Category: World

  • Georgia Accelerates Toward Russia with Pro-Kremlin President

    Georgia Accelerates Toward Russia with Pro-Kremlin President

    Democracy and free speech remain intolerable for many governments, who see them as direct threats to their control over the populace and their profitable monopolies on state resources. In their quest to forestall any transfer of power to the people, ruling elites will stop at nothing. These dynamics inevitably breed tension, especially when domestic factions align with opposing global powers. And it is the scenario in Georgia, a small but strategically crucial nation at the juncture of Europe and Asia, where a political crisis is unfolding. Here, a West-leaning, democracy and free speech supporting populace finds itself in an increasingly fraught standoff with a government tethered to Moscow’s influence.

    Georgia’s political landscape is dominated by an entrenched elite, closely intertwined with powerful business magnates—a structure long shaped by Russian dominance and, more recently, tempered by Europe’s growing influence. This dual allegiance has ignited a fierce power struggle, with each side staking a claim to public support. Pro-Russian conservatives find their champion in the ruling Georgian Dream Party, while those resisting the oligarchic nexus are tied to the promise of a European future. After witnessing Ukraine’s struggle, a significant portion of Georgia’s public began favoring closer ties with Europe. However, the Kremlin-linked government, seeking to consolidate power and move closer to Russia, started pushing back. They have rewritten the constitution, held unfair elections, and enacted measures reminiscent of Russian authoritarian practices to silence dissent and retain authority.

    Following constitutional changes and a new framework set by the ruling party’s interests, Georgian lawmakers have chosen Mikheil Kavelashvili as the country’s president. A former professional football player and outspoken critic of the West, Kavelashvili is staunchly pro-Russia. Over the past year, he has repeatedly accused Western intelligence agencies of attempting to drag Georgia into a war with Russia. Under the revised system, Georgia’s president is now selected by a college of electors, comprising members of parliament and local government representatives. Of the 225 electors present, 224 voted for Kavelashvili, who was the sole nominee. His election starkly contrasts with the country’s previous practice of direct presidential elections, further fueling public discontent over Georgia’s democratic backsliding.

    The opposition has declared Saturday’s election invalid and recognizes only Salome Zourabichvili, the sitting president, as Georgia’s legitimate leader. Zourabichvili, a pro-Western figure deeply at odds with the ruling Georgian Dream Party, has refused to step down. She is demanding fresh parliamentary elections, paving the way for a looming constitutional crisis. The October parliamentary elections were widely viewed as heavily rigged, further eroding public trust in the pro-Kremlin government.

    Protests have swept across Tbilisi, with demonstrations planned at over a dozen locations. For the 16th consecutive day, thousands of pro-EU demonstrators have filled the streets, now turning their anger toward the newly nominated president as well. The protests culminated in a massive rally outside parliament, where the crowd rallied behind Salome Zourabichvili. Intensifying her criticism of the government, Zourabichvili denounced its latest actions during a press conference, stating, “What will happen in parliament tomorrow is a parody—an event entirely devoid of legitimacy, unconstitutional, and illegitimate.”

    Georgia is plunging into a significant political crisis as the country finds itself with two presidents after December. Salome Zourabishvili’s refusal to leave office, the opposition’s parliamentary boycott, and ongoing protests have already overshadowed the presidency of her successor, Gia Kavelashvili, likely weakening his position from the outset. The government’s response to Zourabishvili’s defiance following Kavelashvili’s inauguration on December 29 remains uncertain, constrained by widespread public anger.

    Adding to the turmoil, European leaders have thrown their support behind the Georgian opposition, openly rejecting the legitimacy of the recent parliamentary elections and the current parliament. Meanwhile, Washington has intensified its pressure by imposing sanctions on Georgian officials, including visa bans for around 20 individuals accused of undermining democracy, among them key ministers and parliamentarians.

    These developments raise the alarming prospect of Georgia drifting closer to Moscow. The fear is that the country could fall further into Russia’s orbit, effectively becoming another satellite state. As this political standoff deepens, those advocating for democracy face increasing risks of suppression and retaliation.

  • How long will Syria remain a battleground?

    How long will Syria remain a battleground?

    After Sunni Islamist rebels captured Aleppo, the Syrian civil war once again grabbed international attention. The conflict, which began in 2011 between Syria’s official government under authoritarian leader Bashar al-Assad and the opposition, has now lasted almost 14 years, claiming nearly 600,000 lives and displacing at least 10 million people. It has filled headlines at various points over the years and shows no signs of slowing down. The civil war in Syria has undoubtedly become one of the biggest disasters in the 21st century and a significant benchmark in modern warfare. While, on the surface, the war appears to be a power struggle between Assad and the opposition, a closer examination reveals a deeper dynamic. The war involves numerous parties, each pursuing its own interests, and Syria has become a battleground for various countries.

    President Bashar al-Assad’s Ba’athist government receives political and military support from its Shia partner, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and its long-time ally, Russia, another authoritarian regime. The Lebanese Hezbollah group, the Palestinian PFLP-GC, and other factions also actively back the regime. Since September 30, 2015, Russia has deployed military assets in Syria, conducting a major air campaign against anti-government forces at Assad’s request. The U.S. and its regional allies have criticized Russia’s military actions. However, these regional allies soon pursued their own interests in the war. In November 2015, Turkey, a U.S. ally, clashed with Russia over alleged airspace violations and Russian bombings of areas in Syria that were supported by Turkey’s anti-government factions. Meanwhile, the United States did not align with Turkey and ran its own operations.

    The Syrian opposition, represented politically by the Syrian National Coalition, receives financial, logistical, and sometimes military support from Sunni-majority states allied with the U.S., particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-majority group fighting against Assad in northern Syria, receive military and logistical support from NATO countries, except Turkey, due to their historic rivalry. Instead of helping them, Turkey fights the SDF and has captured a significant amount of territory from them.

    Besides the superpowers and their factions, from 2014 to October 2017, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a group internationally recognized as a terrorist organization, controlled a significant portion of Syria’s territory. During this period, Western nations, including the U.S., Russia, Britain, and France, conducted direct military actions against ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Now, ISIL has shrunk to only a few desert pockets.

    As of December 2024, five key countries are directing the war in Syria: the United States, Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Israel. Despite its war in Ukraine, Russia remains a staunch supporter of Assad’s regime. Even after Islamist advances in Aleppo, Russia continues to send support to Assad, signaling its long-term plans in the region. By the summer of 2023, Russia had maintained 20 military bases and 85 other military points in Syria, with plans to enhance infrastructure to strengthen its military presence and capabilities.

    As Iran seeks to cement Shia dominance in Syria, engage in a power struggle with Israel, and ensure Assad’s regime remains strong, it actively supports Shia militants in Syria. Neighboring Lebanon and Iraq, though not directly involved, serve as havens for militants, effectively acting as breeding grounds for various Shia armed groups.

    The United States remains present in Syria, albeit with reduced involvement compared to earlier years. It operates a small portion near the Jordanian and Iraqi borders and supports rebel factions in the region. The U.S. maintains strong ties with Kurdish forces, now the second-largest military group in Syria, who control significant territory in the northeast.

    Turkey, a NATO member and nominal U.S. ally, pursues its own agenda in Syria. Opposed to both Assad and the Kurds, Turkey has seized and controls large areas in northern Syria, creating a buffer zone. Turkish forces have clashed with Kurdish groups, and Ankara reportedly has ties to Sunni Islamist factions, including HTS, which recently captured Aleppo. Turkey’s primary goal is to establish a Sunni, anti-Kurdish opposition  presence in the region.

    Israel remains highly active in Syria, viewing Iranian involvement in the country as a direct threat. Israeli forces frequently target Iranian officials and Hezbollah members operating in Syria, particularly those linked to attacks on Israel. If opportunities arise, Israel may also seek to expand its territorial control in the region.

    What is the future of the Syrian civil war? When will it end? How long will it last?

    The answer is that it will continue. Syria has already collapsed, but the war will persist as long as foreign powers maintain their interests in Syria. A complete takeover by Assad, as seen in the past, is unlikely. Russia and Iran, Assad’s key allies, are deeply entangled in other wars and face significant financial strains, limiting their ability to recapture all the territory back.

    The United States, under leadership like Trump’s, is unlikely to deploy troops actively to support the rebels against Russia and Iran. However, the U.S. will not entirely abandon the Opposition and Kurds, as they align with American interests in the region.

    Meanwhile, Turkey will remain a major player, continuing its support for HTS and other anti-Kurd factions. The conflict is evolving into a three-way war, with Assad’s official army, supported by Russia and Iranian-backed Shia militias, on one side; Kurdish forces and U.S.-backed militias on another; and HTS, Turkey, and Sunni militias on the third.

    These factions will continue to clash, ensuring that Syria endures more bloodshed and tears in the years ahead.

  • The Politics of Climate Conference

    The Politics of Climate Conference

    There are no longer any doubts about climate change, as its effects are evident to everyone. People’s suffering continues to grow, but climate spending and the politics surrounding it have caused significant division. The global right-wing and those burdened by rising living costs protest the expenses tied to climate initiatives, while the global left and climate activists demand more funding for climate action. As this polarization grows, the United Nations held its annual Climate Change Conference, COP29, in Azerbaijan, a country made up of oil. The conference took place in Baku from November 11 to 22, 2024.

    Unlike previous years, the event failed to generate significant attention. Despite the Azerbaijani government investing substantial oil revenues in PR campaigns, international media provided minimal coverage. The conference lost the global focus it once enjoyed, though it sparked some interesting controversies. The controversy began with the choice of hosts. Last year, Dubai—a wealthy, oil-rich desert hub—hosted the conference. This year, the decision to hold COP29 in Azerbaijan raised eyebrows once again. Azerbaijan, a major oil and gas producer, is also known for its authoritarian governance and widespread corruption. Adding to the controversy, Mukhtar Babayev, a longtime official with Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil company SOCAR, served as the president of COP29. These contradictions are glaring, much like LGBTQ+ advocates supporting Muslim rights. The peak of these ironies fuels doubts among the public and erodes trust in global climate efforts. Many accuse these actions of greenwashing, with little positive impact on the climate. Countries and businesses use climate change as a means to generate public opinion, much like how sports-washing works.

    COP29 Chief Executive Elnur Soltanov was secretly recorded discussing potential oil and gas deals during the conference, raising serious concerns about the need for such high-cost events. And EU diplomats criticized Azerbaijan for excluding fossil fuel phase-out from the conference agenda, which focused solely on mitigation. These events led Papua New Guinea’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Justin Tkatchenko, to announce a boycott of the summit, calling it a total waste of time.

    Discussions largely focused on climate-related finances. A key agenda item was negotiating the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance, which sought to establish a new financial target to support developing nations after 2025, building on the previous $100 billion annual commitment. Proposed solutions included blended finance, which combines public and private investments to boost funding for climate initiatives, and debt-for-nature swaps, allowing countries to redirect debt repayments toward environmental and climate projects. COP29 encouraged global financial institutions and the private sector to increase climate finance and invest in green innovation. 

    Delegates also agreed on rules and established a UN registry to facilitate and track international carbon credit trading. Key points of tension in the negotiations involved the donor base. Developed economies, such as the US and the European Union, argued that resource-rich countries like China and Gulf Cooperation Council nations should automatically contribute. Another point of contention was the share of funding coming from public budgets, with developing countries demanding significant increases in public, non-loan grants. The final $300 billion climate finance agreement stipulates that both public and private sources will provide funding and encourages voluntary contributions from developing countries, including China and Middle Eastern nations.

    The next COP, set to take place in Brazil in 2025, is expected to witness more intense political friction. The United States will have a new president, one who has shown little interest in climate-related issues. This shift could influence major countries, particularly in Europe, where there is significant opposition to spending large amounts of money on climate initiatives. The rise of right-wing movements and the weakening of climate-focused green parties in Europe may further undermine pledges, as they may not come to fruition. Meanwhile, China and India, the world’s growing economies, are unlikely to bear the burden even though they find clear opportunities in the process. As a result, the climate will continue to heat up.

  • Assessing the Impact of the ICC’s Arrest Warrant on Netanyahu

    Assessing the Impact of the ICC’s Arrest Warrant on Netanyahu

    International news outlets and social media are celebrating the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is leading a war against Iran’s Axis of Resistance, which has vowed to dismantle the state of Israel. However, the ICC has decided to act during the war. Netanyahu has become the first leader of a modern Western-style democracy to face an arrest warrant issued by the ICC in its 22-year history. He now stands alongside his former defense secretary, Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif, although doubts remain about Deif’s current status.

    The ICC’s three-judge panel stated that reasonable grounds exist to believe Netanyahu and Gallant are criminally responsible for war crimes, including using starvation as a method of warfare, as well as crimes against humanity such as murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. The panel also found reasonable grounds to hold them accountable as civilian superiors for directing attacks against civilian populations.

    While anti-war advocates, leftists, and Islamic groups anticipate that Netanyahu will be forced to avoid international travel, the ICC arrest warrant actually benefits the prime minister in several ways. The warrant significantly bolsters Netanyahu’s narrative that international bodies are against Israel and have no support in fostering peace for the country. With the warrant, Netanyahu can now position himself as a leader in a battle against those seeking Israel’s destruction, a role that aligns seamlessly with his political strategy. 

    The ICC depends on its 124 member states, signatories of the Rome Statute that established the court, to enforce arrest warrants. These countries are obligated to arrest individuals wanted by the ICC if they enter their territory. However, neither Israel nor its closest ally, the United States, are members of the ICC, nor are Qatar and Egypt—potential venues for ceasefire talks.  Netanyahu remains free to visit Russia, China, India, and other influential nations as they all are not member states. On the other hand, Germany, a strong ally of Israel, is an ICC member, as are all European Union nations, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, and most Latin American countries, with the exceptions of Cuba and Haiti. Still, it is uncertain whether these countries will act against Israel and the United States in favor of the ICC’s warrant. Last year, Vladimir Putin avoided visiting South Africa amid speculation that authorities might detain him under an ICC warrant for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet, he was warmly welcomed in Mongolia, an ICC member state, exposing the persistent weaknesses in the court’s enforcement mechanism.

    The US strongly criticized the ICC’s decision, with President Joe Biden calling the arrest warrants outrageous in a Thursday night statement. The US National Security Council also issued a statement rejecting the court’s decision, reiterating that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the matter. This position contrasts with the US’s earlier support for the ICC’s warrant against Vladimir Putin for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. Netanyahu’s office condemned the ICC’s decision, labeling it antisemitic and describing the court as a biased and discriminatory political body.

    The ICC’s verdict has united Israeli politicians, with Benny Gantz, a retired general and political rival of Netanyahu, condemning the decision as moral blindness and a shameful stain of historic proportions that will never be forgotten. Israel is clearly using the ICC arrest warrant as an opportunity to attack the international body, which has previously recognized Palestine. Palestine joined the Rome Statute in 2015, and in 2021, the ICC recognized it as a state, extending its jurisdiction to territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. However, this recognition has had little practical impact. Many parts of Palestine lack functioning governance or administrative systems, and Hamas has no means to arrest Netanyahu. So, The ICC’s rulings, while symbolically significant, remain largely ineffective in practice.

  • Mutual Defense Treaty Pulls North Korea into War

    Mutual Defense Treaty Pulls North Korea into War

    Russia is now short of men. They never anticipated, even in their distant dreams, that the war in Ukraine would last this long. After two and a half years, the death toll on the Russian side is high, and the conflict shows no signs of an immediate ceasefire, creating serious challenges. Russia has tried to boost recruitment, including from countries like Nepal. People living in poverty are being sent to the frontlines, despite having no interest in Ukraine or the war beyond the promise of some money.

    As the governments of these countries take steps to curb this recruitment flow, primarily under pressure from the West, Russia has adopted alternative measures, including enlisting its long-term ally North Korea in the war. Russia and North Korea recently formalized a significant treaty focused on military cooperation. Under this pact, North Korea plans to send troops to Ukraine to support Russia’s war efforts. With the treaty now ratified by both governments, North Korea’s entry into the Russia-Ukraine war is official.

    On Monday, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un signed and officially ratified the landmark mutual defense pact with Russia. The treaty, first signed on June 19 during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s famous state visit to Pyongyang, commits both nations to provide immediate military support to each other, using all means necessary, in response to any act of aggression. Kim hailed the pact as a milestone, calling it an alliance that will elevate Russia-North Korea relations to unprecedented heights. The world, especially Russia and North Korea’s adversaries, now watches closely, concerned about how this alliance will impact ongoing conflicts and global stability.

    The treaty includes a preamble and 23 articles that outline cooperation in politics, trade, investment, and security. Article 3 specifies that if either nation faces a direct threat of armed invasion, both sides must immediately open bilateral negotiations to align their positions and plan practical countermeasures. Article 4 requires immediate military and other assistance from the other party if one nation enters a state of war due to an armed invasion, resembling NATO’s mutual defense clause. Article 10 focuses on fostering exchanges and cooperation in fields such as science and peaceful nuclear energy This clause is particularly intriguing for Kim Jong-un, who has a strong interest in nuclear weapons, likely motivating him to commit troops in return for advancements in weaponry.

    Five days before North Korea ratified the treaty, Russia’s parliament approved it in Moscow on November 6, signaling the growing importance of the agreement. Observers expect Russia to extend this strategy to include more of its satellite states, which may also join the effort if the war persists. Despite U.S. attempts to disrupt these alliances, many former Soviet countries continue to depend on Russia.

    Intelligence reports from South Korea, the United States, and Ukraine confirm that at least 11,000 North Korean soldiers have already been sent to the front lines to fight against Ukrainian forces. Most of these troops have been deployed to Russia’s Kursk region, which has been partially under Ukrainian control since Kyiv’s surprise incursion into Russian territory in August. Neither Moscow nor Pyongyang has directly commented on the presence of North Korean soldiers in Russia, but their involvement under the Mutual Defense Treaty has effectively expanded the war beyond Russia and Ukraine,  drawing North Korea into the conflict.

    North Korea’s involvement could potentially draw South Korea into the war in support of Ukraine, with growing fears that Japan might also join, further escalating tensions. Earlier this month, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol warned that he might send arms to Ukraine if North Korean soldiers are not withdrawn from Russia. However, many believe this scenario is unlikely. North Korea’s role in the war appears limited to sending troops to assist Russia in exchange for advanced technologies. Still, we must consider the possibility that they are all teaming up to prepare for a larger agenda.

  • How Would Trump’s Second Term Affect Asia?

    How Would Trump’s Second Term Affect Asia?

    Donald Trump has been confirmed as the next U.S. president, defeating incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris. As the 47th president, he will take office next year, though his return to the post after a defeat is already resonating worldwide. The U.S. president’s role extends beyond national borders, shaping global direction and policy. Asia, the world’s focal point this century, is preparing for Trump’s return, and he is likely to focus more on the region in his second term compared to his predecessors, who primarily concentrated on Europe and Latin America.

    In his last term, which ended four years ago, Trump clearly demonstrated his approach as a businessman-turned-politician. While the Biden administration has since reshaped the global landscape, Trump is expected to resume his previous style, promoting closer ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, taming Russia and Iran, shifting U.S. alliances from Pakistan toward India, challenging China, and reinforcing U.S. relations with East Asia.

    The war-ridden Middle East anticipates Trump’s immediate attention. Many Arab Americans expressed anger over the Democratic Party’s failure to address regional issues, which contributed to their loss. Trump is expected to be more reactive in the region than Biden. He has been a staunch supporter of Israel and has built strong ties with Israel and its Prime Minister Netanyahu, while Democrats, especially Kamala Harris, have advocated for a two-state solution and support for Palestine. Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, and encouraged allies to follow suit. During his previous tenure, he also proposed a peace plan that, while heavily favoring Israel, was still somewhat workable.

    Trump’s pro-Israel approach led many to fear it would deteriorate relations with Muslim states. However, while openly supporting Israel, he also established a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince, despite heavy criticism from human rights watchdogs and significant opposition both within the U.S. and abroad. His efforts resulted in closer ties between several Muslim nations and Israel, with Saudi Arabia nearly formalizing relations. Some Republicans even nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize for these actions, and many believe Saudi Arabia would have formalized relations with Israel had Trump won a second term four years before instead of Biden.

    During Biden’s term, Saudi Arabia became increasingly distant and pursued other alliances, including with Russia. Many believe Trump can fix this and could persuade Netanyahu to negotiate a ceasefire. However, regarding Iran, Trump is expected to maintain a hardline stance against the regime, and a closer U.S.-Israel alignment could further pressure Iran, potentially fueling internal unrest. Conflicts in Syria and Iraq will likely persist, with additional U.S. support expected for the Kurds. Turkey, under Erdogan’s vision of Ottoman revival, may continue a balanced approach rather than adopting a more assertive role.

    Central Asia and Russia are also likely to remain in Trump’s focus. Given his alleged close ties with Putin, many believe he may work to resolve the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. As a seasoned negotiator, Trump might aim to broker an agreement between both sides. During his campaign, Trump acknowledged American frustration over spending on Ukraine, suggesting a resolution may be near. In exchange for potential cooperation with Russia, Trump might reduce U.S. involvement in Russia’s sphere of influence in Central Asia, an area where Biden sought to weaken Moscow’s control.

    In South Asia, Trump’s interest in the Indian market was evident during his previous term. He cultivated a strong relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and both view each other as close allies. However, as nationalists, they often balance competing interests. Nonetheless, the mutual reliance between the U.S. and India—both in terms of American production needs and the Indian market, and vice versa—suggests that major deals may soon follow. Despite her Indian heritage, Kamala Harris is often seen by Indian media as opposing Modi due to her stance on certain policies. It was also clear that Indian media endorsed Trump during the campaigns. This alignment creates room for more significant developments between the U.S. and India, while Islamic nations in the region, like Pakistan and Bangladesh, may face challenges due to Trump’s pro-India and pro-Hindu stance.

    In East Asia, Trump’s relationship with China is likely to worsen as he opposes any economic growth in China that might threaten U.S. market dominance. Trump initiated the ongoing trade wars, and further actions against Chinese products are expected. His push to revitalize American manufacturing will likely intensify pressure on China. By framing China as an adversary, Trump’s strategy may drive more countries away from China’s business, which could significantly impact China and escalate tensions between the U.S. and China. This economic friction may heighten tensions in the South China Sea, especially if China loses market influence.

    Trump’s search for alternatives to China could benefit Southeast Asian countries, particularly Vietnam, Indonesia, and possibly Malaysia. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan will likely draw closer to the U.S., as Trump seeks to strengthen alliances to counter China. His previous engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un also showcased his diplomatic flexibility.

    Asia is sure to see more eventful days during Trump’s second term. Israel and Russia, both seeking an end to ongoing conflicts, appear uncertain about how to resolve them and may be hoping for an intervention. Donald Trump is likely to step in, aiming to position himself as a hero. Optimists believe a resolution could happen within months, as he has discussed these issues multiple times and has strong relationships with key parties, along with a desire to save American money.

    However, while Trump may strengthen some alliances, many believe his approach could strain relationships with other regional actors, such as Iran, China and  nuclear-armed Pakistan. As tensions between the U.S. and China continue, there is a risk of increased instability in the eastern region. Yet, with Trump’s focus on economic growth and business, it’s expected that global attention will shift back to economic matters, setting aside other issues currently in the spotlight.

  • Is Israel humiliating the UN?

    Is Israel humiliating the UN?

    The United Nations is often portrayed in textbooks as a powerful coalition of states backed by global superpowers and a forum for peaceful conflict resolution, upholding its charter to maintain peace and security. But in reality, It’s not!! It’s neither powerful nor an effective forum. From its inception, its limitations have been evident: the UN struggles to influence superpowers and is often relegated to dealing with smaller states, those with restricted influence. Today, as we face heightened global tensions after the Gulf War, the UN’s failures are increasingly visible—in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, the Middle East, and many other regions.

    This tough phase of the UN is taken as an opportunity by the countries who want to humiliate the Institute. Israel, backed by the United States and right-wing allies, and Palestine, supported by the left and the global Muslim community, including over 57 Muslim-majority countries, are entrenched in a high-stakes standoff that the UN appears powerless to mediate effectively. Unlike the 1940s and 1950s, when Israel abided by certain UN resolutions while Muslim countries were largely disengaged, Israel now disregards UN resolutions and breaches charter principles with apparent impunity, escalating tensions and challenging the UN’s authority. The ongoing Israel-UN tensions underscore a profound humiliation for the UN, as it struggles to assert influence in this protracted conflict, and even UN-affiliated people get targeted.

    UN peacekeepers and UN-affiliated UNRWA workers in Gaza and Lebanon who are refusing to evacuate despite official orders are increasingly under attack, and sustaining injuries. The Guardian, the British left media reported recently that the Israel Defense Forces forced entry into a UN base and repeatedly targeted their positions, wounding five personnel. In Gaza, nearly 230 UNRWA aid workers, who are also part of different Palestinian organizations, have been killed. The UN is confused in this matter while Israel looks assertive. Earlier this month, Israel declared UN Secretary-General António Guterres persona non grata, and in May, its outgoing ambassador to the UN publicly shredded a copy of the UN Charter.

    The UNRWA, short for “United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,” is committed to delivering assistance and promoting the human development of Palestinian refugees. UNRWA’s mandate covers Palestinians who fled or were displaced during the 1948 Nakba and subsequent conflicts, along with their descendants, including legally adopted children. As one of the few non-Islamic organizations dedicated to Palestinian refugees, UNRWA registers over 5 million Palestinians. Amid rising Israel-UN tensions, the agency has drawn particular attention with its action on the battlefield. Israel has long opposed UNRWA’s recognition of Palestinian refugees’ right of return, recently going as far as attempting to classify it as a terrorist organization, despite the agency’s lack of advocacy for violence besides the alleged affiliations with groups like Hamas. However, it does not formally endorse such organizations. But the UN has previously acknowledged that nine of the agency’s 13,000 employees in Gaza might have been involved in Hamas’s October 7 attack—findings that have damaged the agency’s reputation, and that’s enough for Israel to take revenge on the UNRWA.

    Israel is concerned with UNRWA’s great influence and their effort to keep alive Palestinian dreams, and often become a shelter for the terrorists. They also worrying increasing the voice of Muslim states in the UN general assembly and they are concerned about the UN bodies supporting the Palestinian version over even a neutral one. And a country like Israel surrounded by threats can’t neglect the Palestanization of the UN. So they started to target the UN and its agencies, and humiliating them is the way Israel found out.

    The UN is now a beleaguered institution. Its structure, its operation, its works, its opinions everything is getting questioned. The Security Council is questioned now by almost everyone including the countries within it. And has repeatedly been deadlocked, with the US, the UK, and France on one side and Russia and China on the other.  And it’s easy now for Israel to undermine the intuition. While social media and the internet are now well circulating the Israeli version of the conflict,  the UN’s attempt to push the Palestinian version will further collapse belief in the UN.

    The UN, several European countries, and the Islamic world condemn the actions of Israel against UN peacekeepers. They believe because a few people from UNRWA participated in the October 7th attack, and the frequent rising of voices for Palestine, Israel is finding revenge on the UN. But it must be said that the UN can’t do anything; everything will remain on paper. This old man is expecting a death he has long wished for, and Israel enjoys the complaints from him.

  • BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    There are many multinational alliances in the world today, such as the European Union, NATO, the GCC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and ASEAN. Most of these are regional organizations focused on enhancing cooperation and elevating the importance of their respective regions. However, BRICS stands apart as a unique entity—neither regional nor military like NATO. Instead, it is an international body created as an alternative to the dominance of the United States. BRICS, originally formed as BRIC in 2009 with the addition of Brazil to the team of Russia, India, and China—four of the world’s top 10 economies—was later joined by South Africa. The group initially aimed to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and U.S. technology while boosting investment opportunities. Now in its 16th year, BRICS has become an increasingly significant geopolitical bloc. They are currently holding their 16th summit in Kazan, Russia, chaired by Vladimir Putin, a leader ostracized by the West, with more than 36 global leaders in attendance. The summit underscores the group’s independence and its indifference to the United States and the West.

    Beyond the typical photo shoots, the 16th summit in Kazan showcases the unity of its members. Several meetings are planned among various state leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This summit also marks the debut of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. The expanded membership suggests a shift toward alliances reminiscent of the Cold War era, when states formed strong, politically driven partnerships. Despite economic threats from the United States, all participants are eager to cooperate, and Putin is using the occasion to assert Russia’s enduring global relevance. The summit can be viewed as a personal success for Putin, as he has brought together nations like China and India, which were previously on the verge of conflict in a way that questions the existence of the bloc.

    The meeting between Chinese president Xi Jinping and Indian Prime minister Narendra Modi takes place after five years as part of the summit. The relationship between China and India was very strained, following deadly fights at the border. Emerging reports indicate that China and India are actively working to resolve their border disputes and are ready to cooperate as they did in earlier years. This development poses a significant setback to U.S. efforts to divide the coalition and pull India to its side.

    Russia is also using the Kazan BRICS summit to push de-dollarization as a key agenda item. With Western sanctions severely impacting its businesses, Russia is seeking alternatives, and China, with its expansionist ambitions, is also anticipating potential sanctions. Iran, a new BRICS member, has likewise suffered under U.S. sanctions. Together, these countries are advocating for a faster transition to de-dollarization, increased use of local currencies in trade, and the strengthening of financial institutions as alternatives to U.S.-controlled banks. However, there is some resistance from India, Brazil, and South Africa, which are hesitant to accelerate the process despite their shared goal of finding an alternative to the dollar.

    The summit is expected to yield agreements on expanding trade routes and enhancing cooperation. Strengthening trade ties has been BRICS’ biggest achievement to date, helping Russia and Iran maintain relatively stable economies despite harsh Western sanctions. If India and China can rebuild their cooperation, the group’s economic power will grow significantly. Russia is working hard toward this goal, and key meetings and important decisions are anticipated at this iteration of the BRICS Summit.

    Most people in the West may not even be aware of BRICS, but it’s evident that something significant is brewing in the East that could counterbalance the United States. BRICS+ now boasts a larger GDP than the G7 or the EU, and its banks and institutions prioritize equal participation, unlike those dominated by the U.S. While Russia and China have demonstrated their capacity to challenge American influence, the inclusion of members like India, Iran, and Brazil suggests the group is poised to push further against U.S. interests. Although still in its early stages, BRICS has already proven capable of bypassing strict U.S. sanctions through enhanced cooperation. Politically, the 2024 BRICS Summit presents a challenge to U.S. dominance in global politics and represents a pivotal moment for Putin, signaling his and Russia’s resurgence on the global stage.

  • Canada-India Relations Reach a Boiling Point

    Canada-India Relations Reach a Boiling Point

    On a geopolitical level, India’s biggest concern now is Canada, a country far from its borders but a dream destination for Indian youth seeking education, jobs, and migration. Thousands of Indians migrate to Canada every year to settle there. However, for the Indian government, this outflow of Indians—often occurring without the government’s notice and through illegal means—has become a source of threat and is creating a crisis between the two states. Indian-origin separatists, extremists, and anti-India propagandists have found a home in Canada, using the hassle-free immigration system to obtain Canadian citizenship and launch attacks against India.

    In the past, the Indian government largely ignored extreme rhetoric coming from Canada. However, since Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi came to power, these extremists have become targets of coordinated operations, raising alarm within the Canadian government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, known for his fondness for the Sikh diaspora—particularly the community leading separatist movements in India—has grown increasingly concerned. 

    Over the past year, tensions between Canada and India have intensified in the wake of the shooting of Sikh extremist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was born in India and later became a Canadian citizen. He was killed outside a Sikh temple in Surrey, British Columbia. Nijjar had advocated for the establishment of an independent Sikh nation, known as Khalistan, to be carved out of India’s Punjab state. Supporters of this cause have faced accusations from the Indian government regarding their involvement in serial killings and various terrorist attacks. As a prominent leader and advocate for extreme Khalistan movements, Nijjar was wanted by Indian authorities and had been designated a terrorist in July 2020 for his alleged involvement in Khalistani-related violence. It is widely believed that his killing was orchestrated by India’s secret service agency, RAW.

    Nijjar is not the only Khalistani activist abroad thought to have been targeted by the Indian government. Last November, U.S. investigators reported foiling an attempt by an Indian official to murder Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a fiery Sikh separatist and dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada, known for calling for attacks on Indians and Hindus living overseas. Other prominent Sikh Khalistani activists in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., who spread anti-Hindu and anti-India rhetoric, have also reported receiving warnings of threats to their lives.

    It is a humiliation for Canada that one of its citizens was killed by a foreign country on its own soil. Given that the Sikh population in Canada is an important voting bloc and Khalistan supporters have influence among Canadian politicians, the Canadian government cannot ignore the issue. In September, Prime Minister Trudeau took the unusual step of publicly stating that there was credible information linking Indian government agents to Nijjar’s murder. Canada responded by taking tough action against Indian diplomats. Now, Canadian police have accused Indian diplomats of carrying out criminal activities in Canada, including planned homicide, extortion, intimidation, coercion, and harassment. In a subsequent press conference, Trudeau reinforced the accusations, stating that Canada now had clear and compelling evidence that agents of the Indian government had engaged in, and continued to engage in, activities posing a significant threat to public safety.

    As a follow-up, Canada expelled six Indian diplomats, including India’s high commissioner to Canada, accusing them of involvement in threatening behavior. India retaliated by expelling six senior Canadian diplomats. On Monday night, India announced that it was withdrawing six senior diplomats from Canada over safety concerns. However, Canadian officials who briefed several news outlets stated that Canada had expelled the Indian diplomats first.

    Canada now has the highest population of Sikhs outside their home state of Punjab. The growing Sikh population in Canada shows an affinity for the Khalistan movement, seeking to establish a Sikh nation in South Asia, similar to how Muslims formed Pakistan. The Canadian government appears to be supportive of this, even as there are concerns about threats to the Hindu population in the country. Canada also seems eager to escalate the situation to the international level.

    Canada has stated that its investigation into the Nijjar killing and the alleged broader campaign of violence by India is ongoing, and it is collaborating with the Five Eyes, an intelligence-sharing alliance comprising the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. This situation could have significant geopolitical implications. India is viewed as a rising superpower and has become an important security and economic ally for Western countries such as the U.S., the U.K., France, and Italy. However, Canada remains significant to these countries, while India still maintains a strong relationship with Russia. If the West continues to escalate the issue, it may push India to strengthen its ties with its long-time ally and reliable partner, Russia.

  • Germany to Build Strategic Relationship in Central Asia

    Germany to Build Strategic Relationship in Central Asia

    Germany, having lost momentum in international politics and economics, is also joining the race for Central Asia’s abundant and untapped natural resources. Chancellor Olaf Scholz is currently visiting Central Asia, a region highly sought after by global powers – from the United States to Japan – for its rich mineral and natural gas reserves, now more accessible as Russian influence wanes. While the Germany-backed European Union is working to strengthen ties, Germany has its own interests, particularly in securing natural gas imports. The ban on Russian gas has severely impacted Germany, and continuing on this trajectory will further weaken its already struggling economy. Accessing Central Asia’s resources could help Germany regain its lost momentum and global standing. 

    During Scholz’s three-day visit, which included a bilateral meeting and the second Germany-Central Asia summit, the five Central Asian heads of state, now acting as a bloc, gathered in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, to meet with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and discuss expanding trade between the West and Central Asia. Although no specific deals were announced, the atmosphere was positive, with all parties expressing optimism for future agreements. Scholz emphasized that exchanges between Central Asia and Germany had never been closer and were steadily increasing.

    Central Asian leaders conveyed a clear message that mutual benefits would be essential for cooperation. Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the host of the meeting, reinforced this sentiment, noting that the exchange of views demonstrated a strong mutual interest in deepening ties. Tokayev provided a rough outline for future trade relations, indicating that Kazakhstan and other regional states were eager to assist Germany and the EU with energy needs. However, Central Asia expects more than just financial compensation in return for its energy exports.

    Describing Germany as a global leader in economic and technological innovation, Tokayev expressed that Kazakhstan and other Central Asian states aim to leverage German expertise to advance the localization of production and create high-value products. He highlighted several economic sectors that could benefit from German technology transfers, including finance, agriculture, transit logistics, and information technology. Tokayev also emphasized Kazakhstan’s interest in German expertise and investment to support Central Asia’s green energy initiatives. He specifically mentioned a collaborative project involving Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan to develop solar and wind power plants for exporting electricity to the EU. Tokayev subtly suggested that Germany consider participating in this strategic project. It seems that Central Asian countries are firm in their demands for compensation in exchange for their resources. For Germany, securing affordable gas is now a critical priority.

    Before visiting Kazakhstan, Scholz stopped in Uzbekistan, where his discussions in Samarkand with Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev were similarly governed by a mutual benefit approach. The main outcome was a politically strategic agreement allowing Germany to send potential Afghan migrants to Uzbekistan for eventual repatriation to Afghanistan. In return, Berlin agreed to accept skilled Uzbek workers to fill job vacancies in Germany. For Scholz, this agreement demonstrates that his beleaguered Social Democrat-led government is addressing domestic migration issues. Public dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of migration has eroded support for his coalition and was a significant factor in the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party’s strong performance in recent state elections.

    The deal is also a notable achievement for Mirziyoyev, whose administration aims to transition Uzbekistan’s economy from raw material production to finished goods manufacturing. As part of this economic transformation, the government is restructuring the labor market and labor migration policies to create more opportunities for skilled workers abroad. And If the Taliban agrees to accept Afghan nationals sent from Germany to Uzbekistan, it could showcase their ability to act as a responsible international actor, potentially supporting their efforts to legitimize their rule.

    In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its failure to meet its objectives, Central Asian states have gained greater confidence in their negotiations with other global actors. Alongside traditional partners like Russia and China, leading figures from the US, EU, Japan, South Korea, India, Turkey, and the Middle East are now engaging with Central Asia. They are discussing initiatives aimed at boosting the economies of both sides and influencing the region’s political landscape.

    If Germany successfully collaborates with Central Asia and begins importing natural gas from the region, it would represent a significant setback for Russia. Given Russia’s ongoing political influence in Central Asia, such a shift could lead to disruptions and political unrest. Other countries may seize this opportunity to advance their own interests. Thus, while new partnerships in Central Asia present both risks and opportunities, Germany stands to gain significant benefits from its involvement in the region.