India’s solidarity with Israel is untenable
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | OCTOBER 29, 2023
India’s muscular diplomacy, an attribute of the present government, has run into heavy weather. Body blows from multiple sources — spat with Canada; Maldives’ triumphalism about evicting Indian servicemen; China-Bhutan normalisation, etc. — testify to it.
On top of it comes the latest diplomatic faux pas at the UN GA over the Gaza situation and a not-entirely unrelated shock and awe dealt out by Qatar over the past week. Doha has handed down death sentences to eight Indian ex-naval officers on charges of spying for Israel.
Whichever way one looks at the Explanation of Vote (EoV) on Thursday’s UN General Assembly resolution on Gaza, India’s abstention was a mistake. Simply put, our diplomacy has become entrapped in our solidarity with Israel.
The topmost consideration for India at the UN GA debate should have been that the draft was tabled by the Arab and OIC countries with whom India has fraternal ties, and, second, it called for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce” in Gaza, which is an urgent necessity.
Yet, France outclassed Indian diplomacy, exposing the need for more creative UN diplomacy on our part. France not only sought that some reference to Hamas’ raid into Israel on October 7 be made in the draft, but while on a recent visit to Tel Aviv, President Emmanuel Macron even proposed an alliance of like-minded countries to take on Hamas militarily.
Yet, when the crunch time came, France ultimately voted for the Arab resolution and issued an EoV justifying it. As France saw it, the imperative need today is to stop the fighting and the compelling reality is the importance of being on the right side of history when it comes to the Middle East crisis, where it has high stakes. The point is, in the final analysis, what stands out for the record is the actual voting, not the EoV.
It was apparent that the Canadian amendment — at Israel’s behest and sponsored by Washington from the rear — was a clumsy attempt to divide the votes by calling for “unequivocally rejecting and condemning the terrorist attacks by Hamas.” In a notable speech that drew wide acclaim, Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN Munir Akram highlighted the contradiction.
If Canada was being fair in its amendment, he said, it should as well agree to name Israel as well as Hamas. “We all know who started this. It is 50 years of Israeli occupation and the killing of Palestinians with impunity,” Akram argued, therefore, not naming either side was the best choice.
It appears that India was taken aback by Akram’s intervention at the UN GA during Agenda Item 70, Right to Self-Determination where he forcefully linked the Palestine issue and Kashmir problem. Alas, India’s abstention has only left the centre stage to Pakistan to occupy. This could be consequential. A prudent course would have been to identify with the stance of the Arab countries unequivocally, since this is a core issue for them and it is playing out in their region, first and foremost.
India should have factored in that feelings are running high in the West Asian region and the US-Israeli propaganda that the Arab world paid only lip-service to the Palestinian cause doesn’t hold good. There is unmistakable anger and anguish among the regional states and a groundswell of opinion has appeared demanding a settlement of the Palestine issue as an imperative of regional stability.
Fundamentally, the tectonic plates in regional politics have shifted following the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement under China’s mediation, which in turn triggered new thinking in West Asia giving impetus to a focus on development. Equally, the regional states prefer to address their issues increasingly on their own steam without external interference. China and Russia understand this but the US refuses to see the writing on the wall.
Therefore, it will prove to be damaging to our interests if a growing perception crystallises that Indians are carpetbaggers. The Indo-Israeli fusion through the past decade hasn’t gone unnoticed in the Muslim countries. They resent it, perhaps, but it may not surge into view because Arabs are a hospitable people. That said, their resentment may surface if push comes to shove and their core interests are involved.
The US-Israeli attempt to put the lid on the region’s growing strategic autonomy is one such core issue. It is far from the case that the regional states — be it Qatar, Iran, Egypt, Syria or even Turkey — do not understand that the Biden administration’s grandiloquent idea of a India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor is in reality a wedge to disrupt the nascent trends of unity among regional states so as to insert Israel into the regional processes and rekindle the flame of sectarian schism and geopolitical rifts, which the US invariably exploited to impose its hegemony in West Asia historically.
That is why, the three-way Qatar-India-Israel tangled mess of espionage, which should never have been allowed to happen, becomes a litmus test of mutual intentions in the geopolitics of the region. Lest it is forgotten, Qatar and Israel had once collaborated since the mid-nineties to prop up Hamas as an Islamist antidote to the secular-minded PLO under Yasser Arafat.
In a recent interview with the Deutsche Welle, former Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert disclosed, inter alia, “We know that the Hamas was financed with the assistance of Israel— for years — by hundreds of millions of dollars that came from Qatar with the assistance of the state of Israel, with the full knowledge and support of the Israeli government led by Netanyahu.”
That convergence — rather, Faustian deal — ended in 2009 following the three-week Gaza Massacre by Israel, whereupon, Doha drew closer to Tehran. Nonetheless, a pragmatic relationship continued, and in 2015, the Qatari government facilitated discussions between Israel and Hamas in Doha in search of a possible five-year ceasefire between the two parties. Suffice to say, Indian diplomacy is swimming in shark-infested waters. The news from Doha this week is a wake-up call.
Equally, our public discourse on Hamas as a terrorist organisation and our branding of that national liberation movement is surreal, to say the least. Although it may be difficult today for the government to openly deal with Hamas, it shouldn’t be that we lack a proper understanding of Islamism. If ever a Palestine settlement comes to fruition, Hamas will have a lead role in it as the fountainhead of resistance. India’s political elite must bear in mind this reality.
Eliminating the Hamas from the political landscape is no longer possible, given the massive grassroots support it enjoys among the Palestinian people, which is of course a proven fact in the successive elections held in Gaza and West Bank.
10 reasons why India’s stance on Gaza is unsustainable
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | OCTOBER 9, 2023
The Indian reaction to the massive eruption of violence between Hamas and Israel on Saturday belies ground realities and ignores the geopolitical environment in that region and globally in which this cataclysmic event merits careful appraisal. It will prove to be unsustainable and can damage the country’s interests and standing globally.
One, Indian policy has blatantly tilted toward Israel. What has been a matter of speculation assumed habitation and a name when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tweet on Saturday underscored India’s “solidarity” with Israel.
The resonant expression signifies a historic departure from India’s consistent stance on the Palestine issue, which followed, quintessentially, the footfalls of Gandhiji who had the prescience and vision to oppose the creation of Israel on Palestinian homelands in the cruel manner in which the Western powers imposed that geopolitical construct on West Asia.
What prompted this radical shift on an issue where angels fear to tread remains a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
Two, Delhi had the benefit of a “preview” of what is to follow in Gaza in the coming weeks or months. Prime Minister Benjamin proclaimed that the “enemy will pay an unprecedented price” and promised that Israel would “return fire of a magnitude that the enemy has not known.” He declared war on Gaza.
Netanyahu’s capacity for mindless violence is a legion. Yet, Delhi rushed in to react at an emotional, subjective level.
Three, the possibility of a ground offensive and even occupation of Gaza is real. Simply put, India’s patented mantra that ‘this is not an era of wars’ obliges it to mark distance from Netanyahu. But instead, India risks taking a virtual partisan in the carnage that is to follow — politically, morally, diplomatically.
At such a crucial juncture, at the very least, our government being a ‘Vishwa Guru’ who tirelessly propagates the notion of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakaam (The World is One Family), gets exposed, warts and all. India’s role should be of a unifier rather than divider.
Four, India’s reaction is clearly at odds with the sentiments of the Global South. For, other than the ‘collective West’, India becomes a lone ranger in the Global Majority that stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel. Empathy with victims of violence is one thing, but political support for the collective West (which is what this entails, in reality, in the prevailing climate in world politics) is another thing.
Two days after Vladimir Putin praised Modi’s India sky-high as a stellar example of a civilisation state role model in a multipolar world in a landmark speech addressing an elite audience, distinguishing it from the predatory neo-colonial Western powers, India negated his thesis.
There is no question that the Indian stance exposes the paradox of its self-appointed claim to be the leader of the Global South. When the crunch time came, Indian elites showed their true colours.
Five, Israel’s reaction, which is already under way, is expected to be massive, unremitting and ruthless. An Israeli occupation of Gaza is a high probability, howsoever foolish that might eventually turn out to be. Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant’s chilling words vowing to “change the reality in Gaza” will mean that increasingly, it will become difficult for the countries of the region and the Global South —and even the ‘friends of Israel’ in the US and Europe — to remain passive.
India has dug itself a foxhole from where it will be difficult to come out saving face and battered reputation and credibility.
Six, troubling questions arise in regard of India’s credentials to be a UN Security Council permanent member. Whose interests, after all, does India represent other than its self-interests? This becomes a daunting question for which there are no easy answers. Succinctly put, the fruits of decades of hard work by successive Indian leaderships and diplomats are being squandered away.
Seven, all wars come to an end through negotiations. But this incoming war will be a long and wide-ranging one. The wily politician in Netanyahu, who is under immense pressure domestically, facing personal legal charges and holding on to power with the help of ultra-nationalist and right-wing partners, will seize the opportunity to salvage his reputation as Israel’s great protector and rally the political and security establishment in his country, which is deeply divided, and shall be in no hurry to sit at the negotiating table with Hamas.
On the other hand, American intention will be to claw its way up the greasy pole of West Asian politics after the Iran-Saudi rapprochement. In a major display of force, a vast armada of warships and planes is slouching toward East Mediterranean. How this force projection will pan out remains to be seen.
The temptation will be there to reimpose US hegemony in West Asia and to project President Biden as a decisive leader at a time when, on the one hand, his re-election bid in the 2024 election is wide open and, on the other hand, the spectre of a humiliating defeat in Ukraine haunts his presidency.
Suffice to say, the political interests of Biden and Netanyahu are coalescing and the stench of Israel’s war will likely touch the heavens and may even engulf other countries in the region as time passes. The Indian leadership will be hard-pressed to demonstrate its friendship and bonhomie with Netanyahu in an apocalyptic scenario.
Eight, Modi government might as well say goodbye to the grand idea of building an Indo-Arab economic corridor to Europe in a foreseeable future. That means, Haifa Port, which was acquired by the Adani Group in a “strategic purchase” at a reported cost of $1.13 billion with Netanyahu’s blessing, will be underperforming. Smart economic diplomacy entailed fostering Arab-Israeli amity.
Nine, Indian government has blithely ignored that Israel is a state sponsoring terrorism. Optics matter in politics and international affairs, and at a time when India’s own credentials are under Western scrutiny, it is doubly important that it is careful in its words and behaviour. There is an old saying, ‘Show me your friends and I will show you your future!’ If the intention is to fly on the wings of the Israeli lobby in North America — or to catch Biden’s eye — it smacks of naïveté, to say the least.
Finally, India should know that in the final analysis, sins are forgotten and forgiven when a political movement that might have had uses of violence in its toolbox commands the overwhelming support of the masses. Indeed, that is how it should be. By that yardstick, Hamas passed the litmus test decades ago, much before the BJP formed a government in 2014.
Hamas today is the unquestioned leader of Palestinian aspirations, towering head and shoulders above peer groups and is a mainstream interlocutor for the regional powers. It even has a representative office in Moscow. Clearly, the Indian reaction, which tends to view the current development as a ‘stand alone’ event of terrorism, is anachronistic.
An enduring Palestinian settlement will have to be inclusive and will include Hamas after the audacity of hope it has displayed. The BJP leadership should educate its provincial leaders with tunnel vision on international affairs that Islamism is not to be equated with terrorism in the global commons, especially the politics of the Muslim Brotherhood to which Hamas belongs.
China and India have ‘low intellectual potential’ – top Zelensky aide
RT | September 13, 2023
The people leading India and China lack the ability to predict the long-term consequences of their policies, a senior aide to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has claimed.
Mikhail Podoliak pointed to what he called “the problem of the modern world,” singling out India and China, in an interview with Ukrainian media on Tuesday.
“The problem with these countries is that they do not analyze the consequences of their own moves. These countries, unfortunately, have low intellectual potential,” he said.
Podoliak suggested that even though India has a lunar exploration program, it “does not mean that this nation understands what the modern world precisely is.”
The dismissive remarks were in the context of Beijing and New Delhi’s refusal to support Kiev in its conflict with Moscow. Podoliak complained that India, China and Türkiye were “profiting” from the war by maintaining trade with Russia.
“Technically, it is in their national interests,” he acknowledged, before presenting his view of what would benefit China in the long-run.
“China should be interested in Russia disappearing, because it is an archaic nation that drags China into unnecessary conflicts,” he claimed.
“It would be in their interest now to distance themselves from Russia as far as possible, take all the resources it has, and take part of the Russian territory under their legal control. In fact, they will do that,” he added.
Following the interview, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman urged Podoliak to clarify his remarks, when asked about them during a media briefing on Wednesday.
Podoliak has a record of lashing out at nations, organizations and public figures seen as not sufficiently supportive of Kiev.
Among his latest targets was Pope Francis, whom he had branded an “instrument of Russian propaganda” who “continues to reduce the influence of Catholicism in the world to zero.” The pontiff had encouraged Russian Catholics to cherish their nation’s historic legacy.
The Ukrainian official also recently hit out at Elon Musk, who Podoliak claimed “enabled evil” by refusing Kiev’s request to use his Starlink communications system to launch drone attacks against the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Podoliak isn’t the first high-ranking Ukrainian official to make derogatory remarks about Asian countries. In August, Aleksey Danilov, the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, suggested that Asian people were less humane compared to Europeans, including Ukrainians. “I’m fine with Asians, but Russians are Asians. They have a completely different culture, vision. Our key difference from them is humanity,” Danilov said.
US role in Pakistan chaos is obvious and logical
RT | August 16, 2023
A recently leaked secret diplomatic cable revealed that the United States had pressed Pakistani diplomats to seek the removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan in 2022. Khan, who was ousted from office later that year, was not a supporter of the US or its geopolitical agenda, and had sought closer ties with both China and Russia.
Ejected from the leadership, Khan was quickly arrested and then banned from participating in politics. Then, within the same week, Pakistan signed a new defence agreement with the US, affirming age-old ties between Washington and the Pakistani military elite, who have long formed the backbone of the state.
This is no conspiracy theory, it’s very easy to see what has gone on here. The US has engaged in a subtle regime change operation in Pakistan; an unusual choice given its simultaneous pursuit of stronger ties with India. This shows the ambitions of the US to play the two countries against each other and assert its own military domination over the South Asian region, using India as a pawn in its struggle against China, while simultaneously blocking the strategic rise of India by using Pakistan as a counterweight to it.
First of all, we must understand that the US ‘Indo-Pacific strategy’ is tailored toward one thing: hegemony. That is, ensuring the explicit strategic dominance of the US over the Pacific and Indian Oceans by containing the rise of China, but also ensuring that no rival power emerges. While India is seen as a critical partner by Washington in containing Beijing, one should also understand that this does not mean the US consents to India, a nation of 1.4 billion people with enormous economic potential, becoming a superpower and taking control of the region. A Pax Indica is not a Pax Americana, because India’s foreign policy is premised around its maintaining strategic autonomy and a “neighbourhood first” doctrine.
While India-China tensions are high, the biggest, most direct and historic military threat to India is of course its neighbour, Pakistan. Traditionally, Washington has maintained a very strong military relationship with Islamabad, as it was an ally in the war on terror in Afghanistan and is a huge buyer of US military equipment. India in turn, always resented US support of Pakistan, which was one reason the countries never got too close in the early 2000s. However, as the strategic environment changed, Pakistan tilted toward China, and India toward the US. Beijing became the biggest economic backer of Islamabad through the Belt and Road Initiative, seeking to create the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a new route to the Indian Ocean to bypass the waters the US was militarising, as well as the Indian subcontinent itself.
Under the leadership of Imran Khan, Pakistan’s foreign policy increasingly took on an anti-Western stance. He embraced China wholeheartedly, distancing himself from the US while increasing defence ties with Beijing. In addition, Khan also sought closer economic ties with Russia, having visited Moscow on the day the military operation in Ukraine began. However, with Pakistan being such a geostrategically important country, the US found Pakistan’s foreign policy direction increasingly disruptive to Washington’s own interests, and therefore lobbied for Khan’s removal. Although the US relationship with India has been growing simultaneously, Washington is not interested in creating an “either/or” situation on the Indian subcontinent where the US backs India and China backs Pakistan. Rather, it seeks to divide and conquer.
The existence of Pakistan, a nation with over 200 million people and nuclear weapons capability, is a useful military and strategic check on the power of India. India may be bigger than Pakistan, and will of course be the more successful country in the long run too, but Pakistan will always be a potent threat which can never be fully removed. In the eyes of US strategists, why should Pakistan be purely China’s strategic benefit? What the US wants is to enjoy favourable relationships with both Pakistan and India, so that it might be able to use them against each other, and profit accordingly. The US may be backing New Delhi right now, but it should be known this does not mean Washington consents to the rise of New Delhi as a rival power when the only acceptable vision the US has for the world is unipolarity.
If the US succeeds in containing China and strategically subordinating it, India will be its next target. How will Washington go about that? It will create strong relationships with all of India’s neighbours and will then purvey a narrative that New Delhi is a “bully” and “aggressor” and use that to boost its military and economic relationships with them. Who will be top of the list? Pakistan, of course. The US sustains its power by backing small countries against big ones, and then presenting itself as the only defence and security guarantor.
For that reason, the US has overseen the removal of Imran Khan and reasserted its defence relationship with Pakistan. Washington does not want a Pakistan that is a partner of Russia and China, and a global advocate of Muslims. It wants to see Islamabad and New Delhi in a contest with each other, using US-supplied equipment, then framing itself as the peacemaker, saviour and, ultimately, overlord.
Five Reasons Why India Could Mediate A Russian-Ukrainian Ceasefire
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JULY 11, 2023
There’s a growing consensus that the failure of Kiev’s NATO–backed counteroffensive and Moscow’s edge over NATO in their “race of logistics”/”war of attrition” will result in the resumption of Russian-Ukrainian talks in some form by the end of the year as was explained here. This will at the very least be aimed at reaching a ceasefire, but Zelensky is prohibited by the Rada from conducting talks with Russia, ergo the need for a mediator. Here are five reasons why India could play this role:
———-
1. The US Wants To “De-Sinify” The Peace Process
China has the diplomatic power to implement its plan for freezing the NATO-Russian proxy war, but only if the US allows Kiev to participate in talks under its aegis, which is unlikely to be approved. There’s no way that Washington would let its systemic rival go down in history as the country that helped end the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II, with it instead preferring to “de-Sinify” the peace process by having someone else play this role in order to deprive Beijing of that diplomatic victory.
2. Russia Might Not Trust Turkiye To Mediate Again
Turkish President Erdogan’s violation of the Azovstal deal that he reached last year with his Russian counterpart might have irreparably damaged trust between them to the point where President Putin no longer feels comfortable with Turkiye mediating between it and Kiev ever again. In that case and considering the seeming inevitability of talks resuming in some form by year’s end, then it therefore follows that Russia, Ukraine, and the US would have to agree on someone else to mediate in its place.
3. India Is Much More Appealing Than South Africa
Apart from South Africa, India is the only major country that’s consistently abstained from all anti–Russian UNGA Resolutions, thus proving its neutrality towards the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine. Unlike Pretoria, however, Delhi isn’t a party to the ICC and its ties with Moscow are no longer criticized by Washington. These two factors combine to make India much more appealing than South Africa as Turkiye’s possible replacement for mediating between Russia and US-controlled Ukraine.
4. Russia & The US Have Excellent Relations With India
The decades-long Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership has impressively weathered unprecedented Western pressure upon it over the last sixteen and a half months while the Indian-US Strategic Partnership was recently strengthened without doing so at the expense of Moscow’s interests. Each of those two Great Powers have natural interests in further elevating India’s rapidly rising role in global affairs, hence why they could prospectively agree on having it mediate Russian-Ukrainian ceasefire talks.
5. The Optics Of Indian Mediation Are Acceptable To All
Russia and the US are competing for hearts and minds across the Global South so each would gain from the optics of them requesting the “Voice of the Global South” to mediate. Both would also receive supplementary benefits by doing so too: Russia wouldn’t have to worry about whatever compromises it might make being spun for divide-and-rule purposes as “Chinese-dictated”, while the US can present India’s prestigious diplomatic role as proof that the “Asian Century” doesn’t mean a “Chinese Century”.
———-
State Department spokesman Matt Miller confirmed on Monday that “we welcome a role that India or any other country could play” in stopping this conflict, which signaled that it could replace Turkiye if Russia no longer regards the latter as a trusted mediator. Should Delhi be interested, then it should begin talks with both about this right away because time is of the essence as other players vie for the chance to go down in history for helping end the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II.
DC Scholars: Ukraine Conflict Shows World Has Grown Weary of US Hegemony
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 24.06.2023
Despite having the largest military budget in the world and being the largest operator of military bases abroad, the US is far from being a global hegemon, argues a DC-based think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Over the past decades Washington has demonstrated a capacity for mass destruction – in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere – but “it has won no more than Pyrrhic victories” which led to the erosion of trust in Pax Americana both at home and abroad, according to Responsible Statecraft scholars.
The US military spending reached $876.9 billion in 2022, while the nation also operates a whopping 750 foreign military bases. Still, Washington is incapable of persuading the Global South to join anti-Russia sanctions over the latter’s special military operation in Ukraine, the think tank remarks. “If hegemony means the capacity to get other countries to comply with one’s demands, the United States is far from being a global hegemon,” the report notes.
Judging from the so-called Pentagon leak, even some US allies and partners demonstrated hesitance and unwillingness to provide the Kiev regime with shells, jets and armored vehicles. Meanwhile, most nations of the Global South shrugged off the US calls for slapping sanctions on Moscow as contradicting their national interests.
US political observers emphasize that six nations in the Global South – namely, India, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa – are set to decide the future of geopolitics and insist that the Biden administration needs to win their hearts and minds. At the same time, European commentators argue that developing nations have the right to remain neutral and non-aligned.
For instance, in June 2022, India’s External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar shredded the West’s claim that New Delhi was “sitting on the fence.” According to the minister, India is entitled to its opinion when it comes to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
Likewise, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has chosen to collaborate with both the US and China, instead of taking sides. Moreover, ASEAN nations are active participants of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) regardless of Washington’s attempts to maintain its dominance in the region and curb China’s influence in the Asia Pacific.
Per DC scholars, the emerging trend was articulated by Brookings Institution fellow Fiona Hill, former Deputy Assistant to the President of the United States, in May 2023:
“The war in Ukraine is perhaps the event that makes the passing of Pax Americana apparent to everyone. … [Other countries] want to decide, not be told what’s in their interest. In short, in 2023, we hear a resounding no to US domination and see a marked appetite for a world without a hegemon,” she said at a conference in Tallinn, Estonia
According to Hill, the Global South’s resistance to the US and the EU’s demands to slap sanctions on Moscow is nothing short of “an open rebellion.” She noted that “this is a mutiny against what they see as the collective West dominating the international discourse and foisting its problems on everyone else, while brushing aside their priorities on climate change compensation, economic development, and debt relief.”
Western observers also acknowledge that the world’s center of gravity is steadily shifting east, adding that the Biden administration has so far sought to avert this trend by trying to establish “a lasting technological lead over China” and beefing up the US military in Western Pacific.
However, “most developing countries, including emerging powers in the Global South, are no longer willing to make zero-sum choices” between Washington and its geopolitical rivals, DC scholars underscore, urging American policymakers to accept the reality that the US is no longer “the indispensable nation.”
Iran, Regional States to Form Naval Coalition Soon: Navy Commander
Al-Manar – June 3, 2023
Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Shahram Irani announced that Iran’s navy and the countries of the region including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Iraq will form a new naval coalition soon.
Irani in a televised program on Friday night announced the formation of new regional and extra-regional coalitions, saying that today, the countries of the region have realized that the security of the region can be established through synergy and cooperation of the regional states.
Referring to the holding of annual exercises of the naval coalition of Iran, Russia and China, he said that the regional coalition is also forming.
Almost all the countries of the North Indian Ocean region have come to the understanding that they should stand by the Islamic Republic of Iran and jointly establish security with significant synergy, he said, adding that Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Pakistan and India are among these countries.
Earlier, a Qatari website reported that Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman are to form a joint naval force under China’s auspices towards enhancing maritime security in the Persian Gulf.
Al-Jadid carried the report on Friday, saying China had already begun mediating negotiations among Tehran, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi aimed at reinforcing maritime navigation’s safety in the strategic body of water.
Since the 1979 victory of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the Islamic Republic has invariably opposed foreign meddling and presence in the region, asserting that the regional issues have to be addressed by the regional players themselves.
Historical anomaly of unipolarity has indisputably ended
By Andrew Korybko | Global Times | May 11, 2023
There’s a heated debate in the US nowadays about the future of global affairs. Some believe that what’s been described as their country’s unipolar moment is ending and giving way to multipolarity, while others believe that the US remains the world’s most comprehensively powerful country by far. Understanding the current state of international relations can provide policymakers with a clear and accurate picture of the world they are dealing with. This knowledge can help them make informed decisions and take appropriate actions. Americans first began worrying that their country’s predominant role was fading around the start of the Obama administration, which coincided with the 2008 financial crisis. For various reasons, some related to partisan opinions and others to compelling observations about the evolving world order, these concerns continued through the Trump administration and into the incumbent Biden one, but they were recently exacerbated by the start of conventional hostilities between Russia and Ukraine last year.
Several factors since then contributed to raising worldwide awareness of multipolarity, which simply refers to the system of international relations where there isn’t a hegemon like the US was after 1991 or aren’t two superpowers like there were from 1945 up until that year prior to the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Perhaps the most visible one concerns the documented fact that only a little more than three dozen countries joined the US in imposing sanctions against Russia and/or arming Ukraine.
The rest of the world remains neutral in practice despite most countries voting against Russia at the UN General Assembly, which in hindsight didn’t signal the change in policy toward Moscow that the US expected at the time. Some states might have been pressured to vote that way while others wanted to peacefully signal their disagreement with Russia for its military operations in Ukraine. Either way, the lack of any subsequently punitive consequences like those that the US demanded spoke volumes.
This observation is all the more impressive when remembering that many of these same neutral states are comparatively medium- and smaller-sized ones with economies that aren’t anywhere near as large as the US’. The importance in pointing this out is to show how surprising it is that the US couldn’t successfully pressure them into sanctioning Russia and/or arming Ukraine, which speaks to the very real limits of its influence nowadays.
China is already the top trade partner of practically every Global South country, which imbues them with the confidence to refuse the US’ political demands since their leaders believe that they could weather whatever sanctions it could threaten against them as punishment for their defiance. Meanwhile, India’s example of successfully resisting American pressure to sanction Russia and arm Ukraine despite its close ties with the US reassured other states that their own ties with it probably won’t suffer as a result either.
America has a track record of abusing developing countries in myriad ways, including through information warfare, political meddling, and strings-attached loans.
Many of these countries have become deeply resentful of the US after seeing how terribly it treated their beloved homeland, the sentiment of which their leaders sought to channel in strengthening their states’ strategic autonomy upon being given the chance to do so. The start of last year’s conventional Russia-Ukraine hostilities served as the perfect opportunity to do so in a way that would attract the rest of the world’s attention, inspired as they were by independent giants like China and India.
Besides, the center of global economic gravity is shifting away from the Atlantic and toward the Asia-Pacific over the past few decades. This is directly due to the rise of those two aforementioned giants, but especially China, whose Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments helped the rest of the Global South rise as well in its wake. With economic strength comes political influence, and the BRICS countries of which China, India, and Russia are a part want to reform the world.
They rightly concluded that the US-led unipolar system only serves that hegemon’s interests. Such a system is dictatorial due to the US aggressively enforcing its so-called “rules” onto everyone else, unequal in the sense that the West’s economic rise is entirely due to exploiting the Global South, and unjust because international law is wantonly violated by the US. Accordingly, the BRICS are leveraging their economic strength to accelerate reforms aimed at making international relations more democratic, equal, and just.
All Global South states will benefit once the BRICS succeeds with this noble goal, though expectations should responsibly be tempered since it’ll still likely take a lot of time for them to institutionalize their envisaged changes. Nevertheless, the wide awareness of those countries’ selfless mission to humanity was another reason why all of the Global South defied the US at once since they wanted to signal their support for the emerging multipolar world order that’s rapidly replacing the unipolar one.
And finally, everyone apart from the most media-indoctrinated people in the West knows that the world was multipolar for ages, thus meaning that the prior unipolar period that began after 1991 with the Soviet Union’s dissolution is literally a historical anomaly. Never before was the whole world under the control of a single country, but this happened as a result of unique circumstances, not due to the US being “exceptional” like its leaders ridiculously claim.
With this in mind, the entire Global South has an interest in returning international relations to their normal multipolar model that was in place for centuries prior to three decades ago, which is but a very brief moment in terms of the historical spectrum. Their leaders saw that the opportunity to speed up the so-called “return of history” appeared last year with the start of conventional Russia-Ukraine hostilities, which unprecedentedly accelerated the global systemic transition back to multipolarity.
Returning back to the debate that was referenced in the introduction, those Americans who still believe that unipolarity exists therefore aren’t accounting for any of the factors shared in this analysis. Upon doing so, the honest ones among them will realize that this historical anomaly has indisputably ended and been replaced by multipolarity, thus restoring balance to international relations. The global systemic transition still continues, however, since the latest manifestation of multipolarity hasn’t yet fully formed.
The author is a Moscow-based American political analyst. This is the third piece of the “Quest for multipolarity” series. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
Twitter Received 16,000 Information Requests From Over 85 Governments at Start of 2022
Sputnik – 25.04.2023
WASHINGTON – Twitter said on Tuesday that it received more than 16,000 government information requests for user data from over 85 countries in the first half of 2022 alone.
“Twitter received over 16,000 government information requests for user data from over 85 countries during the reporting period. Disclosure rates vary by requester country,” the social network said in a press release.
The United States, France, Japan, Germany and India were the top five requesting countries for the period, the release said.
Twitter also received about 53,000 legal requests from governments around the world to remove content, with the majority of requests coming from Japan, South Korea, Turkey, and India, the release added.
In the first half of 2022, Twitter required users to remove 6,586,109 pieces of content that violated the company’s rules – an increase of 29% from the second half of 2021, according to the release.
China’s Latest Renaming Of Indian-Controlled Disputed Territory Is A Major Development
By Andrew Korybko | April 5, 2023
The decades-long Sino-Indo border dispute owes its origins to the legacy of British colonialism in the Subcontinent but persists to this day due to the complicated dynamics of this issue, which still remains bilateral despite the US’ efforts to meddling in it for divide-and-rule purposes. The latest major development on this front concerns China’s renaming of Indian-controlled disputed territory on Sunday in what Beijing regards as South Tibet but Delhi administers as Arunachal Pradesh.
This occurred one day prior to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning’s perfunctory policy reaffirmation pertaining to her country’s desire to trilaterally cooperate with Russia and India via the RIC platform, which was prompted by a related question regarding Moscow’s new foreign policy concept. The signal being sent is that Beijing won’t back down from its claims to that region, but nevertheless believes that this shouldn’t be an impediment to improving ties with Delhi.
Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, however, reminded everyone of his South Asian Great Power’s official policy late last month regarding the impossibility of normalizing relations with China so long as their border dispute remains unresolved. The reason why China’s third renaming of disputed territory in the past six years is such a major development is because it reduces the chances of a deal whereby it and India turn the Line of Actual Control (LAC) into their official border.
The impending trifurcation of International Relations into the US-led West’s Golden Billion, the Sino-Russo Entente, and the informally Indian–led Global South (within which there are multiple rising powers) could therefore lead to more uncertainty between the last two’s Sino-Indo members. Moscow’s interests are in replicating the Chinese-mediated Iranian-Saudi rapprochement between its fellow BRICS and SCO partners, yet this well-intended scenario is impossible without mutual compromises.
The concept of “face” is immensely important in Asian cultures like China’s, hence why it’s unlikely that Beijing will seriously consider rescinding its enduring claims to Indian-controlled disputed territory after just renaming several areas therein. This insight extends credence to predictions that ties between those two will remain tense for the indefinite future, though this likely state of affairs shouldn’t be misinterpreted as implying that the US will succeed in its plot to divide-and-rule them.
Rather, it simply shows that leading countries with multipolar grand strategies like China and India don’t always see eye-to-eye on every issue, which contradicts the Alt-Media Community’s common misportrayal of all non-Western states as supposedly being united against the US. The reality is that very serious differences persist in Sino-Indo ties, which limits the extent to which they’ll cooperate, potentially even including when it comes to financial multipolarity where they have shared interests.
Looking forward, absent any concessions – whether unilateral or mutual – by either or both of these two claimants, there’s no credible reason to predict that their relations will considerably improve even if they do indeed end up cooperating to a limited extent on certain issues of shared interest. Russia’s goal is therefore to ensure that their “security dilemma” and related perceptions of each other remain manageable otherwise the outbreak of a large-scale conflict between them could doom multipolarity.

