy and sports tourism segments.

Awareness from the global community is also helped by tourism’s relentless growth and incredible resilience. The sector has grown every year since 2010, and by an average of 4%-5%. As tourists grow, so does awareness of the different forms of tourism and how they can be used to increase both competitiveness and sustainability.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Tourism Is an Effective Tool for the SDGs appeared first on 51�Թ�.

At a time when the credibility and influence wielded by the fourth estate have been questioned by those in power, the mission of organizations like the United Nations Correspondents Association, which fosters good relations with reporters and members of diplomatic delegations, is especially vital. Sherwin Bryce-Pease, UN bureau chief��with the South African Broadcasting Corporation, has covered the intersection between US and��UN politics for over a decade. As president of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA), he is tasked with ensuring that the interests of the journalists in their dealings with the UN are met.

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Bryce-Pease about how access remains one of the biggest hurdles for��journalists in an organization tasked with achieving international cooperation.

Athanasios Dimadis: President Donald Trump’s adversarial relationship with the press has been well documented. He has often accused reporters of misinterpreting his words and of being biased. What is your view of the current media landscape in the United States?

Sherwin Bryce-Pease: The reality show aspect of cable news in the United States, often partisan in nature, is doing real damage to a fact-based society where opinion dominates what should be a facts-based news agenda. In other words, rather than getting the news, we are served a combination of fact, conjecture and hyperbole all at once, which doesn’t educate the citizenry or the electorate, but rather confuses them. So just like the side effects of a new drug, we are just beginning to see the negative ramifications of cable news mixed with the toxicity of social media in this country.

Dimadis: How have the priorities of the UN Correspondents Association shifted in the wake of Donald Trump’s presidency?

Bryce-Pease: From an operational point of view, not much. Our mandate is to represent our members in their dealings with the United Nations. But because the United States is the biggest funder of both the general and peacekeeping budget of the organization, what comes out of the White House and the US Mission under the outgoing Ambassador Nikki Haley has been of even greater significance to our members (from a news perspective) given President Trump’s “America First” policy and its implications on the multilateral, rules-based system. But that doesn’t necessarily change our priorities, which are to work on creating the best working environment for our journalists at the UN and facilitate their access to newsmakers.

Dimadis: What are the challenges for correspondents covering UN-related matters? What has been your most valuable learning experience��managing relations between the international press corps and the UN Secretariat?

Bryce-Pease: Access is a constant issue that we face, particularly during the high-level week, when more than 100 heads of state and government come to town. Another challenge is the inability of UN officials, in particular, to say what they think rather than what might be less upsetting to member states. Issues of sovereignty and influence (i.e. funding) often limit the ability of UN officials to speak truth to power.

Dimadis: What are your top priorities for your presidency?

Bryce-Pease: To ensure that we have a voice at the table when decisions that affect us at the UN are taken, to raise funds for the annual UN Correspondents Association Gala Awards and foster good working relations with key missions to the UN. My role is to be the voice for the journalists and to create a credible space for that voice to be taken both seriously and to be heard.

Dimadis: Each year, the UN Correspondents Association presents awards for journalists for the��best print, broadcast and online media coverage of the United Nations, its agencies and field operations around the globe. What do you and the other members of the UNCA Executive Committee take into consideration during the selection process?

Bryce-Pease: This is an independent exercise managed by an independent convenor and external judges. Because our committee members are also eligible to enter the competition, barring a few exceptions like myself and the awards gala sub-committee, the judging panel is completely independent. All our categories are about coverage of the UN through print, online and broadcast media, and this year’s winners have reported on migration, climate change and women’s empowerment, among other subjects.

Dimadis: How has the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi affected or galvanized the mission of the UNCA?

Bryce-Pease: I think Mr. Khashoggi’s horrific killing touched a nerve with all of us. While outside our mandate to specifically advocate on behalf of specific issues, our members continue to raise the Khashoggi murder and the need for accountability at the highest levels, including through a possible independent UN-led investigation.

Dimadis: You’ve been the UN bureau chief with the South African Broadcasting Corporation, covering��US and UN politics for well over a decade. How has the relationship between the two evolved over this time?

Bryce-Pease: The UN is as effective as the sum of its parts and fails dismally when national interests dominate the greater good. I think that this is true also of its relationship with the United States.

Dimadis: What, in your view, are the most crucial and pressing reforms that the UN Correspondents Association must face in the next few years?

Bryce-Pease: Unlike the UN Security Council and the Inter-Governmental Reform process, UNCA is able to respond to the needs of its members in a fluid manner. For example, we had 10 women and five men during my first one-year term, and parity was maintained during my second term. Issues of sovereignty are fortunately not something we have to grapple with when making decisions. We will always fiercely protect our independent voice at the UN even if that is upsetting to some member states.

Dimadis: You’ve interviewed such figures as��UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, South African Presidents Jacob Zuma, Kgalema Motlanthe and Thabo Mbeki, and Chile’s President Michelle Bachelet. You’ve even interviewed former US President Barack Obama at the White House. What has been the most valuable observation you’ve made as a professional journalist working in the US for foreign media?����

Bryce-Pease: What happens in the United States still matters to the rest of the world and affects people around the world in a visceral way. Alternative facts have become a reality here, spreading to other parts of the globe, and we are watching norms and standards devolve in front of our eyes.

Dimadis: It’s been suggested that climate change is the most pressing issue of our time. In fact, the World Bank estimates that climate change could displace up to 150 million people within their home countries by 2050. Millions of others are expected to flee to wealthier nations. How does the UN Correspondents Association and its members plan to respond to global warming compounding pressure on fragile states?

Bryce-Pease: One of our main awards categories is directed toward coverage of issues related to climate change. It’s our small way of shining a light on an issue that is all of our responsibility.

*[An earlier version of this article erroneously referred to the UN Correspondents Association Gala Awards as the UN General Assembly Gala Awards.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post UN Correspondents Association: Shining a Light on Global Issues appeared first on 51�Թ�.

With between the ages of 10 and 24, youth around the world face their fair share of challenges. Whether these challenges are in education or employment, they are highly important and need to be addressed. A proper response to youth challenges needs the involvement of young people themselves in decision-making and political leadership.

During the tenure of Ban Ki-moon as the UN secretary-general, the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth was created at the United Nations. It was mandated with bringing the voices of young people to the United Nations system and working with stakeholders and influencers in government, civil society, academia and media to empower youth and enhance their position outside the UN.

Ahmad Alhendawi, a Jordanian citizen, was named the first-ever UN envoy on youth in 2013, becoming the youngest senior official in the history of the United Nations. He currently serves as the secretary-general of the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM).

In this edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Alhendawi about youth challenges, education and the work of the WOSM.

The transcript has been edited for clarity.��

Kourosh Ziabari: Having served as the first UN secretary general’s envoy on youth and working closely with young people from across the world, what do you think is the most important issue currently threatening the future of youths in the 21st century?

Ahmad Alhendawi: I think if you look at the global young population, we have almost the largest number of young people in history. Half of the world population are almost 25, and some of the major challenges facing them are also those challenges that are facing the world today.

Whenever I speak with our youth, I follow those wider transitions that mark the youths. Whether the transition from education to higher education or the transition from higher education to employment, or the transition from the family to independence and whether that’s moving out or marriage or forming families, and the transition that’s also accompanied with health and physical development for young people. So, in other words, there are different tools on understanding youths. For me, youth in part also involves these series of transitions that happen at a given moment in life.

If you take them quickly one by one, whether the transition to education or to higher education, they all clash with the education system that is relevant to the needs of young people and the needs of constantly changing realities in our world. There are challenges that are related to obtaining education that is relevant. Education that makes you equipped with the skills that you would need in the world today — whether critical thinking or soft skills, the ability to have the curiosity and the resilience that is required in the global economy, and the transition to the labor market.

With the youth unemployment rate that has doubled and the regular unemployment rate, the question is about the future of jobs. It’s not only about how to get ­­your first job, but also how you can be competitive for the second and third one. And I expect this trend to continue.

Lastly, I’d like to point out the challenges related to some of the health issues —whether obesity or the challenges related to maintaining healthy lifestyles, all the way to sexually transmitted diseases and others. These are also some of the challenges that touch important aspects of youth development.

But if I take it in a broader sense as well. We live at a time when the major challenges in the world are also affecting us: Climate change cannot be neglected at all — because that will be the defining challenge of our lives and the next generation’s — the question of sustainability in the broader sense, and the challenges that we see from global peace and security. You see that we have the largest number of migrants and refugees since the World War II. That gives a clear indication of the challenge. And many of those migrants who end up in the sea are young people looking for a better life.

Ziabari: You listed a number of challenges facing youths today. Do you think young people worldwide can be part of solutions for all of these challenges? You mentioned health, education, lifestyle, among other issues. But do you think there are concrete solutions to these challenges as well?

Alhendawi: I totally think there can be no solutions without young people. How we can have solutions that could tackle issues related to relevant education without getting to understand how technology affects our lives today?

A lot of the frustration that comes from the mismatch of education is because young people are getting sources of knowledge from so many different places if their school or university are no longer able to fulfill all their needs. Therefore, better engagement for young people and enabling them to be part of tackling these challenges is the solution — whether that’s climate change or issues related to peace-building. You can actually say there’s no peace without young people. You need to work with them and believe their abilities.

So, in my own work in the scout movement, the central belief is that while working with young people, you are able to deal with many of these challenges. And you’d be better equipped if you equip young people with skills they need.

Ziabari: You are currently the secretary-general of the World Organizations of the Scout Movement. Looking back at your career in the United Nations, how do you evaluate and assess yourself? What were the major achievements, and what were the failures or areas you think you could perform better?

Alhendawi: In the United Nations, I think we had some proud moments of elevating the global youth agenda on the international stage. A few years ago at the United Nations, at the world level, the youth agenda and youth representation were not recognized. Now, we have strong recognition that was even announced with the focus on young people through the Sustainable Development Goals [SDG] or the Security Council resolution on youth peace and security, or a number of conventions including some major events like the ECOSOC Youth Forum. You may be familiar with that: They call it the social council youth forum, and it really put the youth agenda on the center stage and youth participation to an old organization like the United Nations.

So, these are some of the things I’m very proud of and that we managed to advocate with many national governments or achieve stronger recognition on youth issues. In Nigeria, we recently teamed up with young people and managed to lower the age for standing for office. It was 40 years old and we managed to lower that, which is a victory for young people in Nigeria. So there are really proud moments. But I’ll say to summarize that elevating and making youth visible at the international stage and their agenda visible is an important achievement for everyone who has contributed to this movement.

You asked me about challenges as well. The global youth sector generally doesn’t have enough resources. To offer the sector additional and more settled seats around the table in international decision-making and national decision-making is a challenge. We have made good progress by getting the resolutions and frameworks. Now we need application, and I hope the international community will continue maintaining this positive momentum to engage young people.

This may not be simple. The world is full of young people who cannot be ignored when we make decisions. Part of my desire to move from the United Nations to a more hands-on role like the scout movement was this desire to help drive these frameworks, policies, resolutions and the SDGs toward implementation. Working with over 50 million people to translate the goals into action and to go into the field is quite rewarding. In that sense the challenge is to really keep the momentum up and open more avenues for young people in decision-making.

Ziabari: On this representation side, you may agree that the voices of young people are missing in many important sectors. Many governments don’t have youth advisors and, for a number of reasons, are unable or unwilling to engage with their young population and address their concerns. What should be done to convince these governments to devise youth engagement plans and listen to the voices of their young thinkers, intellectuals and entrepreneurs, like the recent achievement you mentioned about Nigeria?

Alhendawi: Yes, I think we can take the example of Nigeria. The activism of young people in Nigeria made all the difference. And number one here is that young people need to speak up and speak out, and they need to organize themselves and they need to lend their voice to the causes — whether that’s on social media or by joining organizations and associations.

Governments need to listen. They need to engage young people, and they need to open spaces. Nothing can be sustainable if governments do not open up more for young people and put more resources and investment in youth.

So believe me, in this journey and working with youth issues, I’ve changed a lot of assumptions and understandings, but the one thing that never changed is my faith and belief in young people’s ability and power when dealing with their voices and engaging this so they can make a big difference. That’s crucial.

Ziabari: What do you think about the role of youths in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals? How can young, for example, contribute to the eradication of poverty and realization of gender equality and social justice? How can the capacities of bright-minded and entrepreneurial youths be used to fulfill the 2030 agenda?

Alhendawi: The SDGs, in my view, is really the to-do-list of our generation. It’s a global to-do list to make the world a better place and to make it more equitable, more sustainable, fairer and fulfilling to all inhabitants of this planet. I think justice is literally a declaration of interdependence between all these areas where we no longer have a development track separate from the sustainability of this planet and its resources that we’re consuming at a rapid speed.

Young people are the fuel, the engine and the beneficiaries of achieving and realizing the SDGs. I certainly see it first-hand in my job now, working with national scout organizations around the world, and I see the incredible work carried out by young people in their communities — from the work organized by young people in Peru to the very young people in Sri Lanka mobilized after earthquake or flooding. It’s a team focused on great work done by the brilliant scouts who are helping refugees crossing the Mediterranean and integrating them in their communities. Or the examples of scout organizations in Uganda that are helping young people who are in prison to have a smooth entry back into society. These works are really unleashing the potential of young people.��

Ziabari: Let’s move on to another topic. What’s your take on the worrying trends of radicalization that originate from the conflicts and insecurities in the Middle East and spread to other parts of the world? While these governments don’t have the determination or means to combat radicalization and violent extremism, who do you think is responsible for addressing this concern?

Alhendawi: Radicalization is a real thing. But it doesn’t happen only for one reason. Research on radicalization has shown there are multiple factors playing a role: Whether from the misrepresentation of religious texts or the inequalities caused by poverty to the lack of education or sometimes injustice perceived by people who have ended up more vulnerable to socially radical ideas that are quite destructive.

But the fact is that the vast majority of young people are pro-peace, pro-development, and it’s not fair that young people are portrayed as troublemakers and perpetrators or culprits and victims. The vast majority of young people are peace-lovers who want to live a decent life.

I think a good remedy to fight radicalization is applying these things in a more positive way, offering opportunities, offering access to public spaces, offering decent and democratic societies that are able to offer young people decent opportunities in life. And education, of course, that has the ability to empower young people and enable them to understand and not to be vulnerable to violent extremist abuse and ensuring there is justice that’s observed.��

Ziabari: There are many people across the world who need education about other cultures and faiths. That’s where the importance of intercultural and interfaith dialogue becomes known. What do you think about the importance of intercultural and interfaith dialog in preventing stereotypes from being created and how can young people in different countries take part in this process?

Alhendawi: Yes, I think these exchanges like cultural exchanges are of vital importance to allow people to understand each other. It’s obvious that we are all beneficiaries of being able to understand the world by traveling, by meeting each other, and that’s a crucial value in my view that is very important. Again, people are more globalized and localized at the same time. It’s the global communication tools that sometimes bring us together and sometimes confuse us with each other. That’s why it should be a commitment of everyone to build the bridges and reach out to each other.

I know things don’t always work in a rosy picture and there are divisions. There are misunderstandings and stereotypes that are not always correct, but the way you challenge them is by offering opportunities of exchange between young people and students who are eventually able to become global ambassadors for a global citizenship.

Another important thing is understanding and having hope in the power of cultures and how cultures can be celebrated and diversity can be celebrated. Not only at the global level, but even certain communities and societies. Some cultures are even different inside the same country. Sometimes they are oppressed or not celebrated. I think that needs to start at all levels, not the national level or regional level, but certainly at the world level.

Ziabari: How do you think the academic schools in the West — for example, in the US, Britain and France — are doing in youth and student empowerment? By youth empowerment, I’m talking about youth-led media, youth councils, activism and youth involvement in decision-making and problem-solving. How are these nations spearheading efforts aimed at empowering young people, especially minorities who don’t have any representation or voice?

Alhendawi: I should tell you two practical things. I mean, academic institutions need to do two things.

First, they need to teach people how to think more than teaching what to think. They need to start critical thinking and the ability for people to reach out to each other and question and request and have curiosity. Because you can only challenge stereotypes by curious people who would like to learn more and are thirsty for knowledge — people who know how to question and ask questions.

Second, academic institutions would benefit from diversity: diversity of faculty, diversity in team-working and the administrative teams and, of course, diversity in the student body. I think it’s important to ensure that students are coming from all over the world and people have access to these academic institutions. Because the intelligence you get by interacting with people from different backgrounds and different places is as important as what you study in these institutions.

Indeed, it’s worrying that some academic institutions are sometimes more limited to certain segments of society, whereas I believe it should be open and should enable people to establish a better understanding of diversity in academic institutions because that’s an integral part of learning. What we do in non-formal education and scouting and other organizations is offer the opportunity to travel and do things experimentally and to be able to learn and, at the same time, reach young people who do not necessarily look like each other.

Ziabari: If you were asked to make an assessment of how these schools and academic institutions are doing these days, what would your answer be? And if you were asked to make an assessment of how schools, specifically in the developed world are doing, what would you say?

Alhendawi: You’ll see that it’s difficult to make a general assessment because, at the time, education is being redefined. Are we teaching for technical purposes, or are we teaching for enabling young people with some theoretical understanding or for them to graduate and become academic researchers? The purpose of education is really challenged today for what you use it for. Are you using it for, as I said, some specialized areas where you would like to apply the same knowledge for an academic track, or do you want it to enable you with some good skills for life?

I think these debates on what kind of education and what tools used in education will continue to be high on the agenda. The fact that lots of formal educational entities are resorting to non-formal educational tools is also an interesting development, and I predict this will continue and expand in future.

In other words, it’s not easy to be in the formal educational system, at the delivery side of it, because things are changing, constantly and very quickly, and in a speed that I doubt formal educational systems would be ever able to catch up with.

I will give you one example: I did computer information systems in my undergraduate studies. And I remember that by the time I graduated, the programming language we were using was outdated already. So we had to learn something else to be good for the labor market and find jobs. So, it’s really a struggle and some universities are doing better than others in this field. But I think universities need to challenge their instructors and professors to stay connected with the world around them, because it happens sometimes that students go to find knowledge shared with them that is more of a history in the field, rather than a literary practice. I think challenging these instructors to stay connected is important.

Ziabari: Please tell us about your work at the World Organizations of the Scout Movement. With over 40 million young participants, how is the movement helping young people to actualize their physical and mental capacities and supporting them in their intellectual and spiritual development?

Alhendawi: The scout movement is a 110-year-old strong, non-formal education organization, learning by experiencing things and building the capacity of individuals through not only one aspect. I think what’s really remarkable about the scout’s youth program is that when you join the experience, you not only develop your personality and character, but also yourself physically with all the activities. You also develop socially, intellectually, spiritually and with the ability to learn, and to subscribe to values that are trustworthiness, commitment, dedication and loyalty that really make you a better team player in the future.

I think if we draw parallels today, in a research study we just concluded in three countries — in Singapore, the United Kingdom and Kenya — we found at the period of observation that scouts have performed better than non-scouts almost in all categories of teamwork and the skills that are required not only for the labor market in the future, but also for youths to be able to be an active member of society.

If you study new developments as a science today, you’ll find that it includes all these aspects in it — from cultural, character development, skills development, and also the physical and body development. And I’m glad that we are able to cover a lot of these components of new development in one experience for young people.

I think what’s really remarkable about the scouts is that many young people who are developing through the program say they are having fun and they can do other activities and community service. And that’s precisely the point in scouting: It should be fun and it should be transformative at the same time.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Young People Can Help Solve Youth Challenges appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are considered illegal under international law. Several , as well as the International Court of Justice, have also found settlements to be illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

As stated in a  on settlements, “Israel has disputed the assertion that the West Bank and East Jerusalem can actually be considered occupied territories because they were not part of a legitimate sovereign state before 1967. Thus, it argues that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to these disputed territories, which renders the settlements legal.”

Today, around live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and are seen by the Palestinians as a key impediment to the peace process.

With about 60% of Palestinian territory still under control of Israel, Arabs are severely restricted in accessing the resources of their land and the freedom of movement within it.

In December 2016, the as illegal to reaffirm its position, while the US abstained from the vote in a move that angered Israel. But with nearly , these are now two nations inextricably linked through common history and conflict.

Watch this video by Vox on Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: 

The post Israeli Settlements Explained appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This month, Africa hosted a big international gathering. Delegates from over 150 countries met in Kigali, Rwanda, to reach a global deal to end the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC).

FIRST GLOBAL DEAL IN AFRICA

HFCs are “.” They are used in refrigerants. As temperatures rise due to global warming and consumers in emerging economies become more prosperous, demand for refrigerators, air conditioners and other cooling devices is booming.

Meanwhile, supply in turn is boosting demand. Economies of scale and efficiencies in the production process are leading to larger numbers of cooling devices at cheaper prices in markets worldwide. As a result, a higher amount of HFCs are being released into the environment, heating an already warming planet further.

It is important to remember that the HFCs were brought in after chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) were phased out under the����because they were thinning the ozone layer. By bringing in HFCs for CFCs, humanity exchanged one evil for another. With CFCs gone,����but the planet is heating up. Such is the scale and speed of the crisis wrought by HFCs that all countries at the conference recognized they had to do something. After all-night negotiations, they reached a deal.

According to US Secretary of State John Kerry, this deal is a “” and will “reduce the warming of the planet by an entire half a degree centigrade.” The fact that this deal was concluded in Kigali instead of Kuala Lumpur or Kansas City is important. It is the first big global deal in recent memory to be concluded in Africa, and this is of enormous significance for the future.

A SERIOUS ELECTION FOR AU CHAIR

In previous editions of , the authors have examined the��African Union��(AU). It turns out that this body is increasing in importance. Even as the world is fixated on the forthcoming US election,��.

Many like��, a young law professor, that “as long as the current structure of the AU remains in place, it will make little difference who the next chair is.” Fagbayibo argues that the AU Commission needs more institutional authority to implement directives and penalize states that refuse to comply. He wants greater clarity in the role of the chair, along with increased powers to make it a worthwhile position.

These authors find Fagbayibo’s arguments persuasive. They disagree with him on one point, though. The person who chairs the AU Commission is critical at this juncture of African history. In the not too distant past, Jacques Delors, as president of the European Commission, was responsible for “the acceleration of history” and the creation of the European Union (EU) as we know it today.

It was Delors who set out a grand vision for the EU, playing a crucial role in the Single European Act, the single market and the creation of the euro. Delors’ “acceleration of history” refers to his bold decision to����after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This ardent European was much more than a technocrat and once prophetically declared, “” in an eloquently Gallic call reminiscent of Rousseau. Without Delors, it is impossible to imagine the EU of today.

Now, all is not going well in the EU. As one of the authors has argued earlier, Delors “” On balance though, Delors was a visionary the EU needed, to make its “tryst with destiny.” Delors proves that leaders matter even in supranational institutions. Fagbayibo is right in saying that the structure of the AU needs to change, but it would help to have someone like Delors as the chair of the AU Commission to make the case.

It is for this reason that five candidates for chair of the AU Commission is terrific news for Africa. It proves that, for all its limitations, the position matters. The election of the chair will be messy. Regional considerations will come into play. So will the rivalry between Anglophone and Francophone countries. The process will involve backroom deals and horse trading. However, the mere fact that the continent has five candidates to choose from is a positive development for the future.

As optimists, the authors perceive the AU to be inching forward. For instance, in��the July edition of , the authors examined the significance of the introduction of African passports by the AU. Such a move chips away at arbitrary colonial borders that have long shackled Africa’s potential. It paves the way toward increasing intra-African trade, an essential ingredient in boosting economic growth in the continent and mitigating poverty. The strengthening of the AU facilitates such developments even if the progress may seem to be too slow for its critics.

These critics have a point when they argue that the AU “is slow to respond to security threats, that it prioritises power over justice and that it fails to adequately represent the needs of this continent’s 1.11 billion citizens.” The AU bureaucracy also comes in for a lot of flak. Yet as the points out, the AU “puts a lot of effort, much of it effective, into smaller initiatives that yield incremental results.” Critics could do well to remember that the AU is certainly no EU, but it is no South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation either. So far, it has had significant leaders, but perhaps it now needs a Delors in the saddle. The chance of this occurring increases incrementally with five candidates to choose from.

DEADLY PROTESTS AGAINST THE UN

It is not an everyday occurrence that the United Nations (UN) is accused of excesses and its troops fire to cause civilian deaths.����(CAR), or MINUSCA as it is known by its French acronym, broke out on October 20 and turned violent. Protesters wanted MINUSCA to leave for failing to protect the local population. When demonstrators tried to break into MINUSCA headquarters, its troops fired on them, leaving four people dead.

As expected, there are conflicting accounts of this tragic incident. Protest organizers claim peacekeepers started shooting protesters. MINUSCA denies the charge and argues that the soldiers merely fired teargas. On top of the four killed, 14 people were injured in the clashes, including five peacekeepers.

51�Թ� provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, to keep us free, fair and independent.

Protesters claim that MINUSCA has abdicated its duties and failed to protect civilians from armed rebels. Furthermore, they complain that MINUSCA peacekeepers have committed crimes against the local population.����have emerged repeatedly. In spring 2014, reports of largely French peacekeepers sexually abusing a number of young children in exchange for food or money surfaced, leaving the UN red faced.

Peacekeepers are in CAR because of the oft repeated African story of a bloody civil war.��, Muslim Séléka rebels booted out then-President François Bozizé and launched a campaign of terror where no one—the old, women or children—was off limits. Their favorite weapon for slaughter was balaka, a local machete they used with much relish to hack human flesh.

Unsurprisingly, a counterforce appeared in the form of��. These mainly Christian groups were purportedly Bozizé’s creation with the majority of fighters being youths without any schooling, with some as young as 10. The anti-balaka competed with the Séléka in brutality. The result is bitter and bloody where ethnic and religious divides are sowing deep hatred and creating a vicious cycle of vendetta.

In 2014, after Bozizé was deposed,����and two rebel leaders for “undermining peace and fuelling violence in the conflict-torn country.” Thousands have been killed and more than 1 million out of a population of 4.5 million have been displaced. Syria may be grabbing headlines, but what is going on in CAR is no less tragic. The����with 1.5 million people facing hunger and 2.3 million children affected make grim reading. By some accounts, civil war in CAR has spiraled into genocide. Hence, the UN sent MINUSCA to restore a semblance of order and curb the worst of the violence.

Paragraph 30 of��UN ,��created MINUSCA and expressly spelled out its mandate to protect civilians. In particular, MINUSCA is supposed to protect civilians from threat of physical violence with a special focus on women and children. Given MINUSCA’s mandate, the allegations of child abuse and the firing on protesters are especially damaging to its reputation. It gives the impression of the fence eating the crop and raises important issues.

The first pertains to the efficacy of the UN. This international body is the place where nation states deliberate. When states crumble and conflict erupts, it is this body representing the comity of nations that is expected to act and intervene. However, this body is infamously unwieldy and bureaucratic. Perhaps it is bound to be this way given the number of parties, interests and people involved. However, there is a case to be made for reforms when it comes to peacekeeping. Once a decision to send troops is made, there has to be a better way of managing them.

Allegations against UN peacekeepers have emerged in various situations over a protracted period of time. They chip away at the legitimacy of an organization that the world still needs. If nothing else, nation states need a club where they can have a jaw-jaw to avoid war-war. It would be helpful if this club can implement its decisions effectively and keep its peacekeepers in line. This means that the UN has to reform its peacekeeping operations, ensure accountability of action and sort out long-overdue command and control issues. The incident in CAR is a wake-up call for the UN to regain legitimacy before it is too late.

THE CHANGING FORTUNES OF THE ICC

It is not only the UN but also the International Criminal Court (ICC) that is in trouble. This month, three African countries,��,��announced their decision to withdraw from the ICC. It is widely believed��that ��may soon follow suit. Before these withdrawals, African states had made numerous threats to disengage from the ICC but failed to act upon them. Now, African states might be about to withdraw��en masse.

The current developments force us to delve into the ICC.��Prima facie, its founding tenets are noble. The��, the ICC’s originating treaty, states that the court was formed in an effort “to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of [grave international] crimes” and “to guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice.” The urgency in those words speaks to a shared resolve to prevent future wide-scale atrocities. The ICC was also an attempt to exorcise the demons and horrors of heinous crimes that have plagued humanity in the past. Thus, the ICC has been envisaged as the tribunal of last resort for international crimes and the world’s first permanent international criminal court.

The situation is complex. The ICC serves a valuable role for states where abuses are rampant and justice is denied. Yet the perception that Africans are picked on alone is obviously a touchy one …

Like many organizations, including the UN, EU and AU, the ICC was conceived on the basis of lofty ideals. However, human beings are complex and flawed creatures. In its actions, the ICC has certainly fallen short of its founding precept. In fact, African states have long argued that the court has been partial in its dispensation of justice. They make the point that Africans are singled out for prosecution, and serious atrocities in other parts of the world are almost invariably ignored. They have come to believe that, in the family of nation states, the strong escape justice while the weak are persecuted.

Sheriff Bojang, Gambia’s information minister, has derisively called the ICC the “.” There is certainly truth in the assertion that the ICC has focused mainly on Africa. Only one of its ten investigations has been conducted outside the continent.��, the only investigation outside Africa, has yet to result in an indictment and is seen as��. Besides, many of the most violent parts of the world such as Syria and Iraq have not ratified the Rome Statute. Neither have big powers like����or dynamic democracies such as��. Even the��.

Critics point out that the ICC has no direct authority to investigate American troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Torture and drone strikes by the US are just about beyond its purview.��,��but the court has no chance in hell to do anything against Israel, which has not ratified the Rome Statute and promised never to do so.

It is certainly true that justice must be enforced on all violators of human rights through a genuinely independent adjudication process. It is also true that the ICC lacks both the conditions of universality of application and independence in process. The complementarity principle, where the ICC steps in only when states refuse to act, also inhibits the ICC’s efficacy. Critics rightly point out that military commanders and political leaders of major powers are shielded from international criminal justice. There is certainly a theoretical case to be made to try some American neoconservatives who advocated torture and service personnel who practiced it, if not George W. Bush or Tony Blair. However, the treaty-based apparatus of the international criminal justice system and its institutions put them beyond the purview of the ICC.

Yet it is also true that victims of genocide, murder, rape and other human rights abuses need justice. Perfection must not become the enemy of the good. Compromise is not evil but inevitable, and the loftiest ideals have to deal with the messiness of human nature.

African states claim that an initiative meant to protect vulnerable people from brutal rulers has degenerated into an instrument of hegemonic power against African leaders. Hence, they have no choice but to withdraw from the ICC. The reality is more complex. African states are withdrawing from the ICC to further the interests of their leaders.

Burundi is a classic case in point. As the authors reported in��the July edition of , President Pierre Nkurunziza’s decision to run for an unconstitutional third term led to an attempted coup. Although the coup failed, violence broke out in the country and was crushed brutally. In the process, Nkurunziza’s loyalists purportedly committed grave atrocities. The authors pointed out that the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) had documented 348 extrajudicial executions and about 651 cases of torture in Burundi between April 2015 and April 2016.

Therefore,��on April 25, 2016, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, examination into the Burundi situation. In her announcement, she indicated that she was compelled to act by the fact that “more than 430 persons were reportedly killed, at least 3,400 people [were] arrested and over 230,000 Burundians forced to seek refuge in neighbouring countries.” It is this preliminary examination laced with the prospect of potential future investigation and prosecution that Burundi’s government sought to preempt by its withdrawal from the court. Simply put, by jettisoning the ICC, Burundi is saving Nkurunziza’s skin.

Gambia argues that it is pulling out of the ICC following its frustrations with the court, which it says has refused to charge the EU for the numerous deaths of African refugees and migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea. Further, it has accused myriad Western countries of going scot free despite atrocities they have committed against other independent states.

However, there is more than meets the eye. It is pertinent to note that Gambian President Yahya Jammeh took charge after a coup in 1994 and has already served five terms. Jammeh is facing protests and is��. Human Rights Watch has termed Gambia a “” with arbitrary arrests, torture and killings a feature of daily life. His intelligence apparatus and a paramilitary hit squad known as the “Jungulars” strike terror into the hearts of his people.

As expected, Jammeh is running for another term. Elections are scheduled for December. This time the opposition is inspired and vocal. Jammeh is likely to act like his counterpart in Burundi and unleash his muscle men to stick to his throne. In a twist of irony, Bensouda was once Gambia’s attorney general and justice minister until she was fired by Jammeh in 2000. Timing is everything. Given forthcoming elections, it is in Jammeh’s interest for Gambia to withdraw from the ICC so as to hedge against the risk of being dragged to the court.

While the withdrawal of other countries can be explained as cynical actions of repressive leaders, the reasons for South Africa’s withdrawal are more complex and worrying. In many ways, South Africa is the first country on the continent with political, institutional and economic gravitas that sets the tone for the rest of the region. The country was brought to task��,��who has been accused of genocide and war crimes. When this row broke out in 2015,��. This year it has gone ahead and done so.

South Africa’s argument for withdrawal is that the Rome Statute contradicts the country’s diplomatic immunity laws. This argument has merit but does not entirely wash given South Africa’s highly progressive constitution. The real reason for South Africa’s withdrawal might be that it prizes African solidarity over international justice.

The situation is complex. The ICC serves a valuable role for states where abuses are rampant and justice is denied. Yet the perception that Africans are picked on alone is obviously a touchy one, given the continent’s history of exploitation both during colonization and the subsequent Cold War. More recently, the ICC has not covered itself in glory. In��the April edition of , the authors pointed out how the ICC had made a fool of itself in Kenya. Yet the authors hold the view that improving the imperfect ICC is a better idea than abandoning it altogether.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post Africa This Month: International Institutions Stumble appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In September 2015, the United States��and 192 other nations adopted the����(SDG). These 17 goals and 169 targets set a development agenda for all countries, including the US, regardless of income or wealth.

While there are some targets that focus specifically on developing countries, each goal includes at least one target of which the US falls short. In examining just the first five goals, it is apparent that while the US is working toward achieving these goals abroad, similar domestic efforts are needed in order to achieve the SDGs by 2030.

Alleviating Poverty

The����is “to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.” One key target for this goal is reducing the proportion of people living in poverty by at least half. In 2014, the US had a of��14.8%. Approximately��35 countries have����than America, including Thailand, Azerbaijan, Tunisia and many other countries traditionally considered much poorer than the US.

America works to alleviate poverty around the world through targeted development programs. In the 2017 fiscal year, the US plans to spend��$34 billion��in ,��$3.6 billion��of for economic development initiatives. These development programs include requirements for monitoring, evaluation and reporting to ensure their effectiveness.

Yet the same cannot be said for anti-poverty measures in the US itself. In 2012, the US spent��$799 billion��on —some of which worked, some of which did not—and others for which the impact was not measured. Since the adoption of the SDGs, there have been no major domestic policy reforms to address US poverty. America should implement targeted domestic initiatives that employ the same evidence-based approach used abroad if it is to decrease the poverty rate to less than 7.4% by 2030.

Food Insecurity

Just as poverty is still a major problem in the US, so too is hunger. The —to end hunger—includes ensuring everyone has access to safe, nutritious food year-round.��In 2014, an estimated 17.4 million US households (14%) were and 6.9 million households (6%) experienced very low food security. Only��61% of these households participate in .

Food insecurity is certainly more severe and fatal in developing countries, especially those experiencing civil war or other humanitarian crises. The US is rightfully�� food assistance programs abroad to meet these needs and reach an additional 2 million people each year.��At the same time, it must expand access to domestic food assistance programs and raise the income of vulnerable families such as by raising the minimum wage, so that US households can meet their own nutritional needs without government assistance.

War on Drugs

One of the targets of��the —ensuring healthy lives and well-being—is to strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.��In 2013, an estimated 22.7 million Americans needed , but only about 2.5 million (11%) received treatment.

Historically, the War on Drugs in the United States has focused more on����the supply of drugs by incarcerating drug offenders than on treating substance abuse. President Barack Obama’s����request includes increased funding to expand treatment for opioid use disorders and proposes increasing access to substance-abuse treatment providers.

These are steps in the right direction, but the US needs to continue to expand access to affordable treatment and prioritize treatment over jail time for drug and alcohol abusers.

Education

Providing inclusive and equitable quality education for all is the��. This includes ensuring that all boys and girls have access to pre-primary education. The US is working to increase access to education around the world, especially for girls and young children. Since 2011, US-funded����have reached����in 42 countries. Some countries have already nationalized these programs.

Yet in 2014, only 43% of three-year-olds and 66% of four-year-olds in America were����in pre-primary programs. ��do not offer state-financed preschools. With more and more evidence illustrating the����of early childhood education in determining lifelong achievement and outcomes, the US needs to expand access to pre-primary education.

Violence Against Women

The��—gender equality—encompasses the elimination of violence against women and girls, which remain endemic in America. An�� completed in 2011 found that in the US, one in five women is��raped in their lifetime, and almost 2 million women are raped every year. These staggering numbers place the US ��countries for the highest incidence of reported rape.

51�Թ� provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, to keep us free, fair and independent.

In 2015, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) released a����detailing its efforts working with men and boys to end violence against women in developing countries. While the Obama administration’s����to end sexual assault took important first steps in addressing this problem, there are no domestic programs comparable to USAID’s initiatives abroad.

The US should replicate successful international efforts to end rape and violence against women domestically. Only by actively discouraging a culture that tacitly condones violence—especially sexual violence—against women, and holding perpetrators of these crimes accountable for their actions, will America hope to end violence against women by 2030.

The US is falling short of many of the Sustainable Development Goals. These goals and targets are all worthwhile aims that America should support in pursuit of a more prosperous, safe, equitable and just nation. To do so, the US needs to lead by example as it encourages and assists other countries to adopt policy reforms by simultaneously implementing crucial reforms at home to achieve the SDGs internationally and domestically by 2030.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ��

The post Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in America appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On July 11, the (ICC) determined that “the Republics of Uganda and Djibouti had failed to comply with the request for arrest and surrender of Omar al-Bashir to the ICC,” leading it to refer the case to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to take appropriate measures regarding this matter.

The reason for the outrage is all too understandable: Bashir, president of Sudan, is , including genocide and crimes against humanity in Sudan’s breakaway region of Darfur. As signatory members of the ICC, Uganda and Djibouti were legally obliged to carry out arrest warrants. Instead, the two countries gave Bashir a red carpet reception.

Friends in High Places

The ICC’s referral is a special one. It marks the first time the court is publicly scolding its signatories in such intrepid terms since its inception in 2002. Just last year, when and caused international outrage, the ICC responded with a shrug.

However, the current ruling seems to indicate that the ICC is no longer willing to stand idly by and see its authority quashed. For the first time, this referral raises hopes that the ICC will be able to raise its profile as an international institution of the law. In the words of , “The Court is cracking a whip not just on its members to uphold a warrant, but also on countries like Sudan where it seems determined to see Mr Al Bashir in the dock … This takes the ICC well past what was envisaged when it was set up, and should send a tremor among the world’s dictators. In 2016, no one is beyond the grasp of justice.”

Ironically, Djibouti’s quasi-dictatorial president, Ismail Omar Guelleh, is himself for his role in quashing an opposition rally in December 2015 that led to the killing of dozens of activists. The country has a dismal human rights record, with many and torture being in .

While President Bill Clinton signed the statute in 2000, in 2002 the Bush administration “unsigned” it out of fear that US nationals, particularly military personnel, could be put on trial before the ICC. At a time when the war in Afghanistan was raging and the Pentagon was drawing up plans to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq, the administration’s fears were fully warranted.

Furthermore, ��in April this year to his advantage, winning 87% of the vote and securing a fourth term. However, , as well as China’s first bricks-and-mortars military installation. With such high-placed friends, the ICC’s ruling sadly could amount to nothing more than a slap on the wrist. As for Uganda, President Yoweri Museveni, who is currently on his fifth term, has repeatedly lashed out against the court, calling it earlier this year “.”

Bashir is unlikely to get arrested any time soon as he keeps . At the African Union (AU) Summit in Kigali, Rwandan Foreign Affairs Minister Louise Mushikiwabo claimed that “,” on the grounds that Bashir is protected by presidential immunity and Rwanda is not a signatory to the ICC.

Exceptionalism

However, the UNSC can refer any case to the ICC, which is why the warrant for Bashir could still be issued. Moreover, African states also harbor a special distrust toward the court, accusing it of harboring a regional and racial bias, since most of the . The fact that the United States refuses calls to ratify the 1998 Rome Statute that established the ICC only adds to the perception of the court as a neocolonial institution meant to whip the African people into submission.

Nevertheless, there are means to address these issues in a meaningful way. In order to dispel fears of an “African bias,” the ICC chief prosecutor, Gambian lawyer Fatou Bensouda, has sought to in Palestine, opening an initial inquiry in Ukraine and requesting the ICC to commence a formal investigation into the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, while investigations relating to Afghanistan, Colombia and Iraq are ongoing.

Truly reforming the ICC, however, will only be achieved once the US joins its ranks. From the outset, Washington’s refusal to ratify the Rome Statute sabotaged the ICC’s legitimacy and reach, condemning the court to run on one engine. While President Bill Clinton signed the statute in 2000, in 2002 the Bush administration “” it out of fear that US nationals, particularly military personnel, could be put on trial before the ICC. At a time when the war in Afghanistan was raging and the Pentagon was drawing up plans to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq, the administration’s fears were fully warranted.

Next, the administration went one step further and signed into law the (ASPA), which explicitly protects US military personnel and government officials of any rank “against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party.” Numerous technicalities have also been invoked for the US’ defiance, such as Article 1, Section 8 and Article 3, Section 1 of the regarding the establishment of courts. Both sections can be interpreted as an explicit ban on international legal jurisdictions.

Naturally, the US could resort to other legal instruments to arrest individuals such as Bashir. Washington could call for a UNSC resolution obligating all member states of the United Nation (UN) to arrest Bashir and submit him to the ICC’s jurisdiction; or invoke the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, which obligates member states to prosecute perpetrators of genocide, as well as the Nuremberg Charter which established that heads of states indicted by international courts no longer enjoy immunity.

America’s role as self-proclaimed primary supporter of human rights makes it essentially unavoidable for the US to join the ICC. If the US insists on leading, then joining the ICC would show that it is serious in doing so. This move would represent the strengthening of the institution as well as of human rights in general. Thus, the US should at least embark on a course of with the Rome Statute’s provisions by removing obstacles in domestic law and paving the way for full ratification.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post It’s Time for America to Join the ICC appeared first on 51�Թ�.

It has been 20 years since the Spice Girls put Girl Power on the pop culture map. Catchy and lighthearted it may have been, but Wannabe became an anthem for young women and girls getting the confidence to stand up for themselves and demand the respect they were long overdue.

Women are still disproportionately affected by poverty, hunger, disease and violence the world over, with even the most developed countries failing to close the gender gap on equal pay and opportunity.

In 2015, the United Nations placed the issue of female empowerment at the top of the (SDGs) agenda in a bid to foster safer, more stable and fair societies.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:   /  

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post This is What Women Really Want appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Post-2015, officials of the United Nations (UN) and other stakeholders started to think carefully about what development meant in this new era. Breaking down perceptions beyond extreme poverty or maternal is still crucially important, but as a global development community, we acknowledged that development is achieved by thinking big. Peace, governance and reducing inequality, for instance, all affect levels of poverty, so it is important to work toward these goals.

[add-subscribe-form]

Migration is not excluded��within this. It is recognized as both an important contributor to development and also a hindrance, if non-regular migrants are not adequately empowered. What was not banked on was the new wave of migration that is currently being experienced—the “crisis” within a sizeable bloc of the developed Western world.

An Unforeseen Problem

The waves of migrants fleeing war zones in search of new areas where they can attain basic needs like good health care and wellbeing rise as the number and activity of conflicts goes up year upon year.

The total number of those displaced by , up by 8.3 million from the previous year. With conflicts raging in the Central African Republic, Iraq, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen, this has severely affected the influx toward the beginning of the decade and has forced thinking around an unforeseen problem.

Those assessing progress on goals such as health may have started feeling smug as they programmatically attach indicators within neat borders in order to methodically measure impacts and targets. However, this new and faster movement of people has added a dynamic that complicates this exercise.

Thousands, perhaps millions will be set in limbo as they reside within camps, wanted by no one, aided by charitable organizations that are facing resource and funding shortages, struggling to serve basic needs and faced with threatening endemics.

One criticism of the UN����(MDG) was the lack of��—that improvements were not felt by populations as a whole, but rather interventions aimed at specific diseases or sub-populations such as pregnant women.

This time, we are perhaps at risk of missing out a sub-population. Even if more investment was seen in a country’s health systems, how would this benefit the nation’s displaced populations sitting on an island off Greece or at the edge of France in Calais?

Migrants are particularly vulnerable as they have less access to health and social services, but face greater risks due to exploitation and abominable living conditions.

The state-challenged person’s struggle does not end at the camp. Even within urban settings, refugees living among local communities cannot always access the same services as others. This sometimes results in the����or those who are left completely vulnerable and ultimately fall through the cracks.

A Full Definition of Health

There is also a need to include mental health within definitions of health, and it is now encompassed within the new����(SDG), which have sought to build on the MDGs post-2015 to reflect more accurate indicators of development.����of the SDGs states: “By 2030, reduce by one-third premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.”

Fundamentally, this aspect of health care compulsively remains unevaluated despite its����in particular. Amid the struggle to prioritize the basic fight for survival, experts have often commented on the effect of forced migration on the human psyche and the added toll felt by the migration process. This makes it difficult for an individual to heal when the requisite psycho-social support is not afforded to him or her.��

There is also the dark figure of health statistics that we never find out about as the risks associated with human smuggling and trafficking pose more hazards than before. The����(WHO), in a report on��,��states that there had been over 2,700 migrant deaths recorded in early 2015, mostly in the Mediterranean.

Migrants are particularly vulnerable as they have less access to health and social services, but face greater risks due to exploitation and abominable living conditions.

Solutions

The�� crises and forced displacement of people in the 2030 goals and through the empowerment of vulnerable groups such as refugees and internally displaced persons.

Goal 10 aims to reduce inequality within and among countries. Specifically relevant is����of the SDGs: “Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.”

© Shutterstock

The indicators on this will be telling, as there are essentially two issues affecting successful achievement of the goals, the measurement of this target and avoiding omission of data, and political will to accept the reality of growing forced migration.

Firstly, to whom does the onus of collecting data fall: camp personnel or states that are hosting refugees both officially and unofficially?

Understanding how this data is affected by migration could perhaps be achieved by disaggregating data further. Data disaggregation is already encouraged by gender, age and rural/urban divide, so perhaps an added category relating to migration should be included.

Funding is a huge issue affecting those having to deliver health care to forced migrants. In light of extrapolating numbers, pressure is increasing on humanitarian aid responders. Perhaps an added dynamic to the targets under Goal 3 should relate to how much is put into emergency and humanitarian health care as well as camp-based settings.

When it comes to having migration-friendly policies, the����(IOM), along with the��,��is working on a new index to measure this metric, called the Migration Governance Index (MDI). The aim of this index is to measure the degree to which “national policies facilitate and promote responsible, safe and regular migration of people.” In addition, the IOM is designing an “inclusive SDG measurement system for migration data that ensures that “no-one is left behind.”

The Bigger Picture��

How these initiatives play out will be seen in time. However, despite measurement efforts, the bottom line is that we need to humanize the current migration crisis so that those affected by conflict stop suffering infringements to basic rights such as good health (a fundamental human right as well as an SDG), and that the buck stops with governments and their willingness to instill fair and open policies to help realize these rights.

The current numbers, if they falter by 2030, could make all this an academic exercise. By record, however, we are not on track for any settling of dust. Conflict and violence are becoming more brutal, and our appetite for intervention is increasing, along with defense spending. All this creates a nice neat circle that brings us back to receiving more and more displaced persons in emergency situations.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/ /����

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Migrants Need Access to Health Care appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

enables life on Earth. Human beings can survive three weeks without food, but only three days without water.��, water forms 83% of the lungs, 79% of muscles and kidneys, 73% of the brain and the heart, 64% of the skin and 31% of even the bones. Access to clean water makes life possible. It is little surprise that the United Nations (UN) has declared that ensuring “availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all” is one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

Today, we are living in a world where clean water is increasingly scarce. In 2009, the (WHO) pointed out that more than 3.4 million people die every year because of water-related diseases, making it the leading cause of disease and death around the world. Of the 3.4 million, most are children who die because of pathogens in the water. This occurs because a lack of sanitation and sewage systems ensures that untreated human and animal fecal matter ends up in the water. The����that 2.4 billion people lack access to sanitation and 663 million to clean drinking water.

Many emerging economies have achieved extraordinary economic growth at the cost of their environment, with water pollution reaching spectacular levels. China, home to more than 1.3 billion people, is a classic example. The Chinese Environment Ministry has����that about 60% of underground water and a third of surface water in China is unfit for human contact. India, with its fast-growing population of over 1.25 billion people, is in a worse state than China. Almost����and a growing percentage of its underground reserves are “contaminated by biological, toxic, organic and inorganic pollutants.” Apart from communicable diseases, water is now causing chronic ones. Heavy metals are making their way via water into the soil and from there into the country’s food supply. What people eat on a daily basis is damaging their health and wellbeing.

Another worrying trend is that human beings are increasingly using larger quantities of water.����“water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of population increase in the last century.” In China, increasing desertification is setting off alarm bells as the Gobi desert “gobbles up 3,600 square kilometers of grassland each year.”����that, if current trends continue, 60% of India’s aquifers will be in a critical condition in 20 years. Already, India relies on its aquifers and pumps out “an estimated 230 cubic kilometers of groundwater per year — over a quarter of the global total.”

The����for the arid Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and predicts that “per capita water availability will fall by half by 2050, with serious consequences for the region’s already stressed aquifers and natural hydrological systems.” Even California, with its lush lawns and backyard swimming pools, is facing a severe drought and imposed its����in April 2015.

© Shutterstock

The����once painted by Mark Twain is now considered real by intelligence agencies and many scholars. In the Syrian conflict,��. Cutting off water supply to achieve “military and political gains” is often even more effective than barrel bombs and causes inhuman suffering to millions. Even in societies not at war, rising population, increasing per capita demand and falling supply make an explosive cocktail.

Why Does Clean Water Matter?

Water is literally the essence of life. It might not give people the mythic properties of youth and immortality, but it makes life possible on the planet. Current trends threaten the environment and human existence. People have to realize that water is a scarce and precious resource. Conserving both surface and underground water sources across the world is a necessity, not an option. Similarly, sanitation and sewage systems can wait no longer. Perhaps, even more importantly, human beings have to curb the industrial pollution that is destroying water systems worldwide. Emissions matter. Lowering them would help avert the growing threat of climate change that is causing water scarcity through increasing desertification, frequent droughts and rising sea levels.

There are many efforts underway in different parts of the world to address the water crisis. In China, Beijing, Kunming and other cities are already��. In India, Rajendra Singh, the winner of the Stockholm Water Prize who is known as “,” is bringing back to life ancient techniques of rainwater harvesting and involving local communities. In the United States,��the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is ��in “energy-efficient, low-carbon technologies for creating potable water from saline sources.”

To provide water for the planet, concerted action by international institutions, governments, scientists, civic leaders and the media is essential. The water crisis is existential. Many people are responding to it already. Pooling together knowledge, expertise and resources would make existing efforts more effective.

Eventually, the water crisis has a simple two-pronged solution. First, per capita consumption of water has to go down. Some frugality would go a long way. Second, the supply of water using Singh’s ancient techniques and MIT’s modern ones has to increase. Technical innovation with community participation can do wonders.��Homo sapiens sapiens��is an innovative social species and has a good shot at solving the planet’s water crisis if it gets its act together.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:�� / /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your ��is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Water is the Essence of Life appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Poverty, a word with Latin roots, is simply a state of privation when human beings lack necessities. In the not too distant past, a large proportion of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. About a third of the population of modern-day Bangladesh, West Bengal and parts of Assam, Orissa, Bihar and Jharkhand��. British exploitation caused this famine and such rapacious behavior by colonial powers led to much poverty around the world.

Till the middle of the 20^th��century, poverty in Latin America, Africa and Asia was a common phenomenon. But the studies of����and����demonstrated that poverty was not uncommon even among the industrialized nations. Furthermore, they challenged the commonly held view that poverty resulted from the weaker morals of the working classes. Instead, they proved that poverty was largely caused by endemic social and economic conditions. Rowntree found that nearly 30% of the population of��York was living in poverty in 1899. They did not have enough food, fuel and clothing to keep them in good health.

Rowntree’s work has now been taken up by others. International institutions attempt to measure poverty on an ongoing basis. The World Bank aims to rid the world of poverty and defines it as a state when someone earns less than $1.90 per day.����published by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the number of those who earn less than $1.90 a day is estimated to be around 700 million. This is less than 10% of the world population. In 1990, this figure was 37% and Jim Yong Kim, the president of the World Bank, has triumphantly declared poverty eradication to be the best story in the world today. He has gone on to declare “that we are the first generation in human history that can end extreme poverty.”

The World Bank baseline of $1.90 per day����for measuring poverty, and its number of the global poor population might be a gross underestimation.��As per the (UN), over 50% of children under five in South Asia and over 40% in Sub-Saharan Africa are stunted. These children struggle to get access to clean water, proper nutrition and rudimentary health care. They suffer lifelong health problems, including cognitive damage.

According to the most recent����(HDR), more than 2.2 billion people, over 30% of the world population, “are either near or living in multidimensional poverty.” More alarmingly, about 80% of the people on the planet lack comprehensive social protection, 12% “suffer from chronic hunger,” and 20% live in countries affected by conflict.

Hence, it is unsurprising that the UN has declared ending “poverty in all its forms everywhere” as the first of its Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

Why Does Poverty Eradication Matter?

Poverty-plagued societies tend to be more violent, sick and unstable than prosperous ones. In an interconnected world of more than 7 billion people, the problems of the poor cannot be confined to ghettos or certain geographic regions. Refugees from conflict-ridden areas are streaming into Europe. Diseases from West Africa such as Ebola spread to the United States in the blink of an eye. Poor areas in American cities such as Baltimore and Detroit have “shoot ‘em up” gas stations, murderous gangs and “drive by shootings” on a regular basis. Cities suffer when poverty and crime increase. It is clear that poverty eradication has practical benefits not only for the poor, but also for numerous others.

Sadly, eradicating poverty is easier said than done. Measuring poverty is difficult. Finding its causes, particularly the most pertinent ones, is even harder. Figuring out policies to alleviate and eradicate poverty is infernally complex. Joseph Stalin’s����killed millions of kulaks and Mao Zedong’s����was a massive somersault backward. Yet humanity now has a better understanding than before about dealing with poverty. For instance,����in all parts of the world.

Obviously, there is no one size fits all policy to eradicate poverty. African Americans tend to be poor in the US because��. The legacy of slavery and��,��along with a discriminatory criminal justice system that puts�� once during their lifetime,��means that it is harder for African Americans in crime-infested bad neighborhoods to break out of the vicious cycle of poverty.

In India, the poor still tend to come from lower castes despite decades of progress. They still do not have access to education, jobs and wealth in a country of over 1.25 billion people. Women worldwide are poorer than men, thanks to continuing discrimination and lack of comparable opportunities. Indigenous communities��.

Other perils remain. Many poorer countries are caught��. Far too often, they borrow to pay back old debt, ending up at the mercy of creditors who keep them trapped in poverty.����too. Even humanitarian aid can��.

Similarly, blind trust in markets��à la��Ronald Reagan is no solution either. It has led to soaring inequality, environmental damage and increasing poverty. Even as�� have tripled since 1980,��—14.8% of the population—are now living in poverty.��The 85 have the same wealth as the 3.5��billion poorest people.

Furthermore,��climate change is threatening to ��and “reduce average income in the poorest 40% of countries by 75% in 2100.”

In the past, poverty has been tackled through various measures. Otto von Bismarck brought about comprehensive reforms in Germany, laying the foundation of the modern European welfare system. In the United Kingdom, Rowntree’s reports led to the reforms of 1906-12, which included the provision of free school meals, sickness and unemployment insurance for working men, as well as the first state pensions. The communist countries of China, Vietnam and Cuba have been eradicating poverty by ensuring that their people have better nutrition and improved medical attention.

The knowledge and expertise to end poverty already exist. All the world needs is social conscience and political will.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Ending Poverty is Hard But Doable appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The very talented Swiss artist Patrick Chapatte’s 2006 cartoon to mark the start of the international climate talks in Nairobi in November 2006 could well have been repeated for the recently concluded climate talks in Paris. Nobody is quite sure what was achieved, but everyone is relieved that talks didn’t crash. All the right words are in. The treaty talks of finance and adaptation, damage and loss, stocktaking, technology, emission reduction and market mechanisms, but the sum of the parts has led to more confusion and suspicion, not confidence.

The good news is that the world now has a freshly minted deal where 196 countries have agreed to keep the rise of global temperature well below 2 degrees Celsius by the turn of the century. The mythical Eiffel Tower in Paris lit up with 1.5 degrees spangled across. Leaders also agreed to ensure that their countries would peak their emissions swiftly so that collectively they could ensure��that net greenhouse gas emissions would return to zero.

The less good news: The world is no closer to saving itself from the disastrous effects of climate change than it was two weeks ago because the 31-page treaty is low on specifics. For example, it speaks of rolling out $100 billion 2020 onward, but fails to mention what, why and, above all, who should pay. It also has a glaring untruth written all over it: There is no recognition of the historical responsibility for pollution.

So, at the very best, the world has sketched itself a new text on which to pin future hopes and expect early disappointments. At worst, the marathon talks that lasted for two weeks showed bad blood, dishonesty and pressure tactics profiling once again that lack of trust and good faith is the bane of multilateral negotiations and diplomacy.

What is the immediate take-away for India?

There are those who believe that as long as fossil fuels remain the cheapest form of energy, they will be used and for now, coal is India’s best option. But another, more interesting scenario has also emerged from the way many say India strategically and politically prevented the talks from collapsing.

How much of that is true, the future will tell, but New Delhi is within grasping distance of the benefits of swiftly moving away from carbon by playing its large domestic market potential and ambition to grow at double digits. Show us the money and we will show you the market is an interesting spot to be.

Paris was supposed to end fragility—fragility of poor people, the world’s forest and water resources and food supply chains. Developing countries looked to finance and resources to mitigate damage and adapt to new technologies, so as to not repeat the errors of rich nations.

Francois Hollande and Narendra Modi © Shutterstock

But here’s the flaw. The new treaty is blind to historical responsibility on which compensation hinges, thus placing all countries on par in their future efforts to prevent global warming. One report predicts that 50% of economic growth between 2010 and 2015 will come from some 440 cities in emerging markets—China, India and Africa.

What will be the role of clean technology in their trajectories, and how can they access, finance or develop this?

The climate treaty is weak on specifics and has no road map—hence it is not a reliable ally. Developing countries also hoped Paris would address rising sea levels, soaring temperatures and increasing pressure on land and water, among other issues. Instead, they returned with a text that says the damage to climate “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.” This means that developing countries will have to scrounge around for their right to assistance in a spirit of unhealthy competition and suspicion.

Is All Lost?

The other problem profiled in Paris was science and what role it was to play to influence policymakers, industrialists, civil society and lawmakers. While 2 degrees Celsius was bandied about months before the final negotiations, a straight cause and effect relationship between carbon emissions and future global warming remains elusive. In fact, the relationship is imprecise, leading to fears that this will further dilute any talk of compensation and liability.

The cruelest cut for developing countries was perhaps the fact that the failure to pin compensation was seen as a means to not address the issue at all. For all the back thumping and table pounding in Paris, little action is expected before 2020. Plenty of opportunities exist for governments to change the text and for national parliaments to not ratify any or all of the commitments.

What next?

All is not lost. There is now a super-structure available to the world to work on. As climate change continues to worsen and affects millions of lives, it is people who will now be demanding action of their governments. The pollution in Delhi and the floods in Chennai and the resultant public anger is where hope lies. Voters will increasingly force governments to come up with solutions in the true spirit of democracy and transparency.

As for the United Nations, the most important question it needs to answer as it turns 70 is this: If the comity of nations cannot come to a common understanding about what are human rights, how can it give itself the power to police the world’s resources?

If only the polar bear could speak and the world’s poor would be heard, what would they say?

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ��/��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Polar Bear and the Poor Miss Out in Paris appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The United Nations marked October 13 as the , which this year focused on local and indigenous knowledge as a way to complement modern science.

In Africa, it is women who face the burden of providing resources at the household level. Fetching water, finding firewood and cultivating crops all fall on the women of the continent, and it is these women who as a consequence possess the greatest knowledge about the impacts of climate change on their environment.

Recently, the United Nations Development Programme and the Huairou Commission brought together women from 11 countries to share their expertise on how to adapt to climate change with policymakers.

By using creativity and often ingenious knowledge of local women, communities can ensure sustainable food production for future generations.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:  

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post African Women Innovate to Battle Climate Change appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On September 25, heads of state from around the world gathered in New York to unveil the United Nations’ (SDGs).

In contrast to the preceding eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the SDGs span 17 goals and 169 associated targets, which have been agreed upon by a common consensus rather than set by a select few Western specialists.

Aimed at eradicating extreme poverty in 15 years, the Global Goals look to combat climate change and corruption, improve access to education, health care, equal opportunities and clean water—all for up to $7 trillion per year until 2030.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called the SDGs “a to-do list for people and planet, and a blueprint for success.”

Watch the video above to see what the goals are, who supports them and why.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post World Adopts Global Goals to End Poverty appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The United Nations General Assembly has formally adopted 17 (SDG), which among other things promise to end poverty and hunger on the planet by 2030.

As world leaders, pious do-gooders and wheeler dealers congregate in New York at this time of the year, Pope Francis has stolen the limelight. Even Chinese President Xi Jinping is not getting the same attention. The first Latin American pope visited Cuba before showing up in the US and has ruffled many feathers. In a at the United Nations, he championed the environment, assailed inequality and declared that “lodging, labor and land” are the “absolute minimum” for every human being.

As Bob Dylan once sang in 1964, “The Times They Are A Changin’” and even the institution that once enthusiastically engaged in the Inquisition is now infected by left-leaning tree-hugging sentiments. It was not always so. In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan set out to roll back the excesses of the 1960s. They believed in Darwinian dynamism and the zeitgeist of their era was captured by Gordon Gekko, a character in the 1987 film titled Wall Street. In a la Hollywood, Gekko decried deficits, blasted bureaucracy, advocated shareholder rights, extolled the evolutionary spirit and declared that “greed is good.”

Martin Shkreli, a New York hedge fund boss-turned-pharmaceutical entrepreneur, is the modern-day Gordon Gekko. Turing Pharmaceuticals, Shkreli’s company, bought rights to a 62-year-old drug named Daraprim. This drug treats toxoplasmosis, a parasitic affliction that affects people with compromised immune systems such as those suffering from cancer and HIV/AIDS. It costs $1 to manufacture a pill of Daraprim. It was being sold for $13.50, but Shkreli raised the price by nearly 5,500% to $750. In an , he claimed that he was only selling an Aston Martin for the price of a Toyota instead of the earlier price of a bicycle. The profits, he argued, would be ploughed back into research to develop newer and better drugs.

Shkreli’s actions and comments led to outrage. A storm raged on Twitter. Even pharmaceutical groups that, in the words of The Washington Post, have a reputation for circling their wagons and protecting their own have given Shkreli the boot. The truth is that Shkreli, the son of immigrants, is only emulating other pharmaceutical companies. In 2014, the US Congress summoned Gilead Sciences to explain the $1,000-a-day or $84,000-a-course price tag for Sovaldi, its hepatitis C medicine. There are .

At the heart of this issue is a simple question: Is greed good?

Proponents of this philosophy believe that human beings are self-interested if not selfish. They function best when they are left to pursue their interests. Prices act as signals for society to allocate resources efficiently. Furthermore, decisions are made instantaneously through demand and supply, obviating the need for a cumbersome, tardy and oppressive bureaucracy.

Opponents of this philosophy contend that markets are unjust. Some have too much power because they own too many of the world’s resources and make most major decisions. More importantly, markets fail to consider long term issues such as environmental pollution that is threatening the health of billions in emerging economies, causing extinction of other species and leading to climate change on a scale that might imperil human survival itself.

Markets have been on a roll since the 1980s. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 made economists the of society and markets were seen as salvation. Yet they have not fulfilled their promise even in the US, the Holy Land of the modern economic system.

Health care is a classic example of the limits of markets. Uncle Sam of its $17.5 trillion GDP on health care. Yet Americans do not live as long as Germans, Swedes, Japanese, Australians and the Canadians. Despite Barack Obama’s health reforms, far too many Americans still do not have any access to health care.

The United Kingdom is a society that has long embraced markets and provided the intellectual underpinning for the current economic system, starting from Adam Smith. It is home to the bustling City of London, the mecca of finance. Yet the UK flinches at greed in health care. In the aftermath of World War II, Clement Attlee’s Labour Party government implemented the National Health Service (NHS) that even Margaret Thatcher did not dare to destroy. Health care is now considered a right in Britain and in Europe. Surprisingly, these supposedly inefficient Europeans spend much less on health care than the purportedly efficient Americans.

Intellectually, Shkreli is just articulating what many in Wall Street and the Republican Party hold as an article of faith. If Shkreli cannot make profits, he will have no incentive to produce drugs or make new ones. It is not from the benevolence of doctors, scientists or executives that we expect lifesaving drugs or treatment “but from their regard to their own interest.” Even Hillary Clinton who has spoken out against price-gouging .

Yet it might be time to try something different. This has been a week when the CEO of Volkswagen has resigned because of the “diesel dupe” in which his company’s cars were able to change performance when being tested. To boost profits, the German giant was selling cars emitting nitrogen oxide pollutants up to 40 times above the legal limit in the US. Pope Francis is right in saying “that a true “right of the environment” does exist” and similarly there is a true right to health care. The third Global Goal promises “healthy lives” and “well-being for all at all ages.” This cannot be achieved through the self-interest of people like Shkreli.

Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, argued in The Theory of Moral Sentiments that human beings have a natural tendency to care about the well-being of others. Hence, he argued for education for all that would be funded by the public purse. This implied that the haves would fund the schooling of have-nots, at least in part. This principle has been accepted and extended to health care in most rich countries. If the US accepts this principle and sets out to reform its avaricious, opaque and expensive health care system, the world will be a healthier place.

*[You can receive “The World This Week” directly in your inbox by subscribing to our mailing list. Simply visit����and enter your email address in the space provided. Meanwhile, please find below five of our finest articles for the week.]

A Picture Can Save a Thousand Lives

Flickr

The graphic nature of published images showing a dead Syrian child is a “game changer,” says Chaker Khazaal.

As viewed by most of the world, a Turkish police officer carries the lifeless body of a Syrian child, washed ashore on one of Turkey’s prime tourist resorts. The toddler, later��identified as 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi, was found face down in the sand. Observers on the beach captured��images of this heartbreaking moment, and the photographs and videos dominated social media and international news outlets.

Aylan was one of a dozen Syrian refugees who drowned in a failed attempt to cross the Mediterranean to reach the Greek island of Kos. The boy’s mother and 5-year-old brother were found further along the beach—both had drowned.

Circulation of these images multiplied at an alarming rate, sparking online controversy over the ethics of showcasing photographs of a deceased child.

Several news outlets eventually opted to��publish the pictures. In Britain, newspapers across the political spectrum united in a decision to feature them…

Soviet Strategy is Back in the Kremlin

© Shutterstock

Russian military involvement in Syria risks a possible escalation in the four-year old civil conflict.

Since the NATO alliance used United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 to launch an offensive against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in 2011 without coordination with Moscow, ��ܲ�������’s lost political and economic interests in Libya have contributed to the Putin administration’s more assertive policies in Ukraine and Syria.

Recent press reports suggest that the Russian military build-up in Syria includes��tens of thousands of regular and irregular��troops, 240 tanks and attack aircraft sorties over Idlib province. Since the conflicts in Libya, Ukraine and Syria began—including the Russian annexation of Crimea—US-Russian relations have hit a post-Cold War low.

In this new frosty era, where uncertainty, conflict and a refugee crisis in the Middle East and Europe��have led to new international strategic openings for the Kremlin, Soviet strategy is back. Its features include Vladimir Putin’s world outlook, which is far less pro-Western than that of Dmitry Medvedev or Boris Yeltsin before him—they searched for…

India’s Long Quest for Modernity

© Shutterstock

In this special edition of The Interview, 51�Թ� talks to Atul Singh, the founder, CEO and editor-in-chief of the organization.

India is well-known for its inefficient legal system with archaic laws that hobble its economy. While the country is trying to forge ahead by increasing its investment in infrastructure and curbing money laundering, far too many of its colonial-era laws do not make any sense.

While Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been started repealing out-of-date laws, he will need up the ante to keep his promise to��axe 1,700 outmoded laws. Reforming a glacial-paced judicial system, along with improving enforcement of existing laws will��improve rule of law, which is now a faint notion instead of daily reality. India needs new legislation that is drafted clearly and rigorously.

Although foreign investment has been flowing��into India recently, more reforms will increase this inflow enormously at a time when much of the world is in economic turmoil. The current government has tried to push through new legislation to attract…

Hajj 2015: The Precarious Balance Between Pilgrimage and Consumerism

© Shutterstock

The fine line between consumerism and religious credibility has been eroding at pilgrimage sites around the world.

Preparations for this year’s Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca undertaken by devout Muslims at least once in their life, have been marred by the��collapse��of a crane��at the Grand Mosque, which killed more than 100 people. The tragedy came just over a week before the pilgrimage was set to get underway and has raised serious questions about the repercussions of rapid construction growth in Saudi Arabia.

The��Hajj��is one of the world’s largest faith gatherings, attracting increasing numbers of pilgrims in recent decades—from around 30,000 in the 1930s to more than 3 million in��2012. This is a striking case of an ancient religious practice transformed by modernity. In earlier times, the arduous journey to Mecca faced its dangers—many pilgrims perished crossing the deserts of Arabia or drowned in��sea crossings—and the time it took restricted numbers considerably.

From the 19^th��century onward, better transport and health facilities…

Corbyn Faces a Grand Task to Transform Labour

© Shutterstock

What lies ahead for Jeremy Corbyn and the British Labour Party?

When Jeremy Corbyn squeaked onto the ballot for the British Labour Party’s leadership race, he was a 100-1 outsider. Nobody expected him to win—least of all a demoralized, fragmented and weak left. While his victory is a huge boost, the odds in the war ahead remain stacked against both him and us.

This is not defeatism, nor must it be confused with or degraded into a rejectionist cynicism that values hermetically sealed ideological “purity” over risking one’s predictions of failure by engaging with what is still an imperfect and limited reformist phenomenon. It is, however, a necessary starting point for developing any effective strategy. That strategy, clumsy and error-ridden as it will inevitably be, must be based on expectations of lengthy and patient engagement, rather than on any illusions of a power that Corbyn’s win does little to increase.

More specifically, if Corbyn’s support base is to develop resilience, it must create its own autonomous capacity to organize…

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post The World This Week: Global Goals vs Global Greed appeared first on 51�Թ�.