Commentary ,World ,Asia

By extending the 1961 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Shared Assistance for an additional 20 years, North Korea and China restored their diplomatic ties in July 2021.

Following the invasion of Ukraine, with Russia and North Korea continuing to party like the ancient Russian times, Russian President Vladimir Putin contacted Kim for weapons. Kim gained the tacit support of Beijing and Moscow for his nuclear and missile programs as a result of their new connection.

In addition to terminating the 2018 military agreement with South Korea and remilitarizing the inter-Korean borders, North Korea is today comfortable enough to create a “tactical nuclear hit” on the country.

A DIFFERENT APPROACH IS MADE BY SOUTH KOREA’S YOON SUK-YEOL.

Kim might gain a number of advantages if Trump returns to the White House. Trump is likely to increase pressure on South Korea to add more to the alliance and threaten to reduce US military presence in the area as a interpersonal leader. At the same time, Trump is the kind of person who would want to rekindle personal ties with Kim in an effort to triumph over Biden’s mediocre North Korea plan.

Even so, Trump wo n’t have an easy time crossing the same river twice because Yoon Suk-yeol, the current president of South Korea, approaches North Korea very differently than his liberal predecessor Moon Jae-in.

Continue Reading

REDISTRIBUTION OF POWER

The typical objective outlined in their mutual declaration was the” transfer of power in the world ,” an ending to US supremacy, and the redefining of democracy and human rights as whatever a given state says they are, regardless of whether Putin disclosed to Xi specifics of his impending plans to invade Ukraine at their 2022 meeting.

For certain, Xi didn’t foresee Russia’s war machine being humiliated in Ukraine or that the West may react by uniting and expanding rather than by imploding, any more than Putin did. In a similar vein, it’s unlikely that Xi anticipated the latest Middle East blaze when the two officials met in February 2022.

However, trouble in Ukraine or the Middle East is a gain for China in terms of an all-out political conflict with the US. Both rely on US tools and focus. Both challenged the status quo. Options for Xi may arise as the US becomes involved in Israel’s retaliation against Hamas in Gaza and its partnerships with the Gulf Arab state will become strained.

Therefore, China has avoided any open criticism of Hamas while criticizing Israel for its social punishment of Palestinians in reply, only as Putin quickly laid the blame for the horrifying attack on Israeli civilians at the entrance of the US.

Putin and Xi are doubling down on their achievements in convincing the so-called Global South that the issue isn’t Russian anger in Ukraine or Hamas’ hideous criminal deeds in Israel, but rather the continued colonization of the US and Europe by courting the Arab world in this way.

Never mind the Taiwanese detention of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province or the Russian destruction of Muslim Tatars in the occupied Crimea. The Arab injustice, with its imperial overtones and extensive background in centuries of conflict over control of the Holy Land, can infuriate the Arab Street unlike any other, which is why the story works.

But be prepared for Xi and Putin to deliver more vehement anti-Western messages this year. They may have experienced some financial and military failures, in Russia’s case, but they are making good progress when it comes to uniting various countries behind their produce.

Continue Reading

Otherwise, it appears that Trudeau and Modi’s meet at the recent G20 summit in New Delhi— where the Nijjar shooting was discussed— was a train crash for all time.

Trudeau claimed that he” individually and directly” brought Modi the charges. In contrast, Canada is accused of supporting a” nexus” of religious extremism and” organised crime, drug cartels, and human prostitution” in the official Indian display of the meeting.

People Assistance AND Clarity

There are many things about this situation that we still don’t understand. The standard American theory that the French establishment is rife with Sikh separatist movement sympathizers who have influenced a murder investigation with extreme viewpoints may end up having some merit.

What matters right now is that the American government cooperates as openly as it can while the Canadians carry out an analysis in the most transparent manner possible.

We may therefore acknowledge that there is a subjective difference between this and previous American plan on fanaticism worldwide if there turns out to be enough proof that this was savagely committed by the state.

Yes, it is true that New Delhi is thought to have killed insurgents who were in exile in Pakistan in the past. However, even when relations with the West were much worse than they are now, the larger community has always been off limitations.

This case will undoubtedly be cited by Modi’s supporters when he runs for re-election in the following year as additional proof of his efforts to transform India from a weakened state to one that is strong.

However, having the ability to travel across continents and murder those you fear is one thing; it is quite another to do it in a way that denigrates your friends and the ideals they- and you, presumably— hold dear. India may ending up looking much more like Rwanda or Russia than Israel or the United States to the rest of the world.

Continue Reading

We are political scientists whose research interests include changes to the global order and emerging alternative centres of power. In our view, it won’t be easy to expand the bloc. That’s because the group is still focused on harmonising its vision, and the potential new members do not readily make the cut.

Some may even bring destabilising dynamics for the current composition of the formation. This matters because it tells us that the envisioned change in the global order is likely to be much slower.

Simply put, while some states are opposed to Western hegemony, they do not yet agree among themselves on what the new alternative should be.

EVOLUTION OF BRICS

BRICS’ overtly political character partially draws on a long history of non-alignment as far back as the Bandung Conference of 1955. It was attended mostly by recently decolonised states and independence movements intent on asserting themselves against Cold War superpowers – the Soviet Union and the United States.

BRICS has come to be viewed as challenging the hegemony of the US and its allies, seen as meddling in the internal affairs of other states.

Reuters estimates that more than 40 states are aspiring to join BRICS. South African diplomat Anil Sooklal says 13 had formally applied by May. Many, though not all, of the aspiring joiners have this overtly political motivation of countering US hegemony.

The other important incentive is access to funds from the BRICS’ New Development Bank. This is especially pronounced in the post-COVID climate in which many economies are yet to fully recover. Of course the two can overlap, as in the case of Iran.

The notable applicants have included Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Ethiopia, Argentina, Algeria, Iran, Mexico and Turkey.

EXPANDED BRICS

A strategically expanded BRICS would be seismic for the world order, principally in economic terms.

Key among the club’s reported priorities is reduction of reliance on the US dollar (“de-dollarisation” of the global economy). One of the hurdles to this is the lack of buy-in by much of the world. Though some states may disagree with the dollar’s dominance, they still see it as the most reliable.

Continue Reading

Until then, the more common term for developing nations – countries that had yet to industrialise fully – was “Third World”.

That term was coined by Alfred Sauvy in 1952, in an analogy with France’s historical three estates: The nobility, the clergy and the bourgeoisie. The term “First World” referred to the advanced capitalist nations; the “Second World”, to the socialist nations led by the Soviet Union; and the “Third World”, to developing nations, many at the time still under the colonial yoke.

Sociologist Peter Worsley’s 1964 book The Third World: A Vital New Force In International Affairs further popularised the term. The book also made note of the Third World forming the backbone of the Non-Aligned Movement, which had been founded just three years earlier as a riposte to bipolar Cold War alignment.

Though Worsley’s view of this Third World was positive, the term became associated with countries plagued by poverty, squalor and instability. Third World became a synonym for banana republics ruled by tinpot dictators – a caricature spread by Western media.

The fall of the Soviet Union – and with it the end of the so-called Second World – gave a convenient pretext for the term “Third World” to disappear, too. Usage of the term fell rapidly in the 1990s.

Meanwhile “developed”, “developing” and “underdeveloped” also faced criticism for holding up Western countries as the ideal, while portraying those outside that club as backwards.

Continue Reading

Even allowing for the 12 nautical mile (22km) territorial seas claimed off the Chinese mainland, Taiwan, and adjacent small islands, given the breadth of the Taiwan Strait legally it is one in which there exists either an exclusive economic zone or a high seas corridor.

Unlike Bass Strait, Torres Strait, and the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, the Taiwan Strait is not governed by certain provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that recognise the right of transit passage through recognised “international straits”. 

The Taiwan Strait is so wide that there is no need for passing vessels to enter the territorial sea, and consistent with UNCLOS exclusive economic zone or high seas navigation can safely be undertaken through the middle of the strait.

AN INTERNATIONAL MARITIME HIGHWAY

The strait is therefore effectively a form of international maritime highway because of its breadth. The US position that high seas freedoms of navigation apply in the Taiwan Strait is a view shared by other foreign navies, including Australia. 

The so-called maritime “rules of the road” in this instance are embedded in the COLREGS (Collision Regulations), which lay down accepted practices and standards for how all shipping is to conduct itself so as to avoid collisions at sea. 

These rules are ones that navies apply and respect during peacetime, and are generally considered to be the baseline standard of professional conduct for all mariners at sea.

Continue Reading

In the aftermath of the bombing, both the Japanese military government and the US occupation sought to erase any mention of the seismic event, denying the lethal effects of the bomb on the human body and censoring survivors’ stories.

As Kyoko Gibson, 75, who lives in the UK but is from Hiroshima, said recently in a talk: “Can you imagine if you had to watch those you care for undergoing excruciating suffering”? The hibakushas were determined not to be seen simply as victims and submit to becoming the unfortunate collateral damage of Japan’s surrender on Aug 15, 1945.

Nobel Prize-winning author Kenzaburo Oe described in successive autobiographical works how his life was changed for the better by a conversation with a hibakusha he interviewed for his 1965 book Hiroshima Notes. He went on to champion their cause throughout his life, arguing that the chief lesson of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a lesson in self-reflection.

If they listen to the harrowing stories of survivors in Hiroshima, the G7 leaders might find, emotionally and rationally, that signing up for Kishida’s action plan and an attendant agreement on the policy of no-first-use is the only moral option.

This could help create much-needed space for proper debate across divides. Will they take this opportunity?

At the moment the biggest threat to world peace is arguably still what philosopher Bertrand Russell and physicist Albert Einstein described in 1955 as the threat to us all: Weapons of mass destruction. The stories of Hiroshima’s hibakushas should stand as an enduring warning against this grave human folly.

Elizabeth Chappell is PhD Candidate in the Department of English Language & Literature at the Open University. This commentary first appeared on The Conversation.

Continue Reading