The trade deal between India and the European Union is as much about geopolitics as it’s about intercontinental business relations.

The EU is already India’s largest partner with trade in goods reaching $142.3bn (£104.07bn) in 2024, amounting to 11.5% of the South Asian nation’s total trade. India is the EU’s ninth largest trading partner.

These are impressive numbers and reflect strong relations. And yet, trade talks were stuck for two decades.

That raises the question: what’s changed now? The answer lies in the fast-evolving geopolitical landscape and the unpredictability of the US administration under President Donald Trump.

The US leader has used tariffs as a bargaining chip in some negotiations but he has often used them to punish countries, including partners, which don’t agree with his worldview.

The US has imposed 50% tariffs on Indian goods, which include a 25% penalty for Delhi’s refusal to stop buying oil from Russia.

Some EU countries recently faced fresh tariff threats from Trump as the US president was put out by their refusal to accept his proposed takeover of Greenland. He later withdrew the threat, but experts say it did rattle the EU.

The EU and India are not alone in looking to hedge their bets when it comes to the US – the free trade agreement (FTA) in Delhi was secured amid a flurry of countries striking deals and patching things up as they try to cope with global unpredictability.

The EU-India pact – the seventh trade deal India has completed recently – comes after Brussels signed a trade accord with South American trade bloc Mercosur earlier this month after 25 years of negotiation. Experts say the Trump factor helped speed that up too, though it’s now facing legal challenges in Europe.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney – who warned of a “rupture” in the post-war international order last week – is just back from a visit resetting ties in China which will boost trade ties, drawing Trump’s ire and fresh threats of 100% tariffs. Carney is also due to travel to India in the near future, with trade high on the agenda. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is heading to Beijing this week, accompanied by dozens of British business executives, following years of strained ties with China.

Against this backdrop, the India-EU trade deal, which is still subject to ratification, assumes greater geopolitical significance as it achieves more than just trade results – for both Brussels and Delhi.

It sends a message to Trump that global powers have started to look at ways to club together to protect themselves against his administration.

“One could argue that the Trump factor provided a very strong impetus to the deal because both India and the EU are facing shock US tariffs that they never expected,” said Michael Kugelman, senior fellow for South Asia at the Atlantic Council.

He added that Trump is a big reason why the EU and India have been able to overcome most of their differences and put issues they couldn’t resolve on the back-burner for future negotiations.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen both called Tuesday’s agreement “the mother of all deals”.

“This is the tale of two giants – the world’s second and fourth largest economies – two giants who choose partnership in a true win-win fashion, a strong message that co-operation is the best answer to global challenges,” said von der Leyen, standing beside Modi after they exchanged agreements.

“By combining these strengths, we reduce strategic dependencies at a time when trade is increasingly weaponised… We are not only making our economies stronger – we are also delivering security for our people in an increasingly insecure world.”

Modi said the global order is in “great turmoil” and the trade deal would strengthen supply chains globally.

“This means it is not just a trade agreement. This is a new blueprint for shared prosperity,” he said.

The two leaders’ may or may not have intended the deal to annoy the Trump administration, but they appear to have done exactly that.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told ABC News on Sunday that the EU was “financing the war against themselves” by signing a trade deal with Delhi.

He was referring to India’s purchase of Russian crude, which US officials have often said was indirectly financing Moscow’s war in Ukraine. India has always denied this, saying the purchase of Russian oil secures energy needs of millions of its people.

The time-tested Delhi-Moscow relations are also the reason why India has been reluctant to abruptly cut business ties with Russia. It has long relied on Moscow for military hardware but today’s deal will help it build on already strong defence ties with France as it looks to diversify its defence imports portfolio with other European nations too.

The India deal also gives the EU access to another huge market and may help it reduce its reliance on China in the future.

“India will also look at this partnership as a way to counter China’s dominance in global trade, which it envisaged doing with the US. But it’s a different state of play right now. The EU likewise sees India as a useful country to partner within its own efforts to counter China,” Kugelman added.

But it’s worth remembering that behind the chest-thumping headlines, there is still plenty of work to do for both India and the EU. While negotiations around the deal have concluded, the formal signing of the agreement will take a long time..

World Opinion + BBC News

L’article Trump’s shadow looms over India-EU trade deal est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Following the death of Pope Francis, ​​the Catholic Church begins an election process which has remained unchanged for 800 years.

When the newly elected Pope Francis stepped onto the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica in 2013 to greet the crowd, he joked that the cardinals had gone “to the end of the world” – his native Argentina – to find a new pontiff.

Indeed, the conclave, stunned by the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, had been actively looking beyond Europe for a powerful communicator bold enough to take on the leadership of an institution plagued by sexual and financial scandals.

But as 135 cardinals, those under the age of 80, as per the voting rules, prepare to gather for a new papal conclave following Francis’s death, Vatican analysts say electors now appear to be looking for a sober and unifying figure who can piece together an institution shaken by his revolutionary style and bring stability to the Church’s central government.

“Francis was chosen because he would not have been afraid to create chaos and reform. The next pontiff must be someone who can calm things down,” said Andrea Gagliarducci, a Vatican analyst at the Catholic News Agency.

Striving for unity

Back in 2013, the goal was to shift the Church’s centre of gravity from Europe to Latin America – an indication of the growing influence of Christians there – and to restore order in the Curia, the central government of the Holy See that had come to be viewed by many as corrupt and dysfunctional.

Pope Francis did not shy away from the task. Throughout his papacy, he shook the status quo by radically shifting tone, style and priorities, causing excitement among reformers, but dismay among conservatives who accused him of diluting the Church’s teachings.

His reforms, such as allowing priests to bless same-sex couples (in certain circumstances) and overhauling the Vatican’s bureaucracy, infuriated many. His unpredictable governing style, which relied on a small group of confidantes and reduced the power of the Church’s central government, stirred tensions.

But Francis also frustrated some of the more liberal-leaning voices as his changes never seemed to translate into fundamental reforms in the Church’s doctrine, especially when it came to the role of women in the Church and same-sex marriage.

There is a consensus that the cardinals must focus on choosing a reassuring figure – someone who will not undo past progress, but equally will not push boundaries excessively.

“We must move towards a pope who finds unity in the diversity of the Church, maintains love for the poor, attention for the most marginalised, but who also rebuilds, and not restores, the governing institutions of the Church,” said Massimo Franco, a political columnist for Corriere della Sera and author of eight books about the Vatican.

Names have started to float around. A strong contender is Louis Antonio Tagle, 65, a close ally of Pope Francis and a progressive. If chosen, the Filipino would become the first Asian pontiff. There is also Cardinal Peter Erdo from Hungary, 72, a traditionalist and theologian known for opposing divorced Catholics receiving communion and his anti-migrant views. From the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo, 65, is known for his stance on human rights and anticorruption efforts.

Among Italians, the most recurrent name is Pietro Parolin, 70, the Vatican’s secretary of state, who played an important diplomatic role and was a central figure in Pope Francis’s leadership. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, 60, was the Vatican’s top official for Middle East affairs, and his experience in the region gained him widespread respect.

Looking to the Global South

Geographically speaking, the choice has never been wider. During his tenure, Francis appointed 80 percent of the cardinals who will vote at this conclave, and effectively changed the face of the clerical leadership by making it far more representative of the Global South.

The voting cardinals currently hail from 65 countries – many from Africa, Asia, South America and Oceania, with those from Europe now representing 39 percent of the total, compared with 52 percent in 2013. There are also fewer North Americans than there were before Pope Francis was elected.

This means that, for the first time, there will be more cardinals from the Global South than from Europe, even though Europeans still represent a relative majority.

Cardinals from the Global South have tended to be strongly aligned with Pope Francis’s push for progress on issues such as social justice, migration, climate change and ending the conflict in Gaza and Ukraine – even when that meant angering Western leaders who often expected the pontiff to take a stronger stance against Russia, or a softer one on Israel.

In one notable case during US President Donald Trump’s first presidency from 2017 to 2021, the pope spoke against the US-Mexico border wall, saying a person who builds walls instead of bridges was “not Christian”. Trump snapped back at the time, saying the pope’s questioning of his faith was “disgraceful”.

A more conservative outlook?

The Global South’s stronger presence in the conclave may ensure that such positions will not be overlooked by the Church going forward, said Marco Politi, a Vatican expert and author of the book, Pope Francis Among the Wolves.

Advertisement

Still, being appointed by Francis does not necessarily translate into supporting his vision on all fronts. “Some of the new elected cardinals from the Global South are more conservative when it comes to social and gender issues, especially concerning the role of women and homosexuals’ rights within the Church,” said Politi.

For instance, DRC’s Cardinal Ambongo, who was made cardinal by Francis in 2019, was a staunch opponent of Francis’s push to allow priests to bless same-sex couples. The pushback was such that the pope was forced to dilute a 2023 landmark ruling and allow blessings only as long as they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies, nor given in contexts related to civil unions or weddings.

Another factor is that many of the cardinals barely know each other and, for at least 80 of them, this will be their first conclave and their first encounter with the complexities of the Church’s central government – an “intimidating” prospect even for those accustomed to it. Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, joked to the BBC that he had thought the conclave would “pass me by” as he is only a few months off his 80th birthday. When he was informed that the pope was seriously ill, he realised: “Oh Lord, this is going to come my way.”

“The pope wanted to appoint cardinals from distant countries to increase the internationalisation of the Church, but they might have little knowledge of the structure of the Church as a world body that governs 1.4 billion people,” said Politi.

Advertisement

While a date has not yet been set for when the cardinals will be sealed in secrecy inside the Sistine Chapel to vote for the next pope, for the next nine days, they will gather twice per day for pre-conclave meetings inside the Vatican.

It was at one of these congregazioni, as the meetings are called in Italian, before the 2013 conclave, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave a speech that propelled him to prominence. A few days later, he became Pope Francis.

All cardinals, including those over 80, can attend these meetings. As they present their positions on what they believe are the main issues the new pope should tackle, they may offer a clue as to just what kind of figure they are looking for.

World Opinions + Al Jazeera

L’article Pope wanted: What are cardinals looking for in a new leader?.. Video est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Leading presidents and prime ministers from around the world are meeting for the annual G20 leaders’ summit in India’s capital, Delhi, from 9-10 September.

Narendra Modi is an authoritarian figure who, as India’s prime minister since 2014, has pushed his country into increasingly becoming a “de facto ethnic democracy”, in which Hindus define the national identity and non-Hindus are seen as second-class citizens. Yet as the host of the upcoming talks of the world’s 20 largest economies, Mr Modi will be feted by major global leaders – except his absent fellow strongmen Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.

Mr Modi’s dangerous majoritarianism is too easily overlooked by the west, as the G20 glad-handing will show. India had been considered an exemplary liberal parliamentary democracy among developing countries. This is being slowly dismantled by Mr Modi’s brand of Hindu nationalism. State intimidation has seen civil society harassed and critics jailed. A report by a group of prominent lawyers last year warned that “the administration of law has become the means by which … the Muslim community can be kept in a state of perpetual fear”. Since May, the north-eastern Indian state of Manipur has been burning, with its valley Hindus and highland Christians sinking into bloody fighting. Mr Modi’s party blames non-Hindus for the violence.

The Indian prime minister shares the ideological viewpoint of Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen in France and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. Mr Modi claims India suffered 1,000 years of servitude: 750 years of Muslim rule, plus 250 years of British rule. Pulling down, or discarding, symbols of that history – mosques, mausoleums, Lutyens’ Delhi buildings – is excused, in this thinking, because this represents a national, Hindu resurgence. Mr Modi tellingly speaks of 1,000 years of rule to come.

The west thinks that it must keep stumm because it needs India to contain China. But at what cost to democracy and human rights? Mukul Kesavan, an Indian historian, wrote earlier this year that when the White House rolled out the red carpet for Mr Modi, “One of the more entertaining things about [his] visit has been the sight of [Joe] Biden welcoming a foreign leader who had openly campaigned for his predecessor and liberal bête noire, Donald Trump.”

Last year, Gothenburg University’s annual report on the state of global democracy warned of a wave of “autocratization” spreading around the world. Since 2020, the report said, India has not been a working democracy but an “electoral autocracy” similar to that in Russia. All is not lost. India’s next general election will provide a chance for the public to have its say – though how much remains to be seen, given that a peer-reviewed paper suggested that in 2019 Mr Modi won around 11 seats by suppressing the Muslim vote. Its author, a respected economist, quit after his university failed to back him. The arrival of the opposition Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, otherwise known as INDIA, has also unsettled Mr Modi. Perhaps peeved at being opposed by “INDIA”, Mr Modi wants to respond only to the country’s Sanskrit name “Bharat”.

India’s prime minister says the G20 should let the global south shape the world’s future. As Human Rights Watch pointed out this week, “many proposed summit topics – debt crises, social protection programs, food security, climate change, internet freedom – are at their root about human rights”. Britain has its own share of democratic backsliding. But if Mr Modi desires successful outcomes then he, like all autocratic leaders, should understand why his actions at home undermine the arguments he wants to promote abroad.

Western democracies are wrong to overlook a country’s descent into electoral autocracy because they believe they need it to contain China

What is the G20?

The G20 – or Group of Twenty – is a club of countries which meets to discuss plans for the global economy.

Between them, G20 countries account for 85% of the world’s economic output and 75% of world trade. They contain two-thirds of the global population.

The members are the European Union and 19 nations – Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK and the US. Spain is always invited as a guest.

A smaller group of G20 member countries meets as the G7.

Some of the G20 member nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – have formed a separate group called Brics.

This is due to expand, having invited six other nations to join at its recent summit: Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

What does the group discuss?

The issues discussed by G20 leaders have broadened in recent years from just economics to include issues such as climate change, sustainable energy, international-debt forgiveness and taxing multinational corporations.

Every year, a different G20 member state takes over the presidency and sets the agenda for meetings.

Indonesia held the presidency in 2022, and the leaders’ summit was held in Bali.

As 2023 president, India wants the Delhi event to concentrate on sustainable development, as well as measures to spread economic growth more evenly between developed and developing countries.

The summit also provides an opportunity for one-to-one discussions to take place alongside group sessions.

The White House says that US President Joe Biden will talk to individual leaders about tackling climate change, Russia’s war in Ukraine, and getting global organisations such as the World Bank to do more to fight poverty.

However, the Kremlin says Russia’s President Vladimir Putin will not be attending the summit, and it’s been widely reported that China’s President Xi Jinping will also stay away.

Are there any controversial issues for G20 countries?

Russia’s war in Ukraine is likely to cause discord at the Delhi summit.

In March 2022, the G20 foreign ministers were unable to reach agreements at their meeting because of fierce arguments over the war between the US and Russia delegations.

At the Bali leaders’ summit in November 2022, discussions were dominated by a crisis involving missiles from the war falling on Poland’s side of the border with Ukraine.

In May, China and Saudi Arabia boycotted a G20 meeting on tourism which was held in Indian-administered Kashmir because the Kashmir region contains territory claimed by Pakistan as well as India.

A row has also broken out between India and China over a long-running border dispute, after Beijing released a map which claims the state of Arunachal Pradesh and the Aksai Chin plateau as Chinese territory.

What does the summit mean for India?

India has been positioning itself as a leading voice of developing countries known as the Global South in recent years and G20 is seen as its chance to deliver on these promises on a bigger stage.

The summit also comes ahead of the 2024 general elections in India and could bolster Mr Modi’s image as a leader who commands respect on the global stage.

The government has held hundreds of meeting across some 50 cities in the run-up to the summit in Delhi.

For months, cities and towns have been dotted with shiny billboards featuring the G20 logo and Mr Modi’s photos, framing the event as the prime minister’s earnest attempt to bring the world to India.

Mr Modi also appears to share a personal rapport with many of his G20 counterparts, including President Biden who accorded him a coveted state visit in June.

That said, the summit is not expected to be a breeze for India, given the current complex geopolitical situation.

Many economies are still struggling to recover from the pandemic and have grown increasingly anxious about the war and its economic impact, with global surges in food and energy prices.

Why is there a ‘family photo’?

At the end of key summits, the heads of government often pose for a group photograph, known as the “family photo”.

However, the diplomatic discord revealed by the image sometimes makes headlines in its own right.

In 2018, following the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was largely ignored, and made to stand at the far end of the group.

What has the G20 achieved?

At the 2008 and 2009 leaders’ summits, during the financial crisis, leaders agreed a host of measures to rescue the global economic system.

But some critics argue that subsequent summits have been less successful, often as a result of tensions between rival world powers.

However, bilateral meetings at the summit have often proved constructive.

In 2019, at Osaka, then-US president Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to resume talks to settle a major trade dispute.

Do G20 summits attract protests?

Big demonstrations often take place around the leaders’ summits.

Anti-capitalist protesters demonstrated at the 2010 summit in Toronto and the 2017 summit in Hamburg.

Thousands of demonstrators marched during the 2018 summit in Rio de Janeiro to protest against the G20’s economic policies.

In 2009 Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper seller, died after he was caught up in protests during the G20 summit in London.

World Opinions +The Guarasidian + BBC NEWS + Agencies

L’article View on India’s G20 summit: a backsliding democracy gets to play host est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

India has launched its first observation mission to the Sun, just days after the country made history by becoming the first to land near the Moon’s south pole.

Aditya-L1 lifted off from the launch pad at Sriharikota on Saturday at 11:50 India time (06:20 GMT).

It will travel 1.5 million km (932,000 miles) from the Earth – 1% of the Earth-Sun distance.

India’s space agency says it will take four months to travel that far.

Congratulations all the #ISRO & entire Team 😊👏

Aditya L1 successfully launch! 🚀😍

1st Solar Mission of #INDIA 🇮🇳🌞🛰️#AdityaL1MissionLaunch #SolarMission #ISRO #isroindia #AdityaL1 #MissionAdityaL1 #INDvsPAK #AsiaCup2023 pic.twitter.com/1mzSs08xpl

— Vivek Shah (@VivekCenation30) September 2, 2023

India’s first space-based mission to study the solar system’s biggest object is named after Surya – the Hindu god of Sun who is also known as Aditya.

And L1 stands for Lagrange point 1 – the exact place between Sun and Earth where the Indian spacecraft is heading.

আজ ২রা সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০২৩ বেলা ১১টা ৫০ মিনিটে অন্ধ্রপ্রদেশের শ্রীহরিকোটা থেকে সফল উৎক্ষেপণ করা হলো 𝐀𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲𝐚 𝐋𝟏(আদিত্য এল ১)-কে।🇮🇳🚀❤☀️#𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐎🛰 #𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲𝐚𝐥𝟏𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 🚀#𝐀𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲𝐚𝐋𝟏 #𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐚𝐫 #𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐎 #𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧🇮🇳 pic.twitter.com/TmyJ6EpSye

— Amar kowner (@AmarKowner) September 2, 2023

According to the European Space Agency, a Lagrange point is a spot where the gravitational forces of two large objects – such as the Sun and the Earth – cancel each other out, allowing a spacecraft to “hover”.

Once Aditya-L1 reaches this “parking spot”, it would be able to orbit the Sun at the same rate as the Earth. This also means the satellite will require very little fuel to operate.

Launches made by ISRO in 2023:
1. SSLV-D2/EOS-07 Mission.
2. LVM3-M3/OneWeb India-2 Mission.
3. PSLV-C55/TeLEOS-2 Mission.
4. GSLV-F12/NVS-01 Mission.
5. LVM3-M4/Chandrayaan-3 Mission.
6. PSLV-C56/DS-SAR Mission.
7. PSLV-C57/Aditya-L1 Mission.#ISRO #ISROMissions #ISRO_ADITYA_L1 pic.twitter.com/u5KJtWTP33

— Subhashis Das (Shann) (@das_shann) September 2, 2023

On Saturday morning, a few thousand people gathered in the viewing gallery set up by the Indian Space Research Agency (Isro) near the launch site to watch the blast off.

It was also broadcast live on national TV where commentators described it as a “magnificent” launch. Isro scientists said the launch had been successful and its “performance is normal”.

#AdityaL1 #ISRO pic.twitter.com/Kw170SUD7P

— CharanRaj (@thecharanraj) September 2, 2023

After an hour and four minutes of flight-time, Isro declared it “mission successful”.

“Now it will continue on its journey – it’s a very long journey of 135 days, let’s wish it [the] best of luck,” Isro chief Sreedhara Panicker Somanath said.

Project director Nigar Shaji said once Aditya-L1 reaches its destination, it will benefit not only India, but the global scientific community.

#AdityaL1Launch #AdityaL1#AdityaL1MissionLaunch #ISRO#AdityaL1 #MonzaGP #oafchttps://t.co/xVDteVt4hf

— NextPMRahul24 (@NextPMRaGA) September 2, 2023

Aditya-L1 will now travel several times around the Earth before being launched towards L1.

From this vantage position, it will be able to watch the Sun constantly – even when it is hidden during an eclipse – and carry out scientific studies.

Isro has not said how much the mission would cost, but reports in the Indian press put it at 3.78bn rupees ($46m; £36m).

Isro says the orbiter carries seven scientific instruments that will observe and study the solar corona (the outermost layer); the photosphere (the Sun’s surface or the part we see from the Earth) and the chromosphere (a thin layer of plasma that lies between the photosphere and the corona).

The studies will help scientists understand solar activity, such as solar wind and solar flares, and their effect on Earth and near-space weather in real time.

Former Isro scientist Mylswamy Annadurai says the Sun constantly influences the Earth’s weather through radiation, heat and flow of particles and magnetic fields. At the same time, he says, it also impacts the space weather.

“Space weather plays a role in how effectively the satellites function. Solar winds or storms can affect the electronics on satellites, even knock down power grids. But there are gaps in our knowledge of space weather,” Mr Annadurai told the BBC.

India has more than 50 satellites in space and they provide many crucial services to the country, including communication links, data on weather, and help predict pest infestations, droughts and impending disasters. According to the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), approximately 10,290 satellites remain in the Earth’s orbit, with nearly 7,800 of them currently operational.

Aditya will help us better understand, and even give us a forewarning, about the star on which our lives depend, Mr Annadurai says.

“Knowing the activities of the Sun such as solar wind or a solar eruption a couple of days ahead will help us move our satellites out of harm’s way. This will help increase the longevity of our satellites in space.”

The mission, he adds, will above all help improve our scientific understanding of the Sun – the 4.5 billion-year-old star that holds our solar system together.

India’s solar mission comes just days after the country successfully landed the world’s first-ever probe near the lunar south pole.

With that, India also became only the fourth country in the world to achieve a soft landing on the Moon, after the US, the former Soviet Union and China.

If Aditya-L1 is successful, India will join the select group of countries that are already studying the Sun.

Japan was the first to launch a mission in 1981 to study solar flares and the US space agency Nasa and European Space Agency (ESA) have been watching the Sun since the 1990s.

In February 2020, Nasa and ESA jointly launched a Solar Orbiter that is studying the Sun from close quarters and gathering data that, scientists say, will help understand what drives its dynamic behaviour.

And in 2021, Nasa’s newest spacecraft Parker Solar Probe made history by becoming the first to fly through corona, the outer atmosphere of the Sun.

World Opinions + BBC News

L’article Aditya-L1: India successfully launches its first mission to the Sun.. Video est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

As they mark six years of exodus in Bangladesh, young refugees demand the tools that would allow them to take charge of their lives and futures.

Six years have now elapsed since the world watched 700,000 Rohingya flee from Myanmar to Bangladesh in search of safety. About half of them were children and young people. What was expected to be a short-term refuge has become another protracted crisis. Those who fled as children have now reached the age of adolescence; those who were teenagers are now adults.

Like most children, they aspire to become doctors, engineers, teachers, sports stars, and artists – a stark contrast to their reality. Living in the world’s biggest refugee camp, surrounded by barbed-wire fences, Rohingya refugees are blocked from accessing formal education, earning an income, and moving freely through or beyond the camp.

In such conditions, what hope they can have to build the kind of future they dream of? There should be scope for them to improve their lives, be it through education or paid work.

Many of the young Rohingya I have met as part of my work at these camps tell me they feel forgotten by the world. They tell me the barriers between them and the life they want for themselves engulf them with a sense of despair. They say their voices go unheard and that they have lost the right to dream. This sense of helplessness has a visceral impact on their mental health.

A 2022 survey of 317 refugee youth and adolescents across 11 camps conducted by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) found that 96 percent of the respondents were unemployed and that they constantly feel anxious and stressed.

Amin is a young Rohingya I know well. Six years ago, he was a high-school student in his home country. He planned to go to university and become a lawyer. Then one day, his village was burned down, and his relatives were killed before his eyes. Scared for their lives, he and his family walked for 10 days before crossing the border to reach safety in Bangladesh.

Like many others, Amin assumed he would only be in Bangladesh for a short time. But the vastly different reality has struck him hard. Now, with every passing year, little by little, his aspiration to become a lawyer is drifting away and he feels ever more helpless. He does not even know if he will ever be able to resume his education.

Life for girls and young Rohingya women is even more challenging. They spend most of their time within the four walls of congested bamboo homes. Learning centres, providing limited non-formal education, work as a safe space for women and girls. There they can learn to read and build friendships and bonds with other young people. However, many girls are not allowed by their families to attend. Instead, it’s very common for girls to get married before they turn 18 due to social pressure and safety concerns.

Fifteen-year-old Ayesha told me she misses her life before she fled. Back then, she had the freedom to spend time with her friends in the garden outside their home. Now she says her home is too crowded and she barely has any privacy. She has to spend the entire day at home. It feels like a prison to her.

Sadly, there are thousands of stories like those of Amin and Ayesha. At the age of energy and enthusiasm, young Rohingya spend their days by roadside shops or inside their shelters. With nowhere to channel their energy, they are growing weary and restless.

The recent cuts that reduced food rations to just 27 cents a day have become a bitter cherry on top of their situation. The community, especially the young generation, is even more desperate for employment than before.

“How long are we going to be aid-dependent like this?” one young refugee asked me. “We do not enjoy being totally aid dependent. This is our age of working and earning. This latest ration cut is an indication that it is high time we start earning our own money.”

It is critical that donors and decision-makers listen to these young people. They have the right to determine their own future, and to influence how aid dollars are invested in programmes to support them.

A recent assessment conducted by NRC found that Rohingya youth and adolescents are eager to receive vocational training and build technical knowledge, which will help them earn money to support themselves and their families. Some of this training is available, but much more must be provided, and existing initiatives expanded.

For example, some Rohingya youth are being trained on how to repair solar panels while others are trained in tailoring. Alongside this training, the youth now need opportunities to use their newfound skills to earn a living for themselves. And to do that donors, governments and private institutions must put their hands in their pockets and invest further in these initiatives.

Given the opportunity, these young people will be a huge asset to their community and Bangladesh. But the government and donor community must work to provide the tools. Only that way, can young Rohingya have a real chance to take charge of their own futures.

By Sadia Rahman Communications Officer for the Norwegian Refugee Council in Bangladesh/ ALjazeera

L’article Analysis. Rohingya youth long for a future beyond the barbed wire est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

With Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi slated for a June 22 State Visit to Washington, India will, if briefly, be front-page news in the United States. Since President Clinton ended a chill in U.S.-India relations almost 25 years ago, successive American and Indian administrations across political parties have worked to strengthen ties.

So it’s fair to ask: how robust is this relationship today? As with the blind men and the elephant, the answer varies. Is India a bad bet, or is it, as the White House senior Asia policy official said recently, “the most important bilateral relationship with the United States on the global stage”?

Despite careful nurturing by Washington over the years, many aspects of U.S. ties with India remain challenging. Bilateral trade has grown tenfold since 2000, to $191 billion in 2022, and India became the ninth-largest US trading partner in 2021. But longstanding economic gripes persist, meriting 13 pages in the 2023 Foreign Trade Barriers report from the U.S. Trade Representative.

Multilaterally, India’s role in the fast-consolidating “Quad” consultation (comprised of the United States, Australia, India, and Japan) has brought shared purpose to Washington and New Delhi, both of which harbor concerns about China. But New Delhi also champions alternative non-Western groupings like the BRICS, and it remains outside bodies central to U.S. diplomacy like the U.N. Security Council and the G7.

Today, U.S.-India cooperation spans defense, global health, sustainable development, climate, and technology, among other things. But deep differences remain, including concerns in Washington about India’s democratic backsliding under Modi, and India’s failure to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In other words, the U.S.-India relationship has been transformed over the past quarter-century, but that transformation has not delivered a partnership or alignment similar to the closest U.S. alliances.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. India is not a U.S. ally, and has not wanted to become one. To see relations with rising power India as on a pathway that culminates in a relationship like that the United States enjoys with Japan or the United Kingdom creates expectations that will not be met. Indian leaders across parties and over decades have long prioritized foreign policy independence as a central feature of India’s approach to the world. That remains the case even with Modi’s openness to the United States.

For India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, protecting his country’s hard-fought independence was a guiding principle for foreign policy. Speaking in the Indian Parliament in March 1951, Nehru noted that “By aligning ourselves with any one Power, you surrender your opinion, give up the policy you would normally pursue because somebody else wants you to pursue another policy.” Twelve years later, evaluating his country’s nonalignment policy in the pages of Foreign Affairs, Nehru went on to observe that it had not “fared badly,” and that “essentially, ‘non-alignment’ is freedom of action which is a part of independence.”

American President Harry S. Truman shakes hands with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on the tarmac as Nehru’s sister, diplomat Vijaya Pandit, and daughter, future Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, stand with them, in Washington D.C., on October 11, 1949.

PhotoQuest/Getty Images)

For famously allied Washington, nonalignment in the 20th century was a bridge too far; in 1956 then-Secretary of State John Foster Dulles proclaimed that neutrality was “an obsolete conception…immoral and shortsighted.” It did not help matters that the United States had entered an alliance with India’s arch-rival Pakistan in 1954, and sided with the Pakistani military in the bloody civil war that gave birth to Bangladesh in 1971. Nor, too, when Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi signed a “Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation” with the USSR in 1971, definitively tilting India toward the Soviet Union even as the United States had tilted toward Pakistan.

Especially since the end of the Cold War, Indian leaders have sought to improve ties with Washington, but not by curtailing India’s independent approach to foreign policy. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee proclaimed India and the United States “natural allies” in a landmark 1998 speech in New York. Yet this was perhaps more a term of art than a call for an alliance as it occurred against the backdrop of India’s nuclear tests, underscoring New Delhi’s willingness to upset global nuclear nonproliferation conventions, which it never joined. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whose 10 years at the helm greatly improved Indo-U.S. relations, pursued a civil-nuclear agreement with Washington and ushered in new cooperation in high technology, defense, and clean energy. But his government too defended its principle of “strategic autonomy” as a redline for its foreign policy even as it moved closer to Washington than ever in the past. Defending the civil-nuclear deal with Washington before Parliament in 2008, Singh twice asserted that “Our strategic autonomy will never be compromised.”

In important ways, Prime Minister Modi represents a break with India’s past, most notably in his emphasis on India’s Hindu, rather than syncretic and secular, cultural heritage. But his approach to the United States remains consistent with the history of his country’s foreign policy independence.

Modi has deepened ties with the United States, now across three U.S. presidents, through increased partnership in defense, in advanced technology, and in energy, just to name a few, as well as through moments of high symbolism, like his 2015 Republic Day invitation to former President Barack Obama, the first time an American president joined this day honoring India’s constitution. Even so, Modi has leaned into the United States while leaning into many other partners around the world. The Modi government invokes a Sanskrit saying, the “world is one family” (vasudhaiva kutumbakam), to frame Indian diplomacy. This approach has been termed “multialignment,” a theory of seeking positive ties as far and as widely as possible, without seeing contradictions in this approach.

In practice, New Delhi has carefully managed its relationships with Saudi Arabia as well as Iran; with Israel as well as the Palestinian Territories; with the United States as well as Russia. India’s G20 presidency this year encapsulates this orientation, with its Sanskritic theme of “One Earth, One Family, One Future,” and its twin efforts to lead the forum for the world’s 20 largest economies while self-consciously presenting itself as the “Voice of the Global South.”

With this history in mind, it’s easier to perceive that momentum in the U.S.-India relationship does not necessarily imply a path to a formal alliance or mutual defense treaty. In the United States, the mental model for positive international cooperation defaults to seeing “ally” as the ultimate endpoint. For India, that suggests a curtailment of independence. And with India, even as cooperation becomes more extensive than ever in the past, consequential differences remain.

For many in Washington, the dramatic growth of coordination and joint activities under the Quad consultative group fills a growing need in light of China’s rise, encompassing subjects as far-flung as maritime security, infrastructure, climate and resilience, vaccines, technology standards, and higher education—all underlining Indian strategic convergence with the United States in the Indo-Pacific. Yet strategic convergence there does not mean everywhere: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its year-long war has elicited a tepid tut-tut from New Delhi, while India has escalated its purchases of cheap Russian oil at a time Washington seeks to isolate Moscow.

On closer examination this foreign policy independence and desire to define its own path so prized by India may offer lessons for U.S. foreign policy. The unipolar moment has passed; in its place we have more actors with their own perspectives, and a rising China with global ambitions and its own priorities increasingly shaping the priorities of others. The array of special relationships and alliances nurtured by the United States over decades are still in place, but many of these are now inflected by divergences with Washington. Take Turkey, or France, or Egypt, Pakistan, or Brazil. These U.S. allies do not always see their alliance relationship with Washington as barriers to taking decisions that contradict U.S. preferences. Indeed, President Emmanuel Macron too invokes “strategic autonomy.”

It’s here that India’s ambivalence offers a lens onto the world Washington is likely to encounter on a growing scale. In this world of more diffused power—a world with more diverse actors taking more distinctive foreign policy steps—partnerships and even alliances marked by substantial disagreements might be the new normal. In fact, managing ambivalence may be the central skill for American foreign policy in the years ahead.

World Opinions – Time.com

L’article Analysis. India Is Not a U.S. Ally—and Has Never Wanted to Be est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Alors que les chefs d’État des sept pays les plus industrialisés se réunissent à Hiroshima du 19 au 21 mai, des rumeurs contradictoires circulent quant à la venue du président ukrainien au Japon. En attendant, Volodymyr Zelensky s’est rendu ce vendredi en Arabie saoudite pour le sommet de la Ligue arabe.

“Les dirigeants mondiaux sont arrivés à Hiroshima pour le sommet du G7”, annonce le portail d’information RBK-Oukraïna. L’événement “débute le 19 mai, il va durer trois jours, et la guerre de la Fédération de Russie contre l’Ukraine occupera une place importante dans l’ordre du jour”.

Tokyo et Kiev, une alliance du “soft power”

Dans un entretien accordé à la chaîne de télévision nationale ukrainienne Souspilné et cité par Radio Svoboda, l’ambassadeur du Japon en Ukraine, Matsuda Kuninori, considère lui aussi que la guerre sera “le thème le plus important pendant le sommet du G7”, ce qu’il explique en ces termes :

“Je pense qu’il n’existe pas d’endroit mieux adapté à la discussion sur l’Ukraine et l’agression contre son territoire que Hiroshima. Tout le monde sait que Hiroshima est la première ville dans l’histoire de l’humanité où a explosé une bombe nucléaire.” Il ajoute :

“Il n’est donc pas surprenant que les gens à Hiroshima et dans tout le Japon prient pour la paix. Et ils prient aussi pour la paix en Ukraine.”

Kiev accorde une grande importance à l’alliance japonaise, commente la version ukrainienne de la BBC, qui souligne que Tokyo est le “deuxième bailleur de fonds de l’Ukraine après les États-Unis depuis le début de la guerre totale, avec un volume d’aide de 7,1 milliards de dollars”.

Dans sa volonté de consolider ses liens avec le Japon, “ce qui est plus qu’important compte tenu du poids de ce pays dans l’arène internationale et en Asie”, l’Ukraine, analyse la BBC, aurait recours à son soft power. “Une des recettes de la diplomatie de l’Ukraine au Japon consiste notamment à projeter une image de ‘pays qui aime le Japon’.”

Le mystère de la présence de Zelensky

Une politique qui semble porter ses fruits puisque, lors de sa visite à Kiev en mars, le Premier ministre japonais Fumio Kishida avait invité le président Volodymyr Zelensky à prendre part au sommet du G7 à Hiroshima, rappelle le site d’information Glavkom. Or, si le sommet est commencé, la visite de Zelensky, elle, continue de faire l’objet de spéculations.

“Le président Zelensky ne se rendra pas à Hiroshima, mais participera à une rencontre en ligne le 21 mai”, écrivait par exemple RBK-Oukraïna au matin du 19 mai, ce que confirmait également le ministère des Affaires étrangères japonais.

Puis, constate l’hebdomadaire Dzerkalo Tyjnia, c’est Oleksiy Danilov, le patron du Conseil de défense et de sécurité nationale (RNBO) ukrainien, qui a affirmé que Zelensky participerait au sommet du G7 :

“Là-bas vont se discuter des affaires très importantes, aussi la présence physique de notre président est-elle essentielle pour défendre nos intérêts – pour faire des propositions claires sur les événements qui se déroulent sur le territoire de notre pays.”

“Mais, plus tard, le site du RNBO a publié l’information que Zelensky participerait en ligne, en vidéo, relève l’hebdomadaire. On attend que les représentants du président finissent par mettre tous les points sur les i.”

Un crochet par l’Arabie saoudite

Ce qui est certain, et c’est déjà une surprise, c’est que Volodymyr Zelensky est arrivé le 19 mai en Arabie saoudite, où il est intervenu lors d’un autre sommet, celui de la Ligue arabe.

Une visite tout aussi importante, indique le quotidien de Lviv Vissoki Zamok. Le président ukrainien a rencontré le prince Mohammed ben Salmane, et il en a profité pour déclarer à ses interlocuteurs qu’outre “la libération des territoires occupés”, une des principales priorités de son gouvernement était “la défense des musulmans d’Ukraine”. En particulier des Tatars de Crimée, dont le dirigeant, Moustafa Djemilev, faisait “partie de la délégation ukrainienne en Arabie saoudite”, précise le quotidien en ligne Oukraïnska Pravda.

Le président globe-trotteur rentrera-t-il ensuite en Ukraine ou poursuivra-t-il effectivement son voyage jusqu’au Japon ? Oukraïnska Pravda se contente de citer une dernière information, communiquée par le média américain Bloomberg :

“Zelensky va partir à bord d’un avion miliaire américain vers le Japon après avoir fait halte en Arabie saoudite pour participer au sommet de la Ligue arabe, selon une source anonyme.”

World Opinions – Courrier international

L’article Vu d’Ukraine. Un sommet du G7 avec ou sans Volodymyr Zelensky ? est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Le cyclone Mocha a causé la mort d’au moins 145 personnes en Birmanie. Selon un communiqué de la junte au pouvoir, publié vendredi, la grande majorité des victimes sont des Rohingyas. Quelque 800’000 personnes ont été affectées par le passage du cyclone.

En Birmanie, on dénombre désormais 145 victimes après le passage du cyclone Mocha. L’intempérie avait frappé la Birmanie, mais aussi le Bangladesh dimanche, avec des pluies battantes et des vents de 195 km/h qui ont démoli des bâtiments et transformé les rues en rivières.

La tempête la plus violente dans la région depuis plus de 10 ans a ravagé des villages, déraciné des arbres et coupé les communications dans une grande partie de l’Etat Rakhine, où des centaines de milliers de Rohingyas vivent dans des camps de déplacés à la suite de décennies de conflit inter-ethnique.

A Genève, l’ONU a indiqué vendredi que quelque 800’000 personnes affectées par le passage du cyclone en Birmanie ont besoin d’une aide alimentaire d’urgence.

Minorité fortement visée

“Selon les informations que nous avons obtenues, 4 soldats, 24 habitants et 117 Bengalis ont été tués dans la tempête”, a précisé l’équipe d’information de la junte.

“Bengali” est un terme péjoratif utilisé en Birmanie pour désigner la minorité musulmane. Quelque 600’000 Rohingyas vivent depuis plusieurs générations en Birmanie, privés d’accès à la santé et à l’éducation, “sous un régime d’apartheid”, selon Amnesty International.

Tous sont assimilés à des étrangers et doivent même demander une autorisation avant tout déplacement en dehors de leur village.

Au Bangladesh voisin, des responsables ont déclaré à l’AFP que personne n’avait péri dans le cyclone, qui est passé à proximité d’immenses camps de réfugiés abritant près d’un million de Rohingyas.

La junte dément

Le communiqué de la junte indique également que les informations diffusées par les médias sur la mort de 400 Rohingyas sont “fausses” et que des mesures seront prises à l’encontre des organes de presse qui les ont publiées.

Des navires et l’armée de l’air ont apporté des milliers de sacs de riz et des milliers d’électriciens, de pompiers et de secouristes avaient été déployés dans l’Etat Rakhine, ont rapporté vendredi les médias soutenus par la junte.

Les vols ont repris normalement à l’aéroport de Sittwe jeudi, selon le journal officiel Global New Light of Myanmar. Des agences d’aide internationale, dont le Programme alimentaire mondial, travaillaient sur le terrain dans la ville de Sittwe cette semaine, selon des correspondants de l’AFP sur place.

Junte critiquée

Interrogé par l’AFP, un porte-parole de la junte n’a pas immédiatement répondu à la question de savoir si les agences de l’ONU avaient accès aux camps de déplacés situés à l’extérieur de Sittwe.

En 2017, une violente répression militaire a poussé des centaines de milliers de Rohingyas à fuir vers le Bangladesh voisin, rapportant des histoires de meurtres, de viols et d’incendies criminels.

Le chef de la junte, Min Aung Hlaing, au pouvoir depuis le coup d’Etat du 1er février 2021 et qui était à la tête des forces armées lors de la répression de 2017, a qualifié l’identité des Rohingyas d'”imaginaire”.

World Opinions + RTS info + ATS

L’article En Birmanie, le bilan du cyclone Mocha s’élève désormais à 145 morts.. Vidéo est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

L’armée du Myanmar a utilisé une munition « thermobarique » lors d’une attaque contre un bâtiment de l’opposition dans la région de Sagaing le 11 avril 2023 ; cette attaque a tué plus de 160 personnes, dont des enfants, a déclaré Human Rights Watch.

La frappe aérienne à l’aide d’une munition à effet de souffle dans le village de Pa Zi Gyi, dans le Haut-Myanmar, a fait des victimes civiles de manière indiscriminée et disproportionnée, en violation du droit international humanitaire, et s’apparentait à un crime de guerre. Les gouvernements étrangers devraient empêcher le transfert de fonds, d’armes et de carburant d’aviation à l’armée du Myanmar, qui continue de commettre de graves abus en toute impunité.

« L’utilisation par l’armée du Myanmar d’une arme conçue pour causer un maximum de morts dans une zone peuplée de civils démontre un mépris flagrant pour la vie humaine », a déclaré Elaine Pearson, directrice de la division Asie à Human Rights Watch. « Les gouvernements étrangers devraient supprimer tout financement de la junte, ainsi que les livraisons d’armes et de kérosène, afin d’empêcher de nouvelles atrocités. »

Environ 300 habitants du canton de Kantbalu s’étaient rassemblés dans le village de Pa Zi Gyi le 11 avril, avant le Nouvel an bouddhiste, afin d’y ouvrir un bureau administratif contrôlé par l’opposition. Deux témoins ont déclaré à Human Rights Watch que vers 7 h 30 ce matin-là, un avion militaire a survolé la zone et a largué au moins une munition, qui a explosé au milieu de la foule rassemblée autour du bâtiment. Quelques minutes plus tard, selon un témoin, un hélicoptère de combat a tiré des obus, des grenades et des roquettes sur la foule alors que les gens tentaient de fuir.

Un habitant de Pa Zi Gyi a déclaré que des membres des Forces de défense du peuple (FDP), une milice anti-junte, assistaient à l’inauguration de ce bureau qui était destiné à des usages civils tels que l’enregistrement de déclarations d’impôts, les réunions de canton et des processus judiciaires. Le témoin a déclaré que les FDP y stockaient des marchandises, des fonds et des médicaments, mais aussi des munitions.

Human Rights Watch a examiné 59 photos des corps des victimes et une vidéo du site à la suite des attaques, et a conclu que la frappe initiale avait été menée avec une munition de large taille à effet de souffle, larguée par voie aérienne. Ce type d’arme est souvent appelé « thermobarique », qui fonctionne généralement selon le même principe : un matériau explosif est dispersé sous forme de nuage de vapeur qui utilise l’oxygène atmosphérique comme combustible, lorsqu’il explose. L’ampleur de l’explosion et des dommages thermiques au bâtiment, ainsi que la nature profonde des brûlures et des lésions subies par les victimes, sont des effets caractéristiques de cette arme.

Dans les médias officiels, dans la soirée du 11 avril, l’armée du Myanmar a revendiqué la responsabilité de ces frappes aériennes. Un porte-parole de l’armée, Zaw Min Tun, a déclaré que ces frappes visaient des membres des Forces de défense du peuple, et que la détonation d’explosifs et de mines terrestres stockés par les forces FDP a ensuite fait des victimes parmi les personnes présentes sur les lieux.

<e Gouvernement d’unité nationale (National Unity Government, NGU) – un groupement de l’opposition – a déclaré que les personnes tuées étaient principalement des résidents civils de Pa Zi Gyi, dont 40 enfants. La plus jeune victime avait 6 mois et la plus âgée avait 76 ans. Au 5 mai, le NGU a déclaré que 168 personnes au total avaient été tuées lors de cette attaque. Human Rights Watch n’a pas été en mesure de confirmer ces chiffres.

Le droit international humanitaire oblige toutes les forces belligérantes à faire la distinction entre combattants et civils, et à veiller à ce que les cibles des attaques soient des objectifs militaires et non des civils ou des biens de caractère civil.

Les lois de la guerre interdisent les attaques menées sans discernement, qui incluent l’utilisation de méthodes ou de moyens de combat qui ne peuvent être limités de manière à minimiser les pertes de vies civiles et les dommages aux biens de caractère civil. Les attaques dont on peut s’attendre à ce qu’elles causent des dommages civils disproportionnés par rapport à l’avantage militaire concret et direct prévu dans l’attaque sont également interdites.

La présence de combattants de l’opposition et de munitions aurait pu faire du bâtiment un objectif militaire légitime susceptible d’être attaqué. Mais même dans ce cas, l’utilisation d’une arme à effet de souffle renforcé était illégalement indiscriminée, car son utilisation dans une zone civile surpeuplée ne pouvait pas minimiser la perte de vies civiles.

Lors de sa prochaine réunion en Indonésie du 9 au 11 mai, l’Association des nations de l’Asie du Sud-Est (ASEAN) devrait soutenir des mesures plus fortes pour couper les flux de trésorerie destinés à l’armée, et faire pression sur la junte pour entreprendre des réformes.

Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies devrait donner suite à sa résolution de décembre 2022 sur le Myanmar et à sa réunion de suivi en mars 2023, en adoptant d’urgence une nouvelle résolution visant à dissuader l’armée du Myanmar de commettre d’autres exactions ; il s’agirait notamment de mettre en place un embargo sur les armes, de renvoyer le Myanmar devant la Cour pénale internationale, et d’imposer des sanctions ciblées aux dirigeants de la junte et aux entreprises appartenant à l’armée.

World Opinions – Human Rights Watch

L’article Myanmar : La frappe avec une bombe thermobarique était probablement un crime de guerre est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Indians took the tea the British were marketing to them, added spices, milk and sugar, and transformed it forever.

I remember jumping up to sit on the kitchen counter one afternoon. My five-year-old self wants to watch my mother making chai. She pushes me away from the gas stove but I am indignant and refuse to hop down, although I do move away a bit.

The water bubbles. She adds sugar, then takes a flat steel grater, balances it on the edge of the pot and grates in adrak (ginger).

“Why do we add this?” I ask, watching the shreds fall into the bubbling water.

“Child, I have to hurry I don’t have time for your questions,” she says. I sulk but I know that, being a doctor, she has to get to the hospital on time. I will ask grandma, I tell myself.

The ginger threads dance in the water. Then she adds the tea leaves, turning the contents of the pot brown. Stirring, she adds milk and lets it simmer over a low flame, still stirring. After a few minutes, she removes it from the heat and covers it. I hop down to watch the next step. She strains it in cups, puts them on a tray, and carries it to the dining table.

I run out. I have no interest in tasting it but am proud, boasting to my friends: “I know how to make chai.” By the end of the day, I have memorised the process forever.

I don’t want to ask to taste it because I know if I do, she will dilute it with more milk. “Children should not drink tea,” she would say. I hated that pale milky liquid.

The first time I tasted real chai, I was in grade three. I had scored good marks on a maths test and ran home that August afternoon to share the news with my mother and grandparents as they were having their chai. Basking in the appreciation and pats on my back, I asked if I could have chai. Mother refused, but grandfather smiled and poured some into a cup. I took it and breathed the aroma in deeply. I took one sip, then the second. The creamy, rich beverage warmed my heart and spirit and at that precise moment, I became a chai lover.

I yearned to make chai but wasn’t allowed. “What if you spill the boiling water and get burned,” my grandmother would fret. Finally, when I was in grade five, she reluctantly allowed me to make it under her supervision and soon I was making it alone.

I felt so accomplished, measuring water, grating ginger, and scooping sugar and tea leaves to add to the boiling water. Watching the tea leaves spinning with the ginger. Then adding the milk and watching it lighten the chai and simmer, steeping the flavours. “A good cup of chai needs a slow fire,” I was told, something I follow to this day.

Fast forward a few years, and I am on my way home on a bitterly cold January evening in Indore. The sun is on leave and the wind drills into my bones. I enter a silent, cold apartment – my mother isn’t back from the hospital yet and my grandmother has moved to live with my uncle since my grandfather passed away.

I need chai. Soon, I’m sitting with a hot, steaming cup, sipping it slowly. I close my eyes, savouring the sweet milk, sharp ginger and cinnamon. By then, I was experimenting with spices and adding what felt right at the moment – cinnamon, fennel, green cardamom and more. I would add lemongrass, holy basil and peppercorns if I had a cold or sore throat.

Chai is tea, tea is chai

Chai in India is a drink for no reason and for every reason, morning, afternoon, evening and night. It lifts your spirits while studying for the maths paper or learning chemistry formulas. It spices college gossip and fans rumours. A welcoming or parting drink, to convince friends and family to stay longer to share more stories.

It brings everyone together. It is served in homes, board meetings, college canteens, cafes and at weddings. “Chalo chai ho jaye,” (Let’s have tea) is heard every day.

Tea is chai in India. When, where, and how the first cup of chai was brewed is still up for debate, but the stories from our elders give us an idea about the evolution of this delicious, addictive beverage.

Prerna Kumar, founder of ChaiVeda and purveyor of medicinal blends, says: “The early reference to tea is found in the Buddhist texts where the monks drank some kind of tea while fasting and meditating.

“They made tea from foraged tea leaves and perhaps added certain flowers to the decoction to help them feel calmer.”…

By Nupur Roopa – Aljazeera

L’article Chai is tea, tea is chai: India’s favourite hot drink est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.