Congress leader Rahul Gandhi marked the start of his three-nation European tour on Thursday. He met with some members of the European Parliament.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi marked the start of his three-nation European tour on Thursday. (File Photo)
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi held closed-door meetings with some members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in Brussels on Thursday, marking the start of his three-nation European tour.
According to sources, the human rights situation in Manipur was among the topics that were raised during his meetings in the Belgian capital. This comes against the backdrop of a resolution entitled ‘India, the situation in Manipur’ which had been adopted by the European Parliament in July.
The discussions in Brussels, which were not listed on the official parliamentary agenda of the day, were described as successful by Opposition party sources.
India in the past has said that the Indian authorities at all levels, including the judiciary, are seized of the situation in Manipur and are taking steps to maintain peace and harmony and law and order.
“The European Parliament would be well advised to utilise its time more productively on its internal issues,” Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said in July when the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the human rights situation in India, with particular reference to the clashes in Manipur.
He added that “such interference in India’s internal affairs is unacceptable, and reflects a colonial mindset”.
“Shri @RahulGandhi at a round table with MEPs in the European Parliament, co-hosted by MEP Alviina Almetsa (Shadow Rapporteur on EU-India Relationship) and MEP Pierre Larrouturou (portfolios within Parliamentary budget, climate & employment generation),” the Congress Party said in a tweet, confirming the meeting.
Later on Thursday, Gandhi attended an event organised by civil society organisations focussed on human rights issues within the European Union (EU). The day concluded with an interaction over dinner with the Belgium-based Indian diaspora.
Chinese President Xi Jinping is giving a miss to G20 Summit in New Delhi. But if experts are to be believed, it might have more to do with Xi’s economic and political problems at home than China’s friction with India.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has recently been reprimanded by Communist Party elders over his policy decisions. (Image: AFP)
Chinese President Xi Jinping was born in the lap of luxury but, as his father was purged during China’s Cultural Revolution, a young Xi had to toil in the farms as a manual labourer in the countryside for 6 years. Those struggles would be nothing compared to the task the all-supreme leader now faces.
Xi is skipping the G20 Summit in New Delhi and experts have failed to pin-point the one big reason why China is sending Premier Li Qiang instead.
It is true that China’s relationship with India has been mostly frosty since the border clashes in May 2020. And it is also possible that the Chinese government decided to send Premier Li Qiang instead of President Xi to send out a signal. But the Chinese government has maintained that it was ready to work with all the parties for the global event’s success in New Delhi this week.
Also, Xi might not want to share the stage with the “tough crowd” at the G20. Many G20 member countries have “hardened their positions on China” in the last decade, said Paul Haenle, director of think-tank Carnegie China, adding, “It’s a tough crowd for Xi”.
What experts are also hinting at is that Xi Jinping’s skipping the India-hosted G20 event could be due to the mounting troubles in China itself. So, is Xi staying back home where the real trouble is?
Given Xi’s focus on domestic issues, he might be unwilling to travel abroad, Alfred Wu, said associate professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore.
“Xi Jinping is setting his own agenda where his top concern is national security and he has to stay in China and make foreign leaders visit him instead,” Wu told Reuters.
Wu says the over-emphasis on security is hurting China’s diplomatic ties and the attempt to rejuvenate its economy. China’s economy is in bad shape, and it is among Xi’s biggest headaches.
Ukraine has made important progress in its counteroffensive against Russia’s invasion, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Wednesday during a visit overshadowed by a Russian attack that killed at least 17 people.
Police officers and rescuers carry the body of a person killed by a Russian military strike in Kostiantynivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine, September 6, 2023. Press service of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine/Handout via REUTERS
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy condemned the attack, which hit a crowded market in the eastern front-line town of Kostiantynivka, which is close to the devastated city of Bakhmut. He said a child was among the dead, and officials said at least 32 people were hurt.
“This Russian evil must be defeated as soon as possible,” Zelenskiy said, describing it as a deliberate attack on a “peaceful city”. Aides posted video footage showing an explosion after what sounded like a missile approaching, and people scurrying for cover or falling to the ground.
Russia did not immediately comment on the attack, and has denied deliberately targeting civilians in its more than 18-month-old invasion, which has shattered towns and cities and killed thousands of civilians.
Blinken, the first top U.S. official to visit Kyiv since the counteroffensive began in early June, announced a new package of U.S. wartime assistance worth more than $1 billion, including support for Ukraine’s air defences.
“In the ongoing counteroffensive, progress has accelerated in the past few weeks. This new assistance will help sustain it and build further momentum,” Blinken told reporters at a news conference with Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba.
Blinken earlier described the progress as important and “very, very encouraging”.
U.S. media reports have cited unidentified U.S. officials as saying the Ukrainian counteroffensive has been too slow and hindered by poor tactics – criticism that angered Ukrainian officials and prompted Kuleba to tell critics to “shut up”.
Ukraine has retaken more than a dozen villages and small settlements in its offensive. But its push into Russian-held territory has been slowed by minefields and trenches.
U.S. officials have not publicly criticised Ukraine’s military tactics, and last week said they had seen progress in the southeast.
The new U.S. aid would include HIMARS missile launch systems, Javelin antitank weapons, Abrams tanks and other weapons systems, White House press secretary Larine Jean-Pierre said. The Pentagon said it would also send depleted uranium ammunition.
Asked about Blinken’s visit, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peso said Moscow believed Washington planned to continue funding Ukraine’s military “to wage this war to the last Ukrainian”.
He said U.S. aid to Kyiv would not affect the course of what he called Russia’s special military operation.
LONG-RANGE MISSILES
Ukraine’s Kuleba said he and Blinken had discussed the U.S. providing ATACMS long-range missiles and he hoped for a positive decision, adding that arming Ukraine was protecting the world from Moscow’s aggression.
The European Union condemned the Russian attack on the market in Kostiantynivka – which took place on the second day of Blinken’s visit to Kyiv – calling it “heinous and barbaric” and said those behind it would be held to account.
When the shells hit, pharmacy employee Diana Khodak saw a flash and shouted to colleagues to lie on the floor. “I heard things falling over, then everything was covered in smoke and fire started,” she said.
Two injured women were brought to the pharmacy, one carried by a soldier. She had a bone protruding from an open leg fracture. “She was very pale. She remained conscious but in shock while she was given first aid,” Khodak told Reuters.
US President Joe Biden will travel to India on September 7, two days before the G20 Summit commences in New Delhi. (Image: Reuters)
US President Joe Biden has tested negative for Covid-19 and will travel to India on Thursday to attend the G20 Summit in New Delhi, the White House said on Tuesday.
The US president will also have a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The announcement comes a day after First Lady Jill Biden tested positive for coronavirus on Monday.
Biden will also be abiding by the CDC guidelines, and will only remove his mask when he is socially distanced from others.
#WATCH | "On Thursday, the President will travel to New Delhi in India to attend the G20 Leaders' summit. On Friday, President Biden will participate in a bilateral with India's Prime Minister Modi. Sunday, the President will participate in official sessions of G20 summit…",… pic.twitter.com/wuh04cVwIX
“The US President will travel to India on Thursday to attend the G20 Summit,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told a press conference at the White House.
President Biden will participate in a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Modi. Biden will participate in the official sessions of the G20 Summit on Saturday and Sunday, he added.
At the G20 Summit, Biden will call for a “just and durable peace” for Ukraine, the White House said.
India, President of the G20, will host global leaders for the Summit scheduled to take place on September 9 and 10 in New Delhi. During the Summit, Biden will commend Modi for his leadership of the G20, the White House said.
On Saturday (September 9) and Sunday (September 10), the President will participate in the G20 summit, where he and G20 partners will discuss a range of joint efforts to tackle global issues, including the clean energy transition and combatting climate change.
They will also mitigate the economic and social impacts of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, and increase the capacity of multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, to better fight poverty, including by addressing global challenges, the White House said.
While in New Delhi, the President will also commend Prime Minister Modi’s leadership of the G20 and reaffirm the US commitment to the G20 as the premier forum of economic cooperation, including by hosting it in 2026, it said.
Russia’s diplomats were once a key part of President Putin’s foreign policy strategy. But that has all changed.
In the years leading up to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, diplomats lost their authority, their role reduced to echoing the Kremlin’s aggressive rhetoric.
BBC Russian asks former diplomats, as well as ex-Kremlin and White House insiders, how Russian diplomacy broke down.
In October 2021, US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland went to a meeting at the Russian foreign ministry in Moscow. The man across the table was Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who Ms Nuland had known for decades and always got along with.
Mr Rybakov’s American counterparts saw him as a practical, calm negotiator – someone they could talk to even as the two countries’ relationship frayed.
This time, things were different.
Mr Ryabkov read Moscow’s official position from a piece of paper and resisted Ms Nuland’s attempts to start a discussion. Ms Nuland was shocked, according to two people who discussed the incident with her.
She described Mr Ryabkov and one of his colleagues as “robots with papers”, the people said (the State Department declined to comment on the incident).
And outside the negotiating room, Russian diplomats were using increasingly undiplomatic language.
American diplomat Victoria Nuland was said to be shocked by Russian diplomats who were “talking like robots”
“We spit on Western sanctions.”
“Let me speak. Otherwise, you will really hear what Russian Grad missiles are capable of.”
“Morons” – preceded by an expletive.
These are all quotes from people in positions of authority at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in recent years.
How did we get here?
A new Cold War
It might be hard to imagine now, but Mr Putin himself told the BBC back in 2000 that “Russia is ready to co-operate with Nato… right up to joining the alliance”.
“I cannot imagine my country isolated from Europe,” he added.
Back then, early in his presidency, Mr Putin was eager to build ties with the West, a former senior Kremlin official told the BBC.
Russian diplomats were a key part of Mr Putin’s team, helping resolve territorial disputes with China and Norway, leading talks on deeper co-operation with European countries, and ensuring a peaceful transition after a revolution in Georgia.
But as Mr Putin became more powerful and experienced, he became increasingly convinced he had all the answers and that diplomats were unnecessary, says Alexander Gabuev, the director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, who is living in exile in Berlin.
Prigozhin and Putin: How a long friendship turned ugly
The first signal that a new Cold War was beginning came in 2007 with a speech Mr Putin made to the Munich Security Conference.
In a 30-minute diatribe, he accused Western countries of attempting to build a unipolar world. Russia’s diplomats followed his lead. A year later, when Russia invaded Georgia, Moscow’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly swore at his UK counterpart, David Miliband, asking: “Who are you to lecture me?”
Western officials still thought it was worth trying to work with Russia. In 2009, Mr Lavrov and the then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressed a giant red “reset button” in relations, and the two countries seemed to be building co-operation – especially on security issues.
But it soon became obvious to US officials that their Russian counterparts were simply parroting Mr Putin’s growing anti-Western views, says Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor to former US President Barack Obama.
Ben Rhodes (L), deputy national security advisor to President Obama, says Putin increasingly ignored his own foreign ministry
Mr Rhodes recalls President Obama having breakfast with Mr Putin in 2009, accompanied by a folk orchestra. He says Mr Putin was more interested in presenting his view of the world than discussing co-operation and that the Russian leader blamed Mr Obama’s predecessor, George W Bush, for betraying Russia.
As the Arab Spring, the US involvement in Libya, and the Russian street protests unfolded in 2011 and 2012, Mr Putin decided that diplomacy wouldn’t get him anywhere, Mr Rhodes says.
“On certain issues – Ukraine in particular – I did not get the sense that [diplomats] had much influence at all,” says Mr Rhodes.
As an example, when Mr Lavrov, the foreign minister, was appointed nearly 20 years ago he had an “international perspective and his own position”, a former senior Kremlin official told the BBC.
The Kremlin used to consult him even when it knew he might have a different view to Mr Putin, says Mr Gabuev.
But when troops were sent into Ukraine in 2022, Mr Lavrov only found out a few hours before the war began, according to a report in the Financial Times.
Putin was said to be more interested in expressing his world views to Obama in 2009 than discussing co-operation
Andrei Kelin, Moscow’s ambassador to the UK, rejects the idea that Russian diplomats have lost their influence. He has worked on relations with Western countries throughout his diplomatic career.
In an interview with the BBC, he refused to concede that either Moscow or individual diplomats bear any responsibility for the collapse of relations with the West.
“We are not the ones doing the destroying,” he said. “We have problems with the Kyiv regime. There is nothing we can do about it.”
He says war in Ukraine is “a continuation of diplomacy by other means”.
Diplomacy as a spectacle
As foreign policy officials became less and less influential, they turned their attention back to Russia. Maria Zakharova, who became the ministry’s spokesperson in 2015, is a symbol of this new chapter.
“Before her, diplomats behaved like diplomats, speaking in refined expressions,” says former foreign ministry official Boris Bondarev, who resigned in protest over the war.
But with Ms Zakharova’s arrival, foreign ministry briefings became a spectacle. Ms Zakharova often yelled at reporters who asked her difficult questions and responded to criticism from other countries with insults.
Spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry Maria Zakharova is known for “theatrical” press briefings
Her diplomatic colleagues were going the same way. Mr Bondarev, who used to work for Moscow’s mission to the UN in Geneva, recalls one meeting where Russia blocked all proposed initiatives, prompting colleagues from Switzerland to complain.
“We said to them: ‘Well, what’s the problem? We are a great power, and you are just Switzerland!’
“That’s [Russian] diplomacy for you,” he says.
This approach was aimed at impressing Russians back home, says Mr Gabuev, the foreign policy analyst.
But an even more crucial target audience for diplomats is their own bosses, according to Mr Bondarev. Official telegrams sent to Moscow after foreign meetings are focussed on how passionately diplomats defended the country’s interests, he explains.
A typical message, according to him, would be something like: “We really gave them a hard time! We heroically defended Russian interests, and the Westerners couldn’t do anything and backed down!”
If everyone writes about “putting Westerners in their place” and you write that you “achieved consensus”, you will be looked at with disdain, he says.
An article in Foreign Policy, a noted US magazine focused on global affairs, has cited the emergence of India as a “major player” in the Middle East as one of the most interesting geopolitical developments in the region in years.
The write-up highlighted New Delhi’s deep and growing ties with major countries in the region, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to assert that the evolution of India’s place reflects the changing international order and the willingness — perhaps even eagerness — of these nations to benefit from the new multipolarity.
There is little that the United States can do about this development and may even in a paradoxical way benefit from it, its author Steven A Cook has argued.
“If the United States’ Middle Eastern partners are looking for an alternative to Washington, it is better that New Delhi is among the choices.
“The US may no longer be the undisputed big dog in the region, but as long as India expands its presence in the Middle East, neither Russia nor China can assume that role,” he asserted.
The author recalled his visit to India around a decade ago to state what had struck him then that Indians did not want to play a larger role in the Middle East.
In the 10 years since his trip, however, things have changed, he said.
“While US officials and analysts are obsessed with every diplomatic move Beijing makes and eye Chinese investment in the Middle East with suspicion, Washington is overlooking one of the most interesting geopolitical developments in the region in years: the emergence of India as a major player in the Middle East,” Cook wrote.
When it comes to the Gulf, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are aggressively seeking ways to expand relations with India, the article said.
It is a significant shift because both countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have long aligned with Pakistan, it says, noting that the pivot to India stems in part from a common interest in containing Islamist extremism but much of the pull is economic.
It highlighted the growing economic ties between India and the two countries to make the point.
On India’s strong ties with Israel, it said they are perhaps the most well-developed of New Delhi’s relations in the region.
These ties have rapidly developed in a variety of fields, notably high tech and defence after Prime Minister Narendra Modi became the first Indian head of government to visit Israel in 2017 and his counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu returned the honour a year later.
South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol speaks at the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., April 28, 2023. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol said on Friday it was necessary to ensure Russia’s invasion of Ukraine does not succeed and that Seoul was considering its options when it came to lethal aid to Kyiv.
In a speech at Harvard University’s Kennedy School on the fifth day of a state visit to mark the 70th anniversary of the U.S.-South Korean alliance, Yoon said the Russian invasion was a violation of international law and the rights of Ukrainians.
“We should prove that such attempts will never reach success, to block further attempts being made in the future,” he said, according to simultaneous translations of his remarks.
Yoon was asked about the possibility of South Korea providing lethal aid to Ukraine, and replied:
“We are closely monitoring the situation that’s going on the battlefield in Ukraine and will take proper measures in order to uphold the international norms and international law.
“Right now we are closely monitoring the situation and we are considering various options.”
On Wednesday, Yoon met U.S. President Joe Biden at the White House and the United States pledged to give South Korea more insight into its nuclear planning over any conflict with North Korea, amid anxiety over Pyongyang’s growing arsenal of missiles and bombs. The two also discussed the situation in Ukraine.
Yoon told Reuters in an interview last week before leaving for the United States that Seoul might extend its support for Ukraine beyond humanitarian and economic aid if it comes under a large-scale civilian attack, signaling a shift in his stance against arming Ukraine for the first time.
Answering another question, Yoon rejected the notion that the Washington Declaration he agreed with Biden meant they were accepting North Korea as a nuclear-armed state, adding that he was against treating North Korea’s possession of the weapons as a disarmament issue.
French President Emmanuel Macron (right) met Chinese leader Xi Jinping during a three-day state visit last week. (Photo: POOL/AFP/NG Han Guan)
French President Emmanuel Macron said in an interview published Sunday that Europe must not be a “follower” of either the US or China on Taiwan, saying that the bloc risks entanglement in “crises that aren’t ours”.
His comments risk riling Washington and highlight divisions in the European Union over how to approach China, as the US steps up confrontation with its closest rival and Beijing draws closer to Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine.
“The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must be followers and adapt ourselves to the American rhythm and a Chinese overreaction,” Macron told media including French business daily Les Echos and Politico as he returned Friday from a three-day state visit to Beijing.
Citing his prized ideal of EU “strategic autonomy”, the French leader said that “we must be clear where our views overlap with the US, but whether it’s about Ukraine, relations to China or sanctions, we have a European strategy”.
“We don’t want to get into a bloc versus bloc logic,” he added, saying Europe “should not be caught up in a disordering of the world and crises that aren’t ours”.
China views democratic, self-ruled Taiwan as part of its territory and has vowed to take it one day, by force if necessary.
Angered by Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen’s meeting last week with US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Beijing launched massive military exercises around the island immediately after Macron departed for France, including simulated strikes on its territory.
“AMBIGUITY”
Macron discussed Taiwan with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Friday, during a visit in which he was feted but more hawkish EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was kept mostly at arm’s length.
His Elysee Palace office said the talks had been “dense and frank” and that the French president was concerned about “growing tensions in the region” that could lead to “a terrible accident”.
Macron was “simply talking about the risk of Chinese ‘overreaction’, forgetting China wishes to change the status quo by taking over Taiwan one way or the other”, Antoine Bondaz of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS) commented on Twitter.
“Why this desire never to recall we have an interest in maintaining stability?” he added, warning that “this ambiguity … instils doubt in our like-minded partners”.
Taiwan island was just one area that risked “an acceleration of tensions breaking out between the duopoly” of China and the US, Macron said.
Military aid, delivered as part of the United States of America’s security assistance to Ukraine, is unloaded from a plane at the Boryspil International Airport outside Kyiv, Ukraine February 11, 2022. REUTERS/Serhiy Takhmazov/File Photo
The U.S. unveiled $2.6 billion worth of military assistance that includes three air surveillance radars, anti-tank rockets and fuel trucks, the Pentagon announced on Tuesday, as Ukraine prepares a spring offensive against invading Russian forces.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Tuesday told the U.S. National Governors Association that the United States could protect its values by helping Ukraine.
“Our cooperation will allow for the new enhancement of your security, for our economy and yours, for jobs in both our countries,” Zelenskiy said by video link.
“The main thing is not to lose time, not to lose the chance we have. Act now, help now. Ukrainians act so that Americans don’t have to fight – and together we gain new strength for our countries,” he continued.
The Russian embassy in Washington reacted to the announcement by accusing the United States of wanting to drag out the conflict as long as possible, Russian news agency TASS said.
“The decision to supply weapons to Kyiv is a step towards escalating the Ukrainian crisis and increasing the number of civilian casualties,” it cited an embassy statement as saying.
The weapons aid package was comprised of $2.1 billion from Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) funding which allows President Joe Biden’s administration to buy weapons from industry rather than from U.S. weapons stocks.
The USAI package included additional munitions for NASAMS air defenses that the U.S. and allies have given to Kyiv, precision aerial munitions, Soviet-era GRAD rockets, anti-tank rockets, armored bridging systems used in assaults, and 105 fuel trailers, along with funding for training and maintenance.
The remaining $500 million came from Presidential Drawdown Authority funds, which allows the president to take from current U.S. stocks in an emergency.
