Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador speaks during a press conference in Mexico City, Mexico on Jan. 21, 2021. (Xinhua)
The Mexican President noted that the US government has applied an “arrogant” and “interventionist” foreign policy for at least two centuries since the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine…reports Asian Lite News
The US must modify its foreign policy to respect the sovereignty of nations, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has said.
At his daily press conference on Wednesday, the Mexican President noted that the US government has applied an “arrogant” and “interventionist” foreign policy for at least two centuries since the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine, Xinhua news agency reported.
“They have always acted like this. We have insisted a lot and will continue to do so, that they must change their foreign policy,” Lopez Obrador told reporters.
A US State Department report issued earlier this week on the state of human rights around the globe alleges that human rights violations prevail in Mexico.
“How are they going to talk about human rights if they allocate billions of dollars to war for the death of innocent people in countries all around the world where there is conflict?” he questioned.
The Indus Water Treaty (IWT), despite being hailed as a successful mechanism in managing water disputes between India and Pakistan for decades, faces significant challenges in adapting to the evolving circumstances of the present day. The treaty’s failure to address the distribution of water, accommodate the impacts of climate change, incorporate technological advancements, and provide an efficient dispute resolution process raises concerns about its relevance … writes Dr Trilok Sharma
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is a landmark water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan that was brokered by the World Bank and signed on 19 September 1960. The treaty emerged against the backdrop of strained relations between the two countries and aimed to address water disputes related to the shared Indus River Basin which is crucial for the food and water security of both nations. The treaty designated specific rivers for each country’s unrestricted use, with the western rivers i.e. The Indus, Jhelum and Chenab Rivers allocated for Pakistan’s sole use while the eastern rivers i.e. The Sutlej, Ravi and Beas Rivers allocated for India’s exclusive usage.
Despite being celebrated as one of the world’s most effective treaties that has withstood wars, hostility and tensioned diplomatic relations, many experts have noted its obsolete provisions and their implications on present-day affairs. While India seeks negotiations for the amendment of the IWT vide its Notice of Amendment served on 25 January 2023, Pakistan has remained opposed to the idea.
Experts state that since the inception of the IWT, there have been several fundamental changes in circumstances which merit diplomatic discussion for amendment of the IWT. In essence, the circumstances that existed at the time of concluding the IWT have changed so fundamentally that the assumptions on which the said treaties were concluded no longer hold true.
While international treaties operate under the pacta sunt servanda rule which bind the state, its entities and citizens to the terms of the convention, the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus enshrined under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is an exception whereby an unforeseen fundamental change of circumstances is a ground for terminating a treaty if it affects the essential basis or radically transforms obligations of a treaty. In past, this principle has led to the withdrawal of Italy, Russia and Australia from the Energy Charter Treaty.
Source-Wikipedia
Fundamental Change of Circumstances under the Indus Water Treaty
The IWT fails to distribute water and address the Indus River Basin as a whole
At present, the IWT does not distribute water between the countries but merely allocates rivers for usage of each country. It offers geo-physical partition of the river system itself instead of addressing the joint development and water management of the Indus River Basin, a stark deflection from customary international law norms. It can be seen that Article 9 of the Treaty provides that consultations may be held when a question arises over the interpretation or application of the IWT, but it fails to cater to disputes arising out of or in relation to the Indus River Basin itself. This simplistic approach lacks cooperative sharing of water, creating ecological and social consequences that require deliberation.
The IWT fails to accommodate climate change
During the year 2015, NASA ranked the Indus River Basin as the world’s second-most over-stressed aquifer. Since glaciers are the biggest contributors of water to the Indus River, global warming and climate change will negatively impact water availability in the river basin. While initially, water levels may increase with rapid melting (creating flood risks), over time, the river basin is likely to dry up.
The IWT makes no provisions for regulation of water-flows in events of sudden heavy discharge due to melting glaciers. A discussion on this aspect and an agreement thereon is essential as the incidence of catastrophic floods are on the rise not only in the lower riparian state of Pakistan but also on the Indian side. Similarly, the risk of flooding due to events like sudden glacial melts or cloud bursts significantly increases the risk of flooding on both sides.
A 2011 study on climate changes in the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region found a link between higher streamflow in the upper Indus Basin and increased mean and maximum temperatures, especially in winter and spring. It was also noted that significant depletion of groundwaters has been observed in the Indus Basin of Pakistan, highlighting another aspect that has not been addressed under the IWT. In recent years, the decrease in downstream discharge to the sea, attributed to irrigation canals and dams, has led to 5 times fewer sediments downstream, impacting natural water regimes and soil nutrient composition.
While at first there is likely to be a clear increase in the river flows, over time the total quantity of water flowing through the rivers will substantially decline. It is projected that the climate change-related threats can reduce Indus River flows by as much as 30–40% in the future. In the backdrop of rise in population, it poses increased pressure on the water resources of the basin, which can have serious adverse impacts on the regional peace and security.
The treaty fails to accommodate technological advancements in Infrastructure
The IWT has received criticism for being overly technical. The IWT puts strong limitations on structures with movable gates to manage storage upstream. This is ineffective given to the seasonal flow of the Indus River Basin rivers, which carry high silt loads. The IWT also fails to accommodate technological advancements in water management construction solutions like digital water management and flood management technology that facilitate monitoring, forecasting, and catastrophe modelling. Pakistan has used the treaty not to resolve differences over designs, but to escalate them to the level of disputes which delays the Indian projects, adding to their cost and affecting their techno-economic viability.
Unlike Pakistan’s literal interpretation of the IWT’s technical annexures, Indian engineers focus on the criteria for techno-economic viable project designs. For instance, objections raised by Pakistan about the Baglihar Project’s design changes in 1999, seven years after its initiation in 1992. Despite being viewed as India’s attempt to gain leverage, the alterations were crucial for the project’s techno-economic viability; Pakistan objected to various design elements such as pondage levels, dam outlets and turbines, claiming that such designs were violative of the IWT. India, however, stated that all designs and calculations were in accordance with the provisions of the IWT.
Interestingly, India utilizes about 94% of its 20% share (40.7 billion cubic meters) from the total Indus River supply of 207.2 billion cubic meters. However, the remaining 6% remains unused and flows to Pakistan. Despite having the right to create a storage capacity of up to 3.6 million acre-feet on western rivers, India has not built any storage capacity as of 2021. Out of the estimated 20,000 megawatts power potential from western river projects, only 3,482 MW has been constructed.
The IWT fails to provide an adequate dispute resolution Process for current times
India’s Secretary for Water Resources Ramaswamy Iyer noted that the IWT gave Pakistan “virtually a veto power over Indian projects on the western rivers, which Pakistan tends to exercise in a stringent rather than accommodating fashion. ” The Neutral Expert appointed at the time, while accepting some concerns from both sides, emphasised the need to incorporate state-of-the-art technology for optimum utilisation and recognized India’s right to utilize waters of the western rivers more effectively within the ambit of the IWT.
The broken-down dispute settlement mechanism in the IWT
The dispute resolution procedure provided in the IWT has raised several complaints from experts for being inefficient and ambiguous; besides being a primitive form of dispute resolution catering to outdated circumstances, India claimed the misuse of the three-tier graded mechanism as enshrined in the IWT by Pakistan through its Notice of Amendment of the Treaty on 25 January 2023.
In 2016, Islamabad retracted its request to the World Bank to appoint a Neutral Expert and proposed the commencement of proceedings before a tribunal under the aegis of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to decide the disputes pertaining to India’s Kishenganga and Ratle Hyrdo Projects. Amid India’s request for a Neutral Expert under the IWT provisions, Pakistan’s unilateral action apparently violates the graded dispute resolution mechanism outlined in Article IX of the IWT. The initiation of two simultaneous processes on the same questions with the potential of their inconsistent or contradictory outcomes creates an unprecedented and legally untenable situation. Interestingly, the World Bank accepted both request and initiated action through the Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration in March 2022. Not only do the parallel proceedings allow a party to raise the same claims in multiple forums i.e. multiple recoveries of same damages, it also creates inconsistencies in decisions rendered by multiple platforms.
In response to India’s concern over the parallel proceedings, the World Bank stated that the two mechanisms are independent. The IWT vests the authority in both mechanisms to determine their own jurisdiction and competence as well as the power to decide on their rules of procedure. The World Bank’s view raises concerns about the effectiveness and conflict of decisions made by the Neutral Expert and the Court of Arbitration. This ambiguity may lead to disputes regarding which decision will take precedence over the other.
Additionally, the role of the World Bank has garnered dissatisfaction; against popular view, the World Bank clarified that it was “not a guarantor of the treaty” and was merely a conflict resolver. It stated that the IWT does not empower the World Bank to decide whether one procedure would take precedence over the other under the graded mechanism. It was merely tasked with fulfilling its procedural obligations with respect to appointing both the Court of Arbitration and the Neutral Expert.
The Indus Water Treaty, despite being hailed as a successful mechanism in managing water disputes between India and Pakistan for decades, faces significant challenges in adapting to the evolving circumstances of the present day. The treaty’s failure to address the distribution of water, accommodate the impacts of climate change, incorporate technological advancements, and provide an efficient dispute resolution process raises concerns about its relevance. The changing ecological and geopolitical landscape, coupled with the dissatisfaction of affected populations, evolving technological capabilities and the looming threat of climate change underscores the need for a comprehensive reassessment of the IWT on the basis of circumstances that exist 63 years after the treaty was entered into. A mutual renegotiation would be the most appropriate course of action instead of a prolonged legal battle with little or no enforceability of outcomes.
Turk warned against a full-scale incursion into an area with more than 1.2 million civilians…reports Asian Lite News
The United Nations Human Rights Chief Volker Turk has condemned recent Israeli strikes in Rafah that resulted in the deaths of many women and children.
In a statement on Tuesday, Turk also warned against a full-scale incursion into an area with more than 1.2 million civilians, saying it would violate international humanitarian and human rights law, likely leading to more atrocities, Xinhua news agency reported.
In March, the UN Security Council called for an immediate ceasefire, he stressed.
Moreover, he stressed the need for global solidarity to protect civilians in Rafah, recalling recent tragedies such as a premature baby delivered from a mother who had been mortally wounded in an air strike and the deaths of numerous children and women in separate strikes.
The UN Human Rights Chief called for immediate actions to halt this suffering, calling for independent investigations into reports of mass graves and the destruction of medical facilities.
He stressed the urgent need for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and unimpeded humanitarian aid.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif speaks in an interaction with foreign media in Islamabad, Pakistan, Aug. 30, 2022. (Photo by Ahmad Kamal/Xinhua/IANS)
It seems that the rising crime rate and the increasing inflation have a direct relationship …. Writes Dr Sakariya Kareem
Pakistan’s growing lawlessness is often becoming evident from quirky incidents like the recent robbery that took place in Punjab where two underage boys posed as wedding guests and left with money, mobile phones and other valuables from the venue by switching off the power.
The robbers looted in the darkness of the wedding hall, an episode hinting at the plight of common people in the country and the desperation of the youth.
They even did not leave the bride’s purse before escaping the venue. The wallet, media reports in Pakistan said, contained not just an expensive mobile phone but nearly two million in cash.
A flood-affected woman prepares food in Jamshoro district in Pakistan’s Sindh province on Sept. 8, 2022. (Str/Xinhua/IANS)
It seems that the financially struggling Pakistan and rising inflation rates are behind the uptick in crimes.
One of the focal points of crime in Pakistan remains Karachi.
More than 250 Karachiites were shot dead and 1,052 others were wounded by street criminals between 2022 and March 28, 2024, data presented before a high-level security meeting in Pakistan showed as quoted by Dawn News.
Police sources told Dawn News that a significant increase in violent street crimes was registered over the past three years.
They said before 2022 the number of people killed by muggers stood at around 30, but the figure increased manifold when a total of 111 citizens were killed by muggers in the 12 months of 2022.
Senior police officials rightly attributed the increase in violent street crimes to skyrocketing inflation and growing economic difficulties in the last three years.
The developments reflected that people were losing hope in the police and other administrators.
Former CPLC chief Sharafuddin Memon told Dawn that citizens had also lost confidence in law enforcers and started resisting robbers.
The spiking crime scenario of the country is evident from details obtained by The Express Tribune in January which showed rate of incidence of crimes like theft, robbery, mobile snatching, kidnapping for ransom, and sexual violence has registered a 15 to 30 per cent spike during the past five years across multiple cities in Punjab.
Lahore ranks number one with the highest number of reported cases, followed by Gujranwala, Sheikupura, Multan, Faisalabad, and Rawalpindi.
Inflation crisis
It seems that the rising crime rate and the increasing inflation have a direct relationship.
In its recent observation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has put Pakistan’s economic growth forecast unchanged at 2% but increased the inflation projection to nearly 25% for this fiscal year.
The recent report of a jobless man killing his family in Pakistan highlights how unemployment undermines Pakistan
A desperate man in Pakistan this April in the month of Ramadan killed his wife and seven children with a grass-cutting cleaver in the Mud Wala area within the premises of Saddar Police Station in Alipur district of Muzaffargarh in Punjab province, before surrendering himself to the police.
According to local media reports, the horrific event is believed to be driven by poverty and joblessness which has become a rising threat to the country’s population, especially the graduate youths.
According to experts, factors such as rapid population growth, a lack of quality education, economic instability, and insufficient job opportunities contribute to the high unemployment rate in Pakistan, and the consequences of unemployment include poverty, social unrest, increased crime rates, and a decline in overall economic growth.
The Express Tribune quoting Asian Development Bank (ADB) reported that Pakistan has the highest living cost in all of Asia with a 25% inflation rate and its economy may grow at the fourth lowest pace of 1.9% in the region. report.
The report said the Asian Development Outlook also painted a gloomy picture for the next fiscal year as well, projecting 15% inflation rate which will be the highest among 46 countries.
‘Pakistan has reported 1,415 cases of blasphemy since 1947’
Blasphemy accusations in Pakistan have not only ensnared common citizens but have also claimed the lives of ministers and prominent figures. The brutal murders of Punjab’s Governor SalmaanTaseer and Federal Minister Shahbaz Bhatti in 2011 vividly illustrate the extreme consequences associated with these accusations … writes Dr.Jalis Akhtar Nasiri
Pakistan’s blasphemy laws represent a contentious nexus between religious zealotry, legal stringency, and societal upheaval. Ranked as the World’s second-strictest after Iran, these laws embody a myriad of contradictions and controversies that have garnered international attention and condemnation. In a context where 32 Muslim-majority nations criminalize blasphemy, Pakistan’s stance stands out for its severity, carrying the death penalty but with no executions under these charges. This disparity highlights not just legal incongruities but also the stark realities of accusations and their repercussions in society. The narratives of blasphemy cases, often stemming from trivial disputes or personal vendettas, paint a picture of arbitrary justice and rampant misuse of legal provisions. High-profile cases like Aasia Bibi’s and Rimsha Masih’s have become symbols of the perils faced by those accused, extending to their families and legal defenders. This intertwining of blasphemy with political agendas and religious fervour has fostered a climate of fear, intolerance, and vigilante violence.”
This critical analysis delves into the heart of Pakistan’s blasphemy quagmire, dissecting legal ambiguities, societal ramifications, and the urgent need for reform in a nation grappling with the legacy of its founding principles amidst escalating tensions and human rights concerns. It’s not just the accused individuals who suffer; their families, legal representatives, and even judges involved in these cases face targeted threats and violence. What exacerbates this already dire situation is the underlying power struggle within Pakistan’s religious landscape. The quest to assert oneself as the authentic representative of Sunni Islam has weaponized blasphemy allegations, turning them into potent tools in the realm of politics.
The statistics paint a grim picture: by 2023, over 50 people remained in custody on blasphemy charges, with vigilante mobs taking matters into their own hands. The methods of extrajudicial punishment are barbaric, ranging from public burnings and hangings to gruesome murders on the streets and even within courtrooms. This stark reality sheds light on the systemic flaws and human rights violations that have become alarmingly commonplace in Pakistan’s approach to blasphemy accusations.
Blasphemy accusations in Pakistan have not only ensnared common citizens but have also claimed the lives of ministers and prominent figures. The brutal murders of Punjab’s Governor SalmaanTaseer and Federal Minister Shahbaz Bhatti in 2011 vividly illustrate the extreme consequences associated with these accusations. Taseer, an advocate for minor revisions to the Blasphemy Ordinance and a supporter of Aasia Bibi, was assassinated by his own bodyguard, Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri. Bhatti, similarly targeted for his concerns about blasphemy-related violence, fell victim to unidentified terrorists. These tragic events underscore the lethal impact of blasphemy laws and the volatile climate surrounding them in Pakistan.
Historical Context: Origins and Evolution of Blasphemy Laws
The genesis of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws traces back to the colonial era, specifically to British rule in the Indian subcontinent. Initially introduced in 1860, the blasphemy laws were enshrined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as four distinct provisions: IPC 295, 296, 297, and 298. In the landmark 1927 case of Ilm-ud-Din, where a Muslim carpenter murdered Mahashe Rajpal over a perceived insult to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the book “RangilaRasul,” marked a significant turning point. Ilm-ud-Din’s execution for his act set a precedent for the severity with which blasphemy cases would be handled.
Post-independence in 1947, Pakistan retained these laws inherited from British colonial rule. However, it was during General ZiaulHaq’s regime in the 1980s that the blasphemy laws were further fortified with Clauses 295-B and 295-C in the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Clause 295-B prescribed life imprisonment for Quran desecration, while Clause 295-C imposed the death penalty or life imprisonment for derogatory remarks against the Prophet (PBUH), accompanied by fines.
Perpetuating Injustice: The Dilemma of Blasphemy Accusations
Despite the historical context, contemporary Pakistan grapples with the repercussions of these stringent blasphemy laws. The cases of Aasia Bibi and RimshaMasih highlight the arbitrary nature of accusations, often stemming from trivial incidents such as water disputes or innocuous actions like sharing a picture on social media. The trials of these individuals, along with countless others, have been marred by violence, threats, and intimidation targeting not only the accused but also their families, legal representatives, and even judiciary members.
The political dimension adds further complexity to blasphemy accusations, with individuals like Taseer and Bhatti becoming casualties of their advocacy for legal reforms and human rights in the face of blasphemy-related violence. This nexus of religion, politics, and law creates a volatile environment where accusations can lead to extrajudicial killings and mob violence, bypassing due process and undermining the rule of law.
Legal Rigidity and Human Rights Concerns
Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, while purportedly aimed at safeguarding religious sentiments, have raised significant human rights concerns. The imposition of severe penalties, including capital punishment, for blasphemy-related offenses has led to widespread abuse and misuse of these laws. The lack of safeguards against false accusations and the absence of due process exacerbate the vulnerabilities faced by individuals accused of blasphemy, often resulting in arbitrary detention and violations of their fundamental rights.
The case of indefinite pre-trial detention, where individuals spend years in jail awaiting trial on blasphemy charges, highlights the systemic flaws and injustices within Pakistan’s legal framework. Despite the Supreme Court occasionally granting bail in such cases, the damage inflicted by prolonged detention and societal stigma is irreparable, reflecting a broader pattern of injustice and discrimination.
International Scrutiny and Calls for Reform
The international community has closely monitored Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, expressing concerns over human rights violations and the erosion of freedom of expression and belief. Organizations and advocates worldwide have called for reforms to ensure fair and impartial handling of blasphemy cases, with emphasis on protecting the rights of the accused and upholding principles of justice and due process.Efforts to reform blasphemy laws, however, face significant challenges within Pakistan, where religious sensitivities, political interests, and societal pressures converge to resist changes perceived as undermining religious sanctity. The influence of extremist groups and the risk of vigilantism further complicate reform initiatives, creating a formidable barrier to achieving meaningful legal reform in this contentious area.
Towards a Just and Equitable System
Addressing the complexities surrounding blasphemy laws in Pakistan requires a multifaceted approach that balances respect for religious beliefs with the protection of individual rights and freedoms. Key stakeholders, including government authorities, legal experts, civil society, and religious leaders, must engage in constructive dialogue to explore avenues for reform that uphold the rule of law, ensure due process, and prevent abuse of blasphemy laws for personal or political agendas.
Educational initiatives promoting tolerance, understanding, and respect for diverse beliefs can help mitigate the prevalence of blasphemy accusations rooted in ignorance or prejudice. Strengthening legal safeguards, including robust mechanisms for investigating accusations and protecting the rights of the accused, is imperative to prevent miscarriages of justice and uphold the principles of fairness and equity.
Conclusion: A Call for Reflection and Action
The discourse surrounding blasphemy laws in Pakistan is emblematic of broader societal challenges related to religious tolerance, rule of law, and human rights. The tragic consequences of these laws, as seen in cases of violence, injustice, and loss of life, underscore the urgent need for meaningful reform and introspection within Pakistani society.
As Pakistan navigates the complexities of its legal and religious setting, it must strive towards a system that upholds the fundamental rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or backgrounds. Only through a concerted effort to promote justice, fairness, and inclusivity can Pakistan pave the way towards a more just and equitable society for its citizens and contribute positively to the global discourse on religious freedom and human rights.
(Dr.Jalis Akhtar Nasiri is an eminent scholar and journalist who contributes articles on significant humanitarian issues)
The G7 meeting is being held on the Italian Mediterranean island of Capri….reports Asian Lite News
The spring meeting of the foreign ministers of the Group of Seven (G7) economically strong democracies is set to end on Friday with discussions on the situation in the Indo-Pacific region and global issues such as food, energy and cybersecurity.
In view of China’s increasingly aggressive behaviour in the Indian Ocean and Pacific region, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock had already stated at the start of the meeting that the effects are not only being felt by the G7’s Pacific countries – the United States, Canada and Japan – but also in Europe.
The G7 meeting is being held on the Italian Mediterranean island of Capri.
Italy currently chairs the G7 group. Other members are the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Japan and Germany.
The discussions at the meeting on Capri, which has been running since Wednesday evening, were dominated by concerns about the threat of a conflagration in the Middle East following the Iranian attack on Israel last weekend.
It is eagerly awaited how far the G7 ministers will go in their final declarations on the isolation of Tehran, as demanded by Baerbock and others.
The second major G7 topic was the intensified Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and the efforts to strengthen the air defence of the embattled country.
The host of the meeting, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, plans to comment publicly on the results after the end of the consultations.
Iran’s Foreign Minister accused Israel of carrying out a missile attack on Iranian diplomatic premises in Damascus on April 1…reports Asian Lite News
Iran’s Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, warned Israel against taking any military actions targeting Iranian interests. He stated Iran has concluded its “defense and counteroffensive measures” and urged the international community to stop Israel from carrying out any military operations against Iran.
During discussions on the Middle East situation at the UNSC, Amir-Abdollahian said, “Iran’s legitimate defense and countermeasures have been concluded. Therefore, the Israeli regime must be compelled to stop any further military adventurism against our centres, assets and interests. Certainly, in case of any illegal use of force by the Israeli regime and violating our sovereignty, the Islamic Republic of Iran will not hesitate a bit to assert its inherent right to give a decisive and proper response to it to make the regime regret its actions.”
He accused Israel of carrying out a missile attack on Iranian diplomatic premises in Damascus on April 1. He said that Israel’s action was a “clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations international law and the Vienna Convention.”
He said, “The missile attack on the 1st of April on the Iranian diplomatic premises in Damascus showed yet again that this regime does not hesitate to violate the fundamental principle of the immunity of such places and people as well as the known and well recognised Vienna Conventions. As the majority of the members of the Security Council declared at the April 2 meeting here, the attack was a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations international law and the Vienna Convention, and thus is strongly condemned.”
He criticised the US, UK, and France for not issuing a statement over the attack on the Iranian diplomatic premises in Damascus. He even expressed regret that the UNSC did not take action on Iran’s repeated requests to prevent further attacks by Israel on Iran’s interests. He accused the White House of giving a green signal to Israel’s action.
He said, “Regrettably, the Security Council, had not taken any action during the past months to our official and repeated requests to prevent further attacks by the Israeli regime on Iran’s interests, centres and official military advisors who were there to fight terrorism and due to the unfortunate and completely irresponsible behaviour of the United States, the UK and France, in response to this illegal attack, failed even to issue a mere statement containing a simple condemnation.”
“No will remain silent in the face of such a brazen and serious military attack on its Embassy, which is considered a symbol of its sovereignty, as well as the killing of its legal, official and diplomatic agents. The Islamic Republic of Iran, which until recently had shown considerable restraint against other terrorist missile attacks bearing in mind the dire situation in the region and willing to give the role of the United Nations a chance to prevent the escalation of the conflict, was faced with the continuation of the White House’s green light granted to the Israeli regime as well as the continued inaction of the Security Council in preventing the attacks by the Israeli regime,” he added.
Justifying Iran’s attack on Israel, he said, “Iran’s military attack on April 13th, was first and foremost, necessary because Iran had no other option. Secondly, it was carried out in response to a series of attacks and recurring aggressions by the Israeli regime on Iran’s interests, especially on our Embassy in Syria.”
“Thirdly, it took place in the fulfilment of Iran’s right to legitimate defence under international law. Fourthly, it was conducted by observing the criterion of non-aggression to civilian people and places. And fifthly, it focused solely on the two military bases of the Israeli regime that had been used in the attack on our Embassy, and therefore it was completely limited and proportionate in terms of scope and military requirements,” he added.
On Saturday, Iran launched several drones and missiles towards Israel in retaliation for an alleged Israeli air strike on its consulate in Syria, resulting in the killing of three top Iranian generals.
On Sunday morning, Israel Defence Forces (IDF) spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said that about 99 per cent of the 300 or so projectiles fired by Iran at Israel overnight were intercepted by air defences, as reported by The Times of Israel.
“The Iranian threat met the aerial and technological superiority of the IDF, combined with a strong fighting coalition, which together intercepted the vast majority of the threats,” Hagari said.
On April 17, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed at a cabinet meeting that Israel will make its own decisions and do whatever is necessary to protect itself, even if it contradicts the advice given by its allies, as reported by The Times of Israel.
Netanyahu made the statement at the cabinet meeting on Wednesday after meeting with the foreign ministers of the UK and Germany. UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock arrived in Israel on Wednesday.
In his remarks at the cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said that the two leaders had “all kinds of suggestions and advice.” He noted that while it was appreciated, Israel would nevertheless “make our own decisions, and Israel will do everything necessary to defend itself.” (ANI)
The true extent of Muizzu’s alleged corruption and the potential implications for the Maldives’ future are perhaps best illustrated by the rift that has emerged between him and his former ally, Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom …. Writes Dr Sakariya Kareem
As the Maldives inches closer to the high-stakes parliamentary elections on April 21st, the nation finds itself at a critical juncture, forced to confront the harsh realities of the ruling Progressive National Congress (PNC) party’s tainted legacy. Under the leadership of the notorious Dr. Muizzu, the PNC has become synonymous with cronyism, corruption, and a flagrant disregard for democratic principles, casting a dark shadow over the nation’s future. The accusations leveled against the PNC paint a disturbing picture of a party that has systematically undermined the principles of meritocracy and good governance. Reports have exposed a troubling trend of PNC officials favoring their own party loyalists for government positions, sidelining qualified candidates from other political affiliations. This blatant nepotism not only stifles the professional growth of capable individuals but also deprives the nation of their invaluable talents and expertise.
Moreover, the PNC’s thirst for power extends far beyond mere political appointments. The party leadership has openly declared its intention to seize control over the nation’s State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), a move that threatens the independence of these crucial economic entities and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked abuse of power. Compounding this brazen overreach, the PNC has reportedly imposed undue pressure on government staff, demanding that they vote exclusively for party candidates – a gross violation of democratic norms and individual freedoms. Perhaps most alarming are the reports of the PNC’s willingness to deny basic services, such as electricity, to households that do not support their agenda. Such discriminatory practices are not only unethical but also serve to erode the unity and social fabric of the nation, dividing the Maldivian people along political lines and undermining the very foundations of a cohesive society.
At the heart of these transgressions lies a deep-rooted culture of corruption that has permeated the highest echelons of the PNC’s leadership. The party has been embroiled in numerous scandals, from the misappropriation of millions of dollars in dubious drone purchases to significant bribery allegations surrounding the Fushidhiggarufalhu reclamation project. These scandals point to a systemic problem of corruption within the party’s ranks, casting doubt on its commitment to financial integrity and responsible governance. At the center of this maelstrom stands Dr. Muizzu himself, infamously known as “Kazzaab” (the liar) due to his notorious reputation for dishonesty. The gravity of the accusations against him is underscored by the fact that he is currently under investigation by various authorities, including the Maldives Police, the Maldives Monetary Authority’s Financial Intelligence Unit, and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). The allegations range from embezzlement and money laundering to the misappropriation of funds and the misuse of corporate vehicles to conceal the origins of ill-gotten gains.
However, the true extent of Muizzu’s alleged corruption and the potential implications for the Maldives’ future are perhaps best illustrated by the rift that has emerged between him and his former ally, Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom. Yameen, who initially endorsed Muizzu’s candidacy for the presidency, has since formed the People’s National Front (PNF) party and has leveled serious allegations against the current government, accusing it of never intending to release him from his politically motivated imprisonment.
The Muizzu government’s desperate and authoritarian attempt to crush Yameen’s newly formed People’s National Front has spectacularly backfired, laying bare the administration’s utter disregard for democratic norms and civil liberties. At a recent PNF rally, Yameen rightfully condemned the regime’s deployment of excessive force, including the appalling use of pepper spray, against his peaceful supporters during the party’s inauguration. This brutal crackdown, motivated solely by Muizzu’s fear of any opposition, inflicted significant self-inflicted political damage by handing the PNF an immense publicity coup before it could even officially take shape. As Yameen pointed out, over 60,000 Maldivians tuned in to witness the government’s repressive tactics, while a mere 25 people showed up for Muizzu’s own rally – a damning indictment of his waning popularity and tenuous grip on power. The disgraced President’s flimsy denial of involvement in this shameful episode only compounds his crisis of credibility and reinforces perceptions of him as an authoritarian despot intolerant of dissent. Muizzu’s utter hypocrisy is further exposed by his refusal to advocate for Yameen’s long-stalled appeal against his politically-motivated jailing, despite previously vowing to prioritize the case – clear proof that his regime never intended to uphold democratic principles or adhere to due process. This sordid affair has irreparably tarnished Muizzu’s reputation and emboldened growing calls for his removal to restore freedom and justice in the Maldives.
Yameen’s unwavering willingness to confront the PNC’s misdeeds head-on have struck a chord with a nation weary of empty promises and self-serving agendas. His call for a boycott of the presidential election, though initially rejected by his former allies, underscores his principled opposition to a system that has been compromised by the very forces he seeks to root out.[3] As the nation prepares to cast its votes, the choice before the Maldivian people is clear: they can either embrace the PNC’s culture of cronyism, corruption, and disregard for democratic norms, or they can rally behind Yameen’s vision of a transparent, accountable government that serves the interests of all its citizens, not just a privileged few.
The stakes in this election could not be higher. A victory for the PNC would not only legitimize the party’s tainted legacy but also embolden those who seek to exploit the nation’s resources for personal gain. It would be a triumph of deceit over integrity, of self-interest over the greater good – a dark path that could irreparably damage the foundations of democracy and good governance in the Maldives. On the other hand, a resounding rejection of the PNC at the polls would send a powerful message that the Maldivian people will no longer tolerate the erosion of their democratic institutions and the pillaging of their nation’s wealth. It would represent a mandate for a government that is truly accountable to its citizens, one that upholds the principles of transparency, meritocracy, and the rule of law – a beacon of hope for a brighter, more just future for all Maldivians.
In this pivotal moment, the nation must ask itself a fundamental question: Do they wish to entrust their future to a party that has repeatedly demonstrated a contempt for democratic values and ethical governance? Or do they wish to chart a new course, one that is guided by the principles of integrity, justice, and an unwavering commitment to the greater good? The answer to this question will echo through the annals of history, shaping the destiny of the Maldives for generations to come. It is a moment that demands courage, resolve, and an unshakable commitment to the ideals upon which any true democracy must be built. As the polling stations open on April 21st, the world watches with bated breath as the Maldivian people make a choice that will define the very soul of their nation. Will they choose the path of deceit and cronyism, or will they embrace a future of transparency and accountability? The fate of the Maldives rests in the hands of its citizens, and their decision will reverberate through the ages – a testament to their resilience, their principles, and their unwavering pursuit of a just and prosperous society for all.
The trend gathered steam when the main opposition party, the Bangladesh National Party lost the elections and blamed India for interfering in the elections. The trend was motivated by the anti-India campaign in Maldives that followed PM Modi’s efforts to boost tourism in Lakshadweep … writes Dr. Shujaat Ali Quadri
In a complex society like South Asia, which is characterized by cultural commonalities and political flashpoints at the same time, disinformation campaigns are increasingly influencing the region. Over the last decade, new regional initiatives and transit corridors are easing travel between India, Bangladesh and Southeast Asia but these efforts could be threatened if India’s neighbourhood remains gullible to online social propaganda targeting a specific nation or community. A recent online trend was in the news in Bangladesh that called for boycotting India and Indian products. Fortunately, the campaign remained limited to social media only and did not spill over to the real world as it could have undermined the bilateral relationship that is leveraging physical connectivity to develop interdependencies.
The trend gathered steam when the main opposition party, the Bangladesh National Party lost the elections and blamed India for interfering in the elections. The trend was motivated by the anti-India campaign in Maldives that followed PM Modi’s efforts to boost tourism in Lakshadweep.
In Bangladesh, both BNP and the Jamaat have a more tech-savvy cadre which also adept at trending political content with the intent to mobilize social media users on anti-India campaigns. A lesser-known fact to both Indian and Bangladeshi people is that the Jamaat has a well-knit international cadre composed of wealthy businessmen and service sector professionals in the West that fuels its manipulation machinery. Several activists mobilizing social media users against India happen to be based in the West. Their access to global newspapers, sophisticated media tools and information networks allows them to legitimize and amplify their opinions irrespective of their credibility. Such acts of intervention, wherein external forces influence domestic public opinion in Bangladesh must be scrutinized by the civil society as they interfere with the the day to day state of affairs.
The opposition parties of Bangladesh have successfully infiltrated global human rights organisations and advocacy institutions over the past decade, which gives them much-needed international legitimacy.
The Awami League, despite its successive victories, remains a party of the masses with its core support base in the rural areas of Bangladesh. One of its biggest flaws is its inability to get internationally acknowledged for its role in giving a strong foundation to the economy, its poverty eradication schemes and its commitment to integrate Bangladesh with regional supply chains and infrastructure projects.
The Jamaat/BNP circles on the other hand have tapped the urban sections that predominantly shape the national opinion due to their visibility. The city-dwelling nuclear families, youth and professionals, once disconnected from their social moorings are an easy target for ideological parties like Jamaat to build their legitimacy by convincing its followers about the flaws of democracy. Ties between BNP and Jamaat have indeed frayed over the years and the former considers the Jamaat as an institution with political baggage, their criticism of India and its regional initiatives also puts the region’s collective developmental efforts at stake. Every year, South Asia adds millions of new social media users to its population who are also the primary targets of anti-India campaigns. The content as well as the spread of this trend must be monitored and appropriate response mechanisms must be built that are youth-centric and most importantly inclusive, that is, they should be designed to engage the youth more attractively through informative and impartial content.
(The Author is the Chairman of Muslim Students Organisation of India)
Currently, the Palestinians hold observer status at the U.N. General Assembly, a designation granted in 2012…reports Asian Lite News
The United Nations Security Council committee tasked with evaluating the Palestinian Authority’s application for full U.N. membership has encountered a deadlock, as reported by Reuters on Tuesday. Despite deliberations, the committee failed to reach a unanimous recommendation regarding whether the Palestinian Authority met the necessary criteria.
Nonetheless, the Palestinian Authority intends to proceed with its efforts to secure a vote within the 15-member Security Council, potentially as soon as this week, diplomats indicated. If successful, this resolution would signify formal recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state within the international community.
Currently, the Palestinians hold observer status at the U.N. General Assembly, a designation granted in 2012. However, achieving full U.N. membership requires approval from the Security Council, where the United States, a staunch ally of Israel, retains the power to veto such a decision. Additionally, approval from at least two-thirds of the General Assembly is necessary.
The United States reiterated its stance earlier this month, asserting that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state should be the outcome of direct negotiations between the concerned parties, rather than through unilateral action at the United Nations.
The longstanding vision endorsed by the U.N. Security Council involves the coexistence of two states—Israel and Palestine—within secure and recognized borders. Palestinians aspire to establish their state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
However, progress towards Palestinian statehood has been minimal since the signing of the Oslo Accords in the early 1990s. The Palestinian Authority’s pursuit of full U.N. membership occurs against the backdrop of heightened tensions, including the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, as well as Israel’s ongoing expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank.
The Security Council committee, comprising all 15 council members, convened twice last week to discuss the Palestinian application. Despite these discussions, the committee’s report acknowledged the existence of differing viewpoints among its members, resulting in an inability to reach a unanimous recommendation regarding the Palestinian Authority’s eligibility for full U.N. membership.
According to the U.N. Charter, membership is extended to “peace-loving states” willing to uphold the obligations outlined in the Charter.
