#INDIA bloc

[taazanewslive24]

जिस बहरामपुर की पिच पर ममता ने उतारा पठान, वहां 52 प्रतिशत मुस्लिम, जानें स‍ियासी समीकरण

Yusuf Pathan Vs Adhir Ranjan Choudhary: पश्‍च‍िम बंगाल में ममता बनर्जी की पार्टी तृणमूल कांग्रेस ‘ऐकला चलो’ की नीत‍ि पर चुनावी मैदान में उतर गई है. व‍िपक्षी दलों के ‘इंड‍िया गठबंधन’ की सहयोगी टीएमसी-कांग्रेस के बीच सीट शेयर‍िंग के मुद्दे पर बातचीत नहीं बनी. ऐसे में अब टीएमसी ने रव‍िवार (10 मार्च) को 42 सीटों पर प्रत्‍याश‍ियों का ऐलान कर कांग्रेस के ल‍िए मुश्‍क‍िलें खड़ी कर दी हैं. टीएमसी ने…

View On WordPress

#Abhishek Banerjee #Adhir Ranjan Choudhary #Berhampur Seat #Congress #Diamond Harbor Lok Sabha Seat #Diamond Harbor Seat #Election 2024 #INDIA Alliance #INDIA Bloc #Lok Sabha Election 2024 #Mahua Moitra #Mamata Banerjee #TMC Candidates List #West Bengal #Yusuf Pathan #अधीर रंजन चौधरी #अभिषेक बनर्जी #इंडिया गठबंधन #इंड‍िया ब्‍लॉक #कांग्रेस #चुनाव 2024 #टीएमसी उम्मीदवारों की सूची #डायमंड हार्बर लोकसभा सीट #डायमंड हार्बर सीट #पश्चिम बंगाल #बरहामपुर सीट #ममता बनर्जी #महुआ मोइत्रा #युसूफ पठान #लोकसभा चुनाव 2024

[ganganews]

Sonia Gandhi Calls for Unity in Opposition Alliance ‘INDIA Bloc

#sonia gandhi #india alliance #india bloc #congress #congress party

[cometchasr]

the 21st may very well be the "indo-pacific century" but it doesnt matter if the west still holds all the power

#mine #in which i reflect on a few cna documentaries #tbh the biggest thing ive learnt from my ponderings #is that india really really needs to be fixed #if they get themselves together they could probably enter the world stage fully #if asia was one big cooperative bloc with good relations #ah well. its a dream

[exportimportdataa]

#trading blocs #regional #world #trade blocs #national #india trade data #trade data #indian trade data #trade data india #trade data of india #indian trade #import export trade data india #import export trade data #import export data #importers

[stirringwinds]

do you like rochu?

sorry anon, but it's personally in the notp corner for me. presently, i find his relationships with other asians like kiku, yong-soo, taiwan, india/aditya, vietnam/lien, hk, singapore etc—or rome, alfred and arthur more interesting to explore. as a chinese person, i'm a little burned out on ro//chu mainly because when i first joined the fandom there were a lot of orientalist depictions reducing yao to this delicate, blushing and sexually-inexperienced character next to ivan. another issue i had generally was the tendency to simplify or completely sever yao's far more deep and important relationships with people like yong-soo, kiku and india to prioritise whiteness, rather than like, inserting russia-china into that context of intra-asian histories.

i think the fandom has improved somewhat in this regard in that I do see more realistic Yao depictions, and i definitely wouldn't generalise all shippers, but that's the reason i couldn't quite 'get' into this ship. also because the perspective i take is the fact that china and the soviet union were competing for leadership of the communist bloc, so yeah, ro//chu as romantic communists for me is kind of...overblown and if anything my take on it is a fairly calculating and at times antagonistic relationship that can be interesting to dig into, but isn't very sentimental. no offense if you ship it; i will be honest that my blog just wouldn't be the right place for that.

#hetalia #hws china #hws russia

[zvaigzdelasas]

[SCMP is Private Hong Kong Media]

Critics, including the US, crammed more than half a dozen condemnations and recommendations into 45-second speaking slots; 163 countries took the floor, in some cases abandoning formal niceties to squeeze in as many points as possible.

“We condemn the ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang and transnational repression to silence individuals abroad,” said US envoy Michèle Taylor, in a breathless intervention that also called for China to repeal “vague national security counter-espionage, counterterrorism and sedition laws, including the national security law in Hong Kong”.

Britain called on Beijing to “cease prosecutions” related to the national security law, “including Jimmy Lai”, founder of the Apple Daily newspaper.[...]

The European Union’s united front on China’s human rights record was breached by Hungary, Beijing’s closest partner within the bloc, which said the review “shouldn’t be used for instrumentalisation of human rights issues”.[...]

By comparison, Germany remained “highly concerned about serious human rights violations, especially Xinjiang and Tibet”.

Austria urged China to “cease destruction of Uygur cultural heritage” and to catalogue what “demolition or damaging of religious sites” or “Uygur, Kazakh or Kyrgyz Unesco-listed cultural items” had already taken place.[...]

India’s envoy took note of “the progress made by China” since its last review and made only soft recommendations, including for Beijing to “continue to play a constructive role in the realisation of aspirations of developing countries”.

Indonesia asked Beijing to “strengthen the protection of freedom of religion or belief for all people”, without elaborating. Mexico and Argentina urged China to be more open with UN inspectors and eliminate “repressive restrictions” on NGOs.[...]

Israel condemned China for its treatment of ethnic Muslims in Xinjiang while the Palestinian envoy, along with other majority Muslim countries in the Middle East, did not.[...]

“We commend China’s commitment to the promotion of humanity’s common values which embrace universal and inalienable human rights,” the Ukrainian envoy said, recommending that Beijing “strengthen democracy” and “expand people’s participation in political affairs”.

Russia praised China’s “impressive progress in the field of social economic development”, which helps it “effectively uphold human rights”.

24 Jan 24

[mapsontheweb]

African Union joins G20

The African Union became the second regional grouping to be admitted to the Group of 20 leading industrialized and developing nations as a full permanent member, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced Saturday at the start of the two-day G20 leaders’ summit in Delhi.

The widely-anticipated move underscores India’s wide-ranging agenda to elevate the global multilateral forum’s focus on the Global South in its presidency of the G20 this year. The 55-member bloc of African nations joins the European Union as only the second regional organization to become a permanent member of the G20.

Full article >>

#maps #g20 #african union #organizations

[elbiotipo]

I'm doing some political fixing to my Campoestela setting...

The main thing that was bothering me is how humans fit. Since this is a setting with multiple sentient species, each with their own civilizations and cultures (because I dislike the recent trend of human-only sci-fi setting, it's an intentional retro throw). However, the main thing here that allows such a diverse setting is the presence of diplomats/traders (because no universal translator!) and standarized equipment. Where did the latter come from, though? If there are older space civilizations than humanity, it must be humans who adapt to that standard, and I'm not nearly creative enough to build an entire alien technology set. If it was humans who "created" space civilization, it would mean they're way too important in the setting and I want humans just to be one civilization out of many.

My solution is that there would be a mix of both; humans have their own set of technology but they have adopted some alien tech and customs. This also throws me back to the early history of this setting. My idea is that humanity spread on its own on the Solar System, developing some standard space technology (perhaps there are equivalents of the Soyuz running around) before they invented FTL and added other alien standards to their own technological base. So human spaceships are similar and quite compatible, but they are very different to other civilizations. FTL is a whole discussion on itself, how did things come from big slow generation ships to aircraft-sized spaceships? I'll deal with that later.

Another thing I was never happy with was with the "Confederación Esteloplatense" thing, it's an ugly name (ironically it sounds better in English, Silverstar Confederation). OF COURSE there is a Space Argentina, and more accurately they are the descendants of the generation ship Esperanza, which had a mostly Argentine crew. But I've decided that, at least loosely, Argentina is part of a larger whole that includes the whole of South America or Latin America. I'm going to call it the Cruzur Union, the Union of the Southern Cross (Cruz del Sur). Rioplatenses, or Esteloplatenses, are just one nation inside of this wider... nation.

To see it from a wider perspective now, I'm picturing humanity in Campoestela much like the Ancient Greeks and Phoenicians (the Poleis model), establishing trading posts, colonies, communities and such all over space, but these are mostly independent from each other and only organized in very loose trade leagues and cultural alliances, with exceptions, there are few truly interstellar states beyond that. This is the Poleis model I made in my Space Empires post.

Ancient Greeks poleis were sorted by dialect and cultures (Doric, Aeolic, Attican, Ionic, real stuff) and their mother cities (the metropolis. And so, the human communities, all very independent and belonging to many overlapping organizations and alliances are also loosely grouped by their origins back on Earth. I'm imagining there were a couple wars and conflicts between the Western Powers (US/Europe) and the Eastern Powers (Russia/China), with other blocs such as the Cruzur, the African Union, the Arab League, India and more eventually overtaking the two. This is in the far past by now, it's like talking about the Habsburgs in the context of the modern European Union.

So, in this context, Beto, our loveable Argentine space trucker, is from the Esperanza Federation (name pending), a loose interstellar trade alliance of the descendants of generation ship of the same name. However, this alliance itself is part of the Cruzur, the old goverment of South America which still has a deep cultural and political influence. And Beto himself considers himself Rioplatense or Argentine, depending on the context. Oh, and he is part of a spacer syndicate that might or might not be international too. And of course he does belong to a wider human civilization or cultural sphere. If this is all complicated, it's because it's supposed to be, this setting is a bit of a reaction against single-culture, single-empire civilizations in space opera.

Why am I not making it the URSAL? Because this is a retro setting in the style of space opera. In real life sooner or later, we're gonna become all Star Trek communists (this is not a joke)

It's funny that this is all just background for a space trucker and a gamer girl having silly adventures.

#cosas mias #campoestela #I'll have to look a bit more on ancient mediterrean poleis and trade to see how I can make this work

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Lula wants Brazil, South Africa, India in UN Council

The president of Brazil defended this Tuesday (22), the opening day of the BRICS Summit, that in addition to Russia and China, the other countries of the bloc have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. He also said he favored the entry of new members into BRICS.

Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defended this Tuesday (22) all members of BRICS – a group currently formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – become permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations (UN). Currently, only Russia and China are. “We need to convince Russia and China that Brazil, South Africa, and India can join the Security Council.”

In Johannesburg, South Africa, for the BRICS Summit (pictured above, the landing), Lula also defended the entry of new members into the bloc. “This is a debate we will have. Also, to allow the entry of new countries, we have to limit [the discussion] to some subject everyone agrees on. If there is no commitment from the countries joining the BRICS, it could become a Tower of Babel. We are building this. From this meeting here, I think something very important could emerge about the entry of new countries. I am in favor of the entry of several countries. We would become strong.”

Continue reading.

#brazil #politics #india #south africa #united nations #brazilian politics #luiz inacio lula da silva #foreign policy #mod nise da silveira #image description in alt #brics

[urbangeographies]

BRICS Adds Six New Members Yesterday, the BRICS group of nations (Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa), announced the bloc's expansion to include six new members: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. It is the first expansion of the group since South Africa joined in 2010. The group of emerging economies has been described as an effort to create a counterweight to Western economic and political dominance and to bring greater relevance to the concerns of the Global South. With China as the group's most powerful member, the group has become more active in developing alternative financial systems, particularly since the imposition of Western-backed sanctions on Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine.

This map depicts the current members of the BRICS group of countries in orange, with the members who have been approved to join the bloc in yellow. Click on the map to learn more.

Source: American Geographical Society. Further Reading:��Reuters, Washington Post, NPR, The Guardian, South China Morning Post, American Geographical Society. Graphic Source: Al Jazeera

#highlight #brics nations #developing world #development #brazil #china #india #russia #south africa

[exportimportdataa]

Top 10 Regional Trading Blocs in the World

Trade blocs are associations of nations that create preferential trade agreements among their members. It is a collection of nations contained within a particular geographic area. Trade blocs are allowed by the World Trade Organization (WTO), but only if they result in less protection from foreign nations than there was before the trading bloc was formed. Preferential trade areas, free trade areas, customs unions, and common markets are the four different forms of trading blocs.

to know more

#wto #trading blocs #regional trading #world #marktes #free trade areas #import export trade data #india trade data #indian trade data #trade data india #import export data #trade data of india

[phenakistoskope]

Last week, I bought a copy of Frontline because I'd been quite enamoured with Aijaz Ahmad's work over the past few months. Ahmad had been an editorial consultant with Frontline for years, contributing over eighty articles to the publication, articles that I will track down one day, by hook or by crook, but that's not the point.

My copy of Frontline is dated April 5th 2024, and it begins with an article written by Satish Deshpande, whose economic and sociological scholarship I am unfamiliar with, but whose occasional contribution to The Economic and Political Weekly I am familiar with, especially the essay Caste and Castelessness: Towards a Biography of the ‘General Category’, which has been useful to my understanding of caste.

The essay in Frontline is called A Leap Year for Indian Democracy? and it walks me through the ravages of the BJP's tenure at the helm of the Indian parliament, its part in the disintegration of the democratic institutions of the state, including the courts, bureaucracy, law enforcement, and public universities. It muses about the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition, the INDIA bloc, and professes support for anything but the NDA.

What struck me about the essay was, first, the assertion that the Emergency called by the Indira Gandhi led Congress government in 1975-1976, "seems almost innocent" compared to the atrocities of the BJP lead government. While I would agree that the political foundations that underwrote the Emergency were certainly different from the political underpinnings of the current hindutva regime, the ascription of innocence, even in passing, to a brutal regime is a distortion of history, it seems flippant at best and deeply disturbing at worst.

Second, the essay ends with a personal anecdote where Deshpande recounts his part in the elections of 1977, that is, the year the Indira Gandhi led Congress was ousted from the centre. He calls it an "inspirational anecdote", where Deshpande and twenty or thirty of his compatriots campaigned for the Janata Party, and Deshpande himself was assigned to campaign for Atal Bihari Vajpayee, of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, despite despite the author's political leanings "going strongly against the Jana Sangh".

Somehow, Deshpande manages to disclose that he played a small, insignificant part in the rise of the hindutva regime of our times, and in the same breath, denounce it profusely. I'm not going to denounce Deshpande based on this essay, but I do wonder whether Frontline itself limits political enunciation in a certain ways, I know Vijay Prashad has also contributed to Frontline in the past, and that The Hindu Group acquired Frontline, some time after 1994 (Frontline began publication in 1984, The Hindu Group was established in 1994, I'm making educated guesses).

But perhaps the limits of what a publication can say are determined by the advertising that pays for its publication. Now, The Hindu Group clearly has a diverse portfolio of advertisers under its belt, but I am going to consider only the advertisements printed in the particular issue of Frontline on my desk.

There are three adverts in this copy of Frontline, one inside the front cover, and two more on either side of the back cover. I shall elide the place of book reviews, book, film, and art recommendation as advertisements to expedite the analysis. The advertisements are as follows:

Inside the front cover is an advertisement for Rau's IAS Study Circle, a private tuition service which prepares students and civilians for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and Indian Administrative Services (IAS) exams; private tuition for public posts. The fees for the courses and rehearsal tests range from ₹8,000 to ₹175,000.

Inside the back cover is an advertisement for Gujarat Maritime University, another private institution, which teaches many courses relating to the maritime industry, but none of them concerned with actually operating sea-faring vessels.

The back cover is an advertisement for Galgotias University, established under the Uttar Pradesh Private Universities Act no. 12 of 2019, and offers a wide range of courses, and, to quote the advertisement — "In keeping with the grand vision of our Hon'ble PM Shri Narendra Modi Ji for making India a Vishwaguru, and staying committed to the dream of our Hon'ble UP CM Shri Yogi Adityanath Ji for making our state a truly Global Knowledge Superpower" (emphasis in original)

I haven't had a chance to read all the essays and articles in this issue of Frontline, that will be accomplished over the next week, nor have I any past issues to compare advertising patterns with. However, I am quite certain that political positions are limited within Frontline's pages, mainly by advertising, but, this does not imply that the limits cannot be transcended in calling for a complete restructuring of India's political economy.

#phenakistoskope.txt #this has been an effortpost

[kp777]

By Jon Queally

Common Dreams

Sept. 9, 2023

"Fossil fuels are killing us, and the G20's reckless failure to act will be measured in further lives and livelihoods lost," said one campaigner who noted the refusal by rich nations to pledge a phaseout of oil, coal, and gas.

Climate groups cried foul Saturday after an agreement generated at the G20 summit in New Delhi, India failed to see the world's wealthiest bloc of nations make anywhere near the kind of climate commitments—namely an agreement to phase out fossil fuels—required to address the planetary emergency fueled by greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenpeace described the lackluster pledge, which came in the form of a joint G20 communique, as an "incomprehensible failure" in the face of a runaway climate crisis that continues to wreak havoc, death, grave injustice, and economic disaster for working people across the globe.

"Despite record-shattering temperatures, raging wildfires, drought, floods and other climate disasters over recent months impacting tens of millions of people, G20 leaders have collectively failed to deliver anything meaningful on climate change this year," said Tracy Carty, a global climate politics expert for Greenpeace International.

"Fossil fuels are killing us, and the G20's reckless failure to act will be measured in further lives and livelihoods lost," Carty added. "Leaders failed to reach agreement on the phaseout of coal, oil and gas. They also made a timid commitment to triple renewables, but only through 'existing targets and policies.'"

Alex Rafalowicz, director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative, also expressed dismay with the lack of ambition shown by the G20 leaders.

"World leaders, particularly rich countries, need to rise to the occasion and fulfill their fair share of responsibilities in the fight against the climate crisis. Anything less would be an affront to both humanity and our planet."

"Continued dependence on fossil fuels remains a primary driver of climate change, carrying dire and irrevocable consequences for ecosystems, communities, and the global economy," Rafalowicz said in a statement on Saturday.

The failure by the richest nations in the world "to come up with anything substantial on fossil fuel phaseout is unacceptable," he said. "World leaders, particularly rich countries, need to rise to the occasion and fulfill their fair share of responsibilities in the fight against the climate crisis. Anything less would be an affront to both humanity and our planet."

The G20 summit in India comes ahead of one-day United Nations climate summit that kicks off in New York City next week and a meeting of the UN General Assembly. While a major protest march by hundreds of climate-focused groups is planned for Sept. 17, the global movement calling for a just energy transition has seen few signs of hope as increasingly severe extreme weather events and dire warnings from the scientific community continue in the face of rising emissions.

UN Secretary General António Guterres, who is hosting what he's dubbed the "Climate Ambition Summit" in New York, suggested his disappointment with the G20's limited statement.

"Half-measures will not prevent full climate breakdown," Guterres said Saturday afternoon. "Today I urged the G20 to demonstrate far more ambition on reducing emissions and supporting climate justice. We have one planet. Let's save it."

While some applauded the G20 for the vow to ramp up renewables by the end of the decade, critical experts said an increase in green energy is simply not enough if fossil fuel companies are allowed to continue to extract and burn oil, gas, and coal.

"The G20's commitment to triple renewable energy is a historic step—a glimmer of hope in our battle against climate chaos," said Andreas Sieber, associate director of global policy at 350.org, but added that it was still not time to celebrate.

"We must hold them accountable, demand they phase out fossil fuels, and lead with urgency," Sieber added. "In particular, rich nations who bear the most responsibility for climate change must provide the finance required to achieve a tripling of renewable energy capacity globally by 2030.”

Avinash Chanchal, campaign manager at Greenpeace India, said the lack of concrete financing commitments from the rich nations makes such lofty goals around renewables hard to stomach, especially as these top polluting countries remain responsible for 80% of global emissions.

According to Chanchal, "G20 developed countries have utterly failed to take concrete steps to increase international financial support for climate action. Existing promises such as providing USD100BN per year until 2025 in climate finance remain unfulfilled, and merely reiterating these promises in the G20 declaration is useless and will not lead to tangible change."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

JON QUEALLY Jon Queally is managing editor of Common Dreams. Full Bio >

350.OrgClimate EmergencyFossil Fuel Non-Proliferation TreatyFossil FuelsGreenpeaceIndiaG20

#G20 #350.org #greenpeace #fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty #fossil fuels #climate emergency #climate change #Climate crisis #planetary emergency #greenhouse gas emissions

[mariacallous]

Under a simpler and more stable global order, the United States would likely be concentrating its efforts on building an international coalition to counter China. But conflict and instability around the globe—first in Ukraine, and now the Gaza Strip, in particular—are dividing U.S. attention, diplomatic bandwidth, and military resources. Washington’s virtually unconditional support for Israel in its war against Hamas has generated global outrage—and cast China in a comparatively favorable light.

China has certainly taken advantage of this anti-American sentiment and is using it as an opening to position itself as a constructive player in the Middle East and broader global south, following its successful brokering of a breakthrough deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran last March. After taking over the rotating presidency of the United Nations Security Council last November, China’s U.N. ambassador declared that addressing the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians was the body’s top priority. Later that month, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs published its own peace plan, calling for an immediate cease-fire and affirming the need for a two-state solution.

Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated these points at an extraordinary virtual summit of BRICS—the economic bloc then comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—convened in November to address the situation in the Middle East. And earlier this month, China called for an international peace conference to determine a “binding roadmap” for determining the future of the Palestinian people.

China’s engagement with this war can be understood as part of a broader strategy to displace U.S. diplomatic hegemony by promoting multilateralism that is both resistant to Western dominance and susceptible to Chinese influence. Part of this strategy is rhetorical: Chinese officials tout their commitment to mutual respect and so-called win-win cooperation, contrasted against the United States and other Western powers whose dealings they characterize—implicitly or explicitly—as unilateral and bullying.

But China is also taking substantive action at an institutional level. This involves both joining and forming multilateral forums that exclude the United States, including the decades-old Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which focuses on security and counterterrorism in Central and South Asia, the recently expanded BRICS group, and Beijing’s newly established Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative.

This strategy also involves challenging the United States in shared multilateral forums. In the U.N., China has repeatedly criticized the United States for vetoing two Security Council resolutions calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. China also vetoed a U.S.-sponsored resolution that condemned Hamas for the Oct. 7 attack against Israel (which China itself has refrained from doing) and called for the immediate release of all hostages as well as “humanitarian pauses” to let in aid.

Thus far, China has stood only to gain from its own and other countries’ efforts to address the Gaza crisis through multilateral institutions. It can now credibly claim to have amplified non-Western calls for a cease-fire, humanitarian relief, and a two-state solution while taking the United States to task for obstructing them.

However, the recent charge of genocide brought forth against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the U.N.’s principal judicial body, complicates Beijing’s calculus. The case was lodged in late December by South Africa—a BRICS country and a key player in a region that China views as critical to its economic and geopolitical agenda.

Although the ICJ typically takes years to reach a verdict, it may issue “provisional measures” to prevent further potential crimes within a matter of days or weeks, as South Africa has requested.

The problem for China is that it, too, stands accused of genocide and crimes against humanity for its treatment of the Uyghurs and other minorities in the province of Xinjiang. If momentum builds behind the Israel case, it could also spur new multilateral action on Xinjiang, especially if South Africa is seen as having improved its international standing by initiating the proceedings.

Simply put, the more China elevates the forums responsible for resolving conflicts and protecting vulnerable populations, and the louder it trumpets its own leadership in the process, the greater the diplomatic cost will be to silence or ignore collective calls to hold China accountable for human rights violations in the future.

Importantly, no state has formally lodged genocide allegations against China with the ICJ. The United States and several of its allies have independently claimed that China has committed genocide against the Uyghurs, and the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights concluded in August 2022 that China had committed serious human rights violations that “may constitute… crimes against humanity.”

However, in October of that year, a majority of the U.N. Human Rights Council voted against or abstained from voting for a proposal to even discuss the findings of that report.

China vehemently denies these accusations and has persuaded representatives from many states—including numerous Muslim-majority ones in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—to endorse its policies in Xinjiang. In any event, although China is a party to the 1948 Genocide Convention, it does not accept compulsory jurisdiction of the court—nor do France, Russia, or the United States, for their part—and can also take comfort in the fact that the ICJ lacks an independent enforcement mechanism, relying instead on the U.N. Security Council (where China has veto power) to determine the practical effect of any verdict or provisional measures.

Still, China is skeptical of any procedure that could be cited as precedent by an external body to try to constrain its behavior on internal matters, or any decision that could serve as a model for galvanizing global opposition against Beijing. Just last October, China’s U.N. ambassador reiterated his country’s opposition to “politicizing human rights,” including on “Xinjiang- and Hong Kong-related issues.”

In this context, there are striking parallels between Israel’s case and that of Myanmar. In November 2019, amid international outrage at Myanmar’s treatment of its Rohingya minority, Gambia brought a charge of genocide to the ICJ. In January 2020, the court issued provisional measures ordering the Myanmar government to protect the Rohingya while the case proceeded. However, the following month, China (together with Vietnam, a rotating member of the Security Council at the time) blocked a vote on a joint statement by the Security Council.

This is far from an isolated incident. In 2021, for instance, China blocked a Security Council statement condemning the military coup in Myanmar that year. More recently, it unusually blocked a U.S. effort to post an online broadcast of a March 2023 Security Council discussion of the human rights situation in North Korea.

Of course, self-interested manipulation of U.N. procedures is hardly unique to China, and the United States has been widely condemned for what many member states view as its selective diplomatic sheltering for Israel.

But the ICJ case against Israel is particularly notable because it crystallizes the tension between the two roles that China aims to play on the international stage: the champion of multilateralism, standing up against the United States; and the defender of sovereignty, trumpeting the right of states to handle domestic problems—especially when it comes to terrorism and security—without foreign interference.

Chinese officials have so far remained quiet on Israel’s case. At a press briefing earlier this month, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning acknowledged the case and stated that the Chinese “oppose any action that violates the international law and urge parties to the conflict to earnestly implement relevant resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council and General Assembly, reach an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire and stop the collective punishment against the people of Gaza.”

China’s response to any provisional measures imposed by the ICJ on Israel on Friday will be an important indicator of how it will reconcile this tension. Precedent and the continued sensitivity of the Xinjiang issue suggest that Beijing may determine that its safest bet is to veto any binding resolution that the U.N. Security Council might issue to enforce an ICJ ruling.

On the other hand, Beijing’s unprecedented embrace of multilateralism means that stymying U.N. action will leave it more vulnerable than ever to charges of hypocrisy. Ironically, however, as long as China can count on a veto by the United States against any efforts to coerce Israeli restraint, it may be able to keep playing both roles.

[max1461]

I recently made the claim that the phrase "the West" was incredibly overloaded, and some people were skeptical. In an effort to demonstrate this, and also just because I enjoy list-making as an activity, here is a list of East/West dichotomies that are or have been prominent in various discourses:

"The West" as the Western Roman Empire, "the East" as the Eastern Roman Empire. This is, as far as I can tell, the chronologically original sense of the dichotomy.

"The West" and "the East" as the Latin West and the Greek East in medieval Europe, entrenched by the East-West Schism between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is essentially a continuation of the former usage.

"The West" as Europe and its American colonies, "the East" as Asia. In this sense synonymous with "the Occident" and "the Orient", respectively. This dichotomy in itself is ambiguous, with "the Orient" principally referring to the Middle East and India or principally referring to East Asia depending on time and place.

Related to the above, "the West" as Europe and its colonial outposts, vs. everybody else (usually not called "the East" in this usage).

"The West" as the American frontier, "back East" as the US East coast. Cowboys, man.

"The West" as the Western bloc, i.e. the liberal world, and "the East" as the Eastern bloc, i.e. the socialist world.

"The West" as rich countries in general, vs. everybody else.

The ambiguity is increased by the fact that each of these terms can either A.) be purely geographical, or B.) denote a broader cultural traditional which is assumed to characterize the given region.

I've mentioned before that I am extremely dubious of the idea that there is some kind of unified "Western culture" which includes everybody from the Ancient Greeks up through the modern US, but people's usage of "the West" tends to take the existence of such a culture as presupposition.

Anyway, the point is that if you say "the West", you may or may not be including historical Greece (1-2 vs. 3-7), may or may not be including Japan and Korea (1-5 vs. 6-7), may or may not be including Eastern Europe (3-4 vs. 1, 2, 5, 6, and maybe 7, depending on time period and worldview), and may or may not be including anywhere in Latin America (4? vs. others), and may or may not be talking about cowboys (just for fun). You also may be speaking purely geographically, or using the term "Western" as synonymous with democratic and/or capitalist (6), Catholic (2), having "Enlightenment values" (3, 4), being evil (4), being rich (7), or, you know, wild cowboy ruggedness (5).

And my point is, no matter your political persuasion... do you really want all this baggage in your terminology? Do you really want to outsource your categorization scheme, your thinking, to 2000 years of telephone? I don't. That's why I don't like this term. Thankfully "the East" has mostly dropped out of usage in all the senses above—and indeed, it was always the worse of the two terms—but "the West" sadly sticks around.

Yes, I know there is no better term in many cases. There is, in particular, no word for "the set of regions including Europe and those former and current European colonies whose populations are in the majority of European descent". It would be good to have a word for this. But we don't. And thus we should come up with one.

However, we do have unambiguous terms for many of the other characteristics on this list. We have for instance:

Latin Christian and (Eastern) Orthodox Christian,

Europe, North America, South America, and Asia, and Africa. Also Western Europe, Eastern Europe, East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and others,

Colonial, as an adjective, as in "colonial states",

the Western bloc, the Eastern bloc, also individual adjectives like democratic, liberal, socialist, etc.

rich economies and poor economies, also adjectives like industrialized, agrarian, technicalized, etc.

And as far as I'm concerned, we should toss out the notion of "Western culture" as a coherent entity all together, because I really don't think such a thing can be shown to exist. Or rather, insofar as you believe it's a coherent entity, you have to demonstrate that. I am rather tired of the onus being placed on people who are skeptical of this notion to demonstrate that it is (at best) very slippery, rather than being placed on the people who invoke this notion to justify that it is sensible and useful.

In summary: say what you mean! Don't use polysemous terminology to package together many qualities which you have not justified as principally or necessarily co-occurring!

#society

[malanginternationalmun]

Ideological Battle at UNEP Council: Between New Technology and Environmental Concerns

Fadly Rizky Dermawan - CNN

Editorial Day Three, February 7, 2024

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Council witnessed heightened tension between two main blocs, creating intriguing dynamics in the global debate on energy and the environment. The first bloc, comprising Vietnam, USA, South Korea, Algeria, and Germany, stood against the second bloc involving Russia, China, Colombia, India, and South Africa.

Initially, the first bloc faced a setback in crafting a resolution draft due to unpreparedness. However, tension escalated when the second bloc promptly presented their proposal sponsored by China. The proposal involved a series of steps to address energy challenges and environmental impacts.

First Bloc: Sustainability and Alternative Solutions

Despite failing to produce a resolution draft, the first bloc's delegates reiterated their stance against Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. The Vietnamese delegation, vocal in their opposition, highlighted that CCS is not only ineffective in addressing emissions but also has adverse environmental impacts.

Second Bloc: Advanced Technology and CCS Option

Led by China, the second bloc maintained the view that advanced technology, including CCS, is necessary to tackle global energy challenges. Despite the first bloc highlighting costs and effectiveness, the second bloc remained consistent with their stance. China, as the bloc leader, provided a detailed presentation of their resolution draft.

In their presentation, China emphasized the need for monitoring energy security solutions, awareness campaigns, and the restructuring of energy availability. They argued that these solutions would help achieve sustainability goals and address environmental impacts arising from coal usage.

Struggle in Amendments and Challenges to the Resolution Draft

Tension reached its peak when the first bloc attempted to amend the second bloc's resolution draft. Key points of the amendments included the rejection of CCS and an emphasis on alternative solutions deemed more environmentally friendly.

The second bloc, with strong discipline, defended advanced technology and sought to convince that CCS remains a viable option in addressing energy challenges. They underscored the importance of investing in technologies that can provide long-term solutions.

However, the first bloc's efforts to amend the draft were unsuccessful, and the disagreement created uncertainty in reaching a global agreement on energy and the environment.

Exclusive Interview with the Vietnam Delegation

After intense debate, we had the opportunity to interview the Vietnam delegation, one of the vocal voices against CCS. The delegation explained that, despite the first bloc failing to produce a resolution draft, they remained consistent in rejecting CCS.

"CCS is not an effective solution, and its high cost is not justified by its benefits. We support more sustainable solutions, such as refrigeration, which can address energy challenges without leaving negative impacts on the environment," stated the delegation.

Overall Perspective and Challenges for the Future

The UNEP battle mirrors global efforts to address energy and environmental challenges. While one bloc emphasizes sustainability, the other values advanced technology, notably CCS. This struggle presents an ongoing ideological debate, leaving the world anticipating a collective resolution.