What happened?
Gibraltar, a British overseas territory, has decided to allow the seized Iranian supertanker to leave the territory. It comes in the wake of the US government’s last-minute attempt to hold it when it issued a warrant for the seizure. 
However, it did not give enough indications when and how it would be released. Also, it is reported that, if it were not for the US legal hurdle, the vessel would have set for a sail. Grace 1 was captured by British Royal Navy commandos of the coast of Gibraltar on July 4, on the charge that Iran was violating European Union sanctions by taking oil to Syria. 
 
What is the background?
Events started to unfold when the US unilaterally decided to break away from the 2015 nuclear deal, that was concluded, with Iran along with P5+1 members. Before the seizure of Iranian oil tanker by the British military in the Gibraltar strait, incidents related to ‘ attack on oil tankers’ in the Gulf has been reported. The US blames Iran though the latter has denied these allegations. 
Tensions escalated further in the Gulf when Iran shot down US drone in the region. Immediately after the detention of Grace1, Iran seized British flagged tanker- Stena Impero. Incidentally, Iran referred to the British action as ‘act of piracy’. 
 
What does this mean?
Freeing of Iranian oil tanker conveys the changing picture between Europe and Iran. UK wants to conduct its affairs with Iran on its terms without the US. Furthermore, Britain expects Iran to not to backtrack on the nuclear deal. Britain wants to tell Iran that all parties in the deal are making an effort to uphold the deal in letter and spirit even after US withdrawal. 
The release of tanker also indicates how far the rest are willing to maintain the Iran deal and not allow Tehran to persuade the nuclear program. It is also expected that it would motivate Iran to reciprocate by releasing, along with its crew, Stena Impero- the British flagged oil tanker. 

What happened?
The UN Security Council held a closed meeting to discuss the situation in Jammu and Kashmir on 16 August 2019. This meeting was held after China asked for a “closed consultation” on the matter and Pakistan writing to Poland the Council President for August also requesting the UNSC to hold a meeting. 

What is the background? 
On 6 August 2019, Indian government revoked Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. India has gone on to state to the international community that this was an internal matter.
Following the revoking, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shan Mahmood Qureshi had gone on to call for an emergency meeting by the UNSC to discuss India’s move. He had also visited Beijing to consult with the leadership on the issue of raising the Kashmir issue to the UNSC. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang had conveyed Beijing's support to Pakistan on the issue. 
Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar then went on to convey in his bilateral meeting in Beijing that the matter of Jammu and Kashmir was an internal matter for India.
The last time the UNSC addressed the dispute between India and Pakistan was in 1964-65 under “The India-Pakistan Question” and then later in 1969-1971 under item “Situation in the India/ Pakistan subcontinent”. However, this meeting will not be considered as a full meeting because closed-door consultation such as these is informal, not open to the public, and no records of the statement or discussions are recorded. The outcome of the UNSC meeting will thus not be a formal pronouncement as the consultations are informal. India and Pakistan are also not attending the meeting, which is open only to the five permanent members and ten non-permanent members of the UNSC.

What does this mean?
The permanent members of the UNSC have made their stands clear from their sides in the past about India’s move, the United States picked a neutral stance, with President Donal Trump initially offering to mediate but then revoked the offer back stating that he would offer mediation assistance only if both India and Pakistan agree to it. Russia and other UNSC have come out in support of New Delhi’s position on Kashmir, whether this will change remains a question.
The Chinese agenda behind this meeting is to be noted, China has directed its representative in New York to keep close link with Pakistani diplomats on the issue, however, India has gone on to state that there is no need for China to be concerned either with the external boundaries of India or the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and that India was not raising any additional territorial claims. Thus, what China wants from this situation is another question to be answered.
The meeting can also be seen as a push from Pakistan’s Foreign Policy to securitize the issue. They have looked at getting the international community to say something about the issue and to push for their agenda.
Lastly, the Kashmir earlier was seen as a nuclear flashpoint; any issue between the two South Asian nuclear neighbours has always been one that has raised caution. This viewpoint had come down over the past few years; the recent events could revive this perception again at the international level.

What happened?
On Friday, US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib of Michigan refused to visit Israel despite the permission given to her on humanitarian grounds by the Israeli Interior Ministry. Earlier, the Israeli Interior Ministry refused entry to two Congresswomen -  Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar on the grounds of Anti-Boycott Law of 2017. 
The ban was criticised by senior Senators and Congressmen across Democratic and Republican parties as well as by the pro-Israeli groups in the US, suggesting that it would weaken diplomatic ties between US and Israel. The two congresswomen were not allowed to be part of the 72-member delegation of the House of Representatives visiting Israel, a trip sponsored by the American Israeli Education Foundation. Although approved initially, Netanyahu’s government changed its decision after being pressurised by US President Trump via private lobbying and public tweeting. The decision came just hours after Trump softly threatened Israel on Twitter, of displaying weakness if it admitted these two congresswomen.
 
What is the background?
Both the Congresswomen were targeted along with two others last month by President Trump to leave the country if they are displeased with the US. In March this year, Omar was involved in the controversy with her anti-Semitic tropes against the supporters of Israel. 
The two congresswomen are vocal supporters of Palestine and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement which advocates for sanctions against Israel for its occupation in the West Bank. 
Based on the Anti-Boycott Law, Israel previously denied entry of several MEPs, but no US lawmaker was subjected to it so far. Senior House leaders lobbied for the inclusion of the two congresswomen in the Israel trip citing respect for US Congress and the alliance between the two nations, despite the representatives’ anti-Israeli rhetoric in the past. 
 
What does this mean?
The coercion from Trump for the ban on the two congresswomen demonstrates the exertion of his power beyond the nation’s boundaries. This move may indicate more of such incidents to come. 
The existing rift between the White House and the Congress may widen with the exposure of domestic political differences on the international arena. 
The suggestion for ban adds to the continuing chain of mutual support of far-right policies by both the leaders, following the shift of US embassy to Jerusalem and US recognition of Golan Heights as Israeli territory. The decision on the ban is significant for both Trump and Netanyahu in the coming elections in both countries as none of them wants a portrayal of weakness in their exercise of power.

What happened?
In Tuvalu, the 18 members of the Pacific Islands Group held a long discussion, but failed to pass a resolution with a strong message on climate change.  Prime Minister of the archipelago Tonga was reported to be in tears at the Pacific Islands Forum.
Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison used his influence to water down a climate resolution called the ‘Tuvalu Declaration'. The resolution had been drafted by the Smaller Island States (SIS) group earlier in the week. 
Fiji's Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama questioned: "How does Morrison reconcile calling the Pacific family while he persistently ignores our demands for Australia to reduce its emissions?" said Moeono-Kolio the head of Greenpeace Pacific. 
 
What is the background?
The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) is an intergovernmental organization that aims to enhance cooperation between countries and territories of the Pacific Ocean. Im 1971, it was founded in 1971 as the South Pacific Forum (SPF). It changed its name in 1999 to "Pacific Islands Forum", so as to be more inclusive of the Forum's Oceania-spanning membership of both north and south Pacific island countries, including Australia. It is a United Nations General Assembly observer. 
Australia and New Zealand are larger and wealthier than the other countries that make up the rest of the Forum. Australia's population is twice that of the other 17 members. Australia's economy is also five times larger. Both are significant aid donors and big markets for exports from the other island countries. 
Last year’s meeting was held in Nauru. Pacific island concerns about climate change were centre stage even then. The significance of climate change was underlined by its prominent inclusion in the new regional security agreement – the Boe Declaration. 
Dissatisfaction toward Australia, which reportedly prevented a stronger statement on climate change, was also evident in post-meeting interviews with leaders and was expressed in 2018. 
 
What does this mean? 
The failure of Australia and New Zealand to endorse serious climate challenges, like coal mining, reflects the attitude that the world has towards island nations and climate change. 
The most significant impact of climate change is said to be on the small island nations. These regions are already facing severe impacts of the change in water temperatures and increase of the sea length. The frustrations of the leaders of the smaller islands are directed towards the arrogance and ignorance of the bigger leaders of the region, but a region and its practices can not be changed overnight. It might be too late to be demanding the bigger powers to adapt to the changes for the sake of these islands. The sheer ignorance of the world and world media towards these issues may end up being a huge lesson for the world. 

What happened? 
On 11 August 2019, Mahinda Rajapaksa announced his brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the presidential candidate of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) for the forthcoming election. Mahinda Rajapaksa, a former President and currently the leader of Opposition also officially took charge as leader of SLPP. This party is founded by his loyalists in 2016, breaking away from the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), of which even Mahinda Rajapaksa was previously part of.
 
The Presidential election which is due before the end of the year is expected to be crucial given Sri Lanka's political environment. The ruling United National Party (UNP) is yet to announce its candidate, due to the disagreements between its leader Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the party’s deputy leader Sajith Premadasa. President Maithripala Sirisena, leader of the SLFP,  is most likely to support Rajapaksa.
 
What is the background?
Gotabaya's as SLPP's Presidential candidate is not surprising;  Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot run for Presidency due to a 2015 legislation that places a two-term limit. He would be SLPP's prime ministerial candidate in the general elections scheduled in 2020. Although not founded by Mahinda himself, the SLPP  is synonymous with the Rajapaksas. The party is founded and comprises of Mahinda loyalist including his brothers, Basil and Gotabaya Rajapaksa. 

The SLPP performed well in the 2018 local elections. On the other hand, the current coalition of UNP and SLFP, that came to power in 2015 is under threat. The difference between Wickremesinghe and Sirisena became public in a Parliamentary coup by the latter in 2018. It also made evident Rajapaksa's zeal for coming back to power.  Wickremesinghe was reinstated later; however, the failure to prevent the Easter attack in 2019, has dented this government further.
 
What does this mean?
Firstly, Gotabaya may have the support of SLFP and may face a weak UNP candidate; however, he may not have the support of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the Tamil party coalition. Gotabaya is credited for the end of Sri Lankan civil war and is also blamed for the war crimes and violence against the Tamil community. He may not have significant support from the Tamil vote bank.

Secondly, Gotabay may get the Sinhalese vote, but his record may discourage some. His involvement with the civil war linked to Sri Lanka’s infamous “white-van abductions” targeting dissidents, anti-Rajapaksa voices and media, will not help. He has also faced trial for financial fraud and murder which he has denied. His support for the radical Sinhala Buddhist groups, who are notorious for provoking violence against minorities, may play a role.

Thirdly, in case Rajapaksa comes to power this election, it will ensure the impact the democratic process in Sri Lanka. The present government though weak but has been successful in reinstalling a rule-based order. Gotabaya's victory will also ensure a long-lasting reign of the Rajapaksa family.

What happened? 
In a continuation to the tension in the Korean peninsula, the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on 16 August issued a public statement denigrating the South Korean President Moon Jae-in. Rejecting the idea of a dialogue with Seoul, Kim launched two missiles into the sea after that. In a volley of rattling, Kim responded to Moon’s Liberation Day speech and said ‘his open talk about ‘dialogue’ between the north and the south under such situation raises a question as to whether Moon has proper thinking faculty.” Pyongyang added that “Moon is, indeed, an impudent guy rare to be found.” 
This has come as another blow to Moon’s dream towards a unified Korea, when he spoke on the Liberation Day (15 August). Moon aims to “solidify denuclearization” of North Korea, initiate a “peace economy” and unify the Korean Peninsula by 2045. 

What is the background? 
Kim’s missile launch is the sixth missile during the last three weeks. His coarse statement bordering on mockery of the South Korean President was a reaction to the Dong Maeng military exercises between South Korea and the US on 25 July. North Korea’s interpretation of these exercises as a “rehearsal for war” follows a long process of attempted dialogues, broken summits and surprise visits. The missiles were fired on 16 August and flew for 140 miles. 
North Korea has launched a series of missile tests in quick succession since the military drills. These come after the collapse of talks between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump in February at Hanoi. 

What does it mean? 
Since the abrupt end to the Hanoi summit and a visit of Trump to DMZ in North Korea post the G-20 summit, the tension with North Korea had increased. 
Along with the missile tests, Kim has outrightly brandished Moon Jae thereby nibbling any form of bonhomie that might have grown between the two leaders since last year. 
Washington has so far downplayed the tests and has ignored the threat posed by the new missiles to South Korea and its neighbours. The US National Security Advisor John Bolton said: “The firing of these missiles doesn’t violate the pledge that Kim Jong-un made to the president about intercontinental-range ballistic missiles." However, Bolton also criticized the diplomatic process towards denuclearisation that was slated to start on June 30. While North Korea has not closed the door to dialogue with the US either, its anger has deepened. Equally important are Trump’s tweets on the missile tests and the military exercises. Trump was seen defending Pyongyang’s right to test missiles and even indicated his opposition to the military exercises because he believes they cost the United States too much. There appears a difference of opinion between the different institutions in the US.
South Korea’s position needs exploration. Security analysts have concluded that Kim has used the tests to significantly improve its ability to attack South Korea and penetrate its missile defence shield. In particular, its KN-23 missile is designed to fly fast and low, making it particularly tough to detect and intercept. Because it is launched from a truck, KN-23 appears to mimic a Russian-built missile with a capacity to penetrate the US defence systems. 
Given the military advancements achieved by North Korea, earlier this week, South Korea’s military unveiled a plan to build new warships and develop precision-guided weapons. This plan should not be seen in isolation of the US security umbrella that is slowly thinning as Trump has been reluctant to provide for denuclearisation talks. 
Also, Moon’s dream of an integrated Korean economy is deterred further by US sanctions throwing the country into negative economic growth. South Korea’s relation with Japan has seen its all-time low over the forced labour issue, pulling most of the Japanese company and money with themselves out of the country. In this situation, the military drills were a strategic position reiterated with the US, but North Korea’s statement will wheel back the advances in the relationship between the two Koreas.

What happened?

As a response to the announcement by Trump government to raise tariffs by 10 percent for an additional $300 billion of Chinese exports, Beijing took a political decision to drop the value of Renminbi below 7. This sent shockers across the financial markets around the world. The People's Bank of China set the yuan’s daily reference rate below 7 per dollar for the first time in over a decade. US Treasury officially named China a “Currency Manipulator,” though the naming is mostly symbolic, it opens an opportunity for the US to take this case to the IMF to ‘eliminate any unfair advantage China's currency moves have given the country.’

POBC claims that the purpose of the devaluation is to allow the market to be more instrumental in determining the yuan’s value. The devaluation announcement came with official statements from the PBOC that as a result of this "one-off depreciation," the "yuan's central parity rate will align more closely with the previous day's closing spot rates," which was aimed at “giving markets a greater role in determining the renminbi exchange rate with the goal of enabling deeper currency reform," reported a market analysis platform.

What is the background?

Since 2005, China’s currency has appreciated 33% against the U.S. dollar. Previously in August 2015, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) had surprised the markets with upto three devaluations consecutively of the yuan renminbi or yuan (CNY) which knocked over 3% off its value. After a decade of steady appreciation against the US dollar, investors had become accustomed to the stability and growing strength of the yuan. While a somewhat insignificant change for Forex markets, the drop which amounted to 4% over the subsequent two days has rattled investors.

The second arrangement of “truce” between the two leaders along the sidelines of G20 summits in Argentina and Japan have both failed in a similar way. The trade war has taken various forms over the past months it has moved from export restrictions and tariffs to technology, MNCs and 5G, and it is moving towards the currency.

What does it mean?

China’s is using the currency valuation as a double-edged sword which could easily hurt both the US and China economies and simultaneously hurt the world markets to a great extent. However, according to various experts, the drop is technically not strong enough to give China a comparative advantage over the US; but just enough to nudge the US. Also, do exchange rate-cuts make an impact on the trade patterns today, like it did in the past? Not really, the economy is extensively diversified now.

It seems like China chose this option over the choice to ban rare earth’ exports to the US. Since the trade war began, China is also said to have been keeping the value of Renminbi artificially high; this drop could be an attempt to readjust the differences. The immediate effects will be of advantage to the Chinese exporters and will halt the imports to China. Quoting a report from China, “Exchange rate cuts have muted effects on the trade balance in the short term,” it is safe to say that this will correct the imbalances.

What happened?

On Tuesday, 6 August 2019, the European Space Agency (ESA) has launched the second satellite for the European Data Relay System (EDRS), a “SpaceDataHighway” created as a joint venture with the aerospace company Airbus. EDRS-C, the latest satellite joins EDRS-A launched in 2016 to relay the environment- and climate-related data captured by remote sensing satellites in Low Earth Orbit ( LEO) back to the ground stations in Europe in near-real-time.

These satellites use Laser Communication Technology (LCT) to pull data from other satellites at a record-setting speed of 1.8 gigabits per second, making the data ready-to-use just 15 minutes after its acquisition, which previously took few days.

What is the background?

Firstly, LEO satellites worldwide face a downlink delay problem wherein they are required to stand in line-of-sight with the ground stations for the acquired data to be downloaded, which happens only for 10 minutes during the 100-minute orbit period, thus creating a 90-minute delay in communication. The EDRS relay satellites quadruple the effective contact time of LEO satellites with the ground stations. This relay system is similar to US’ Tracking and Data Relay System (TRDS) used for conveying information from the Space Shuttle back to the ground stations.

Unlike TRDS, EDRS’ use of LCT creates new standards for rapid communication of large amounts of data from other satellites. This is important because telecom satellites face a bottleneck in transmission speed with their radio-frequency transmission in matching that of optical fibre networks connecting terrestrial devices.

Therefore Europe’s research ministers have decided to fund the 22-member ESA, wanting to see optical technology (of which, Europe is a global leader) play a bigger role in space communication. The previously launched satellites of Copernicus environmental satellite programme in 2014, the EU’s flagship Earth observation programme, was already equipped with laser portals, having EDRS in mind.

What does it mean?

The near real-time information becomes essential for accelerating responses to disaster recovery and extreme weather events, helping the first responders take decisions in real-time. Through this programme, Europe’s leadership in optical technologies comes to its advantage, enabling EDRS to offer a paradigm shift in satellite communication technology.

With its Made-in-Germany label, Europe can completely avoid relying on non-EU countries to gather Earth observation data without any time lag. This fits perfectly with safeguarding the pro-climate change policies that the EU upholds despite the opposing trends elsewhere.

With the third node in the EDRS system in place by 2025, the advanced global technological infrastructure gives Europe an upper hand in future negotiations, enabling other countries to partner with it rather than compete to benefit from EDRS services.

What happened?

According to a classified UN report, published by a few leading news agencies that had access to it, North Korean cyber actors were successful in stealing $ 2 billion by using a sophisticated cyber-attack on leading banks, stock and cryptocurrency exchanges.

News reports also mention, quoting the UN report, that the acts were carried out to fund the ‘weapons programme’ of North Korea.

What is the background?

It is not for the first time that such a cyber attack has taken place from North Korea. Cyber operations are considered to be a cost-effective way to maintain parallel military operations. There were reports before linking North Korea to the following: South Korean cyberattack in 2013; SWIFT banking hack in 2015; Bangladesh bank robbery in 2016; and WannaCry ransomware attack in 2017.

Growing threats to its existence from the US and its allies have made North Korea to pursue different strategies. It believes that the only way to keep the US and its allies at bay is to exhibit military strength and its readiness. In the recent past, North Korea has successfully demonstrated its capability in building missiles with varying ranges. The UN sanctions have not deterred it from reckless behaviour. North Korea’s increasing apprehension over the engagement of South Korea and Japan with the US has led it to take aggressive steps.

What does it mean?

 In a country where ‘free will’ does not exist it shouldn’t be a surprise to know that these cyber actors operated under the directions of the Reconnaissance General Bureau, a North Korean Intelligence Agency, which manages clandestine operations for the state.

By doing so, North Korea has opened a window of opportunity for other countries that are heavily sanctioned by the UN to generate income, which is not traceable. Little engagement with the world has done no good for North Korea’s economy. While it has no means to feed its people, it has embarked upon the journey of defending its sovereignty. The money that has been stolen from the financial institutions and cryptocurrency exchanges can be used for various illegal activities in an international arena. Also, the UN sanctions committee on North Korea has brought to light that such an amount can be used to fund the development of WMD and much more conventional weaponry. Following such actions in the long term would lead to the destabilisation of the Korean Peninsula. Subsequently, repercussions would be felt across the globe.

What happened?

The Hong Kong protest assumed a robust political significance with China issuing a strong warning to the protesters, saying their attempts “to play with fire will only backfire”. Until now the silence of the mainland Chinese administration was only watched for but when on 7 August, Yang Guang, a spokesperson for the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO), said "radical demonstrations" have pushed Hong Kong "to the verge of a very dangerous situation", it is a warning that the silence is now wearing thin.

He warned the protesters not to "mistake restraint for weakness". Since the beginning of this week, a call for a general strike has caused severe disruption with more than 200 flights cancelled.

What is the background?

The protest in Hong Kong is now in its ninth consecutive week. The agitation which started with a demand for an independent inquiry into alleged police brutality and the complete withdrawal of a controversial extradition bill has now widened its demand to seek the resignation of Hong Kong's leader Carrie Lam and freedom and protection from mainland Chinese authorities. The demonstrations have led to violent clashes with police. The protests are seen as a challenge to Beijing's authority in Honk Kong.

What does it mean?

The strong warning could imply several possible Chinese interventions. Firstly, it is essential to note that Guang’s voice in support of Lam and warning on the serious impact of the protest on Hong Kong’s economy is the second briefing in two weeks. Thus, strongly indicating Beijing's waning patience. The tone and remarks by the state media are getting harsher by the week extending support to the Hong Kong’s police and authorities. Since then the protests have also expanded and seen more violent clashes with police, culminating into a rally and continued strike in the international airport.

Secondly, even though a possible military intervention has been anticipated, China has only limited itself in conducting police drills for example as Guang’s warning came by more than 10,000 mainland police officers gathered for antiriot drills in Shenzhen just across the border from Hong Kong. Police with riot shields practised on mock protesters—firing tear gas, blocking blows from improvised weapons and extinguishing flaming wheelbarrows. The messages are getting stronger, but Hong Kong may not walk the Tiananmen square memory because protest has come in the backdrop of an escalating trade conflict with the international world, including Trump and Taiwan, watching to see if China mishandles itself.

Thirdly, the protests have appeared mainly leaderless and unpredictable, involving "flash mob" style civil disobedience and voting through social media apps. This has made it impossible for PLA to arrest anyone group or leader to throttle the movement. Thus PLS is limited to only stationing its troops and not interfere in the local issues.

Lastly, the other implications of the protest have been on the economy and connectivity. More than 200 flights into and out of the city have been cancelled as the airport workers joined the strike. Besides, the state-run tabloid Global Times has come out strongly on the multinationals saying that if they do not appear in support of Beijing over the Hong Kong protests, they will suffer business consequences.

What happened?

On 07 August 2019, a car bomb reportedly exploded in Kabul killing and injuring more than 140 people. This was part of a series of bomb blasts and suicide attacks in Afghanistan in the recent past. The Taliban insurgents later took responsibility for the suicide attack. Earlier this week, the Taliban had also threatened to interrupt the presidential elections scheduled in September over the question of legitimacy.

The latest attack comes at a time when there were positive reports of progress in peace talks between the US and Taliban in Qatar. Also, the UN had notified that July was the deadliest month since 2017in Afghanistan so far where more than 1,500 civilians were killed and injured.

What is the background?

The Taliban-US meeting is the seventh since October in Doha in order to end the 18-year-long war in Afghanistan. While the Americans are trying to strike a peace deal with the Taliban ahead of the 2020 US presidential election and gradually withdraw troops from Afghanistan, the Taliban has repeatedly been creating havoc in parts of the country alongside continuing negotiations.

The latest round was said to focus on four key issues: A guarantee by the Taliban that it will not allow fighters to use Afghanistan to launch attacks outside the country; withdrawal of the US and its allied forces; a permanent ceasefire; and an intra-Afghan dialogue which both parties - Taliban and the government.

The announcement of troop withdrawal by the US towards the end of 2020 came soon after Pakistan Prime Minister’s US visit. This could mean that the Islamic republic might have held a consensus over the issue.

What does it mean?

The statements from the United States seem to pose an element of optimism over the success of its peace plan and the eventual withdrawal of American troops. However, there has been a complete absence of any attempts from the US for a ceasefire. This could have been the reason for the Taliban’s continued infliction of terror in the region even when the peace negotiations are in progress. The Trump administration’s rush to reach a consensus before the 2020 US Presidential elections have been a success for the Taliban. This very well goes to explain the latter’s consistent threats on Afghan forces and the recent attack on a vice-presidential candidate in July this year. Persisting terror campaigning could also mean that neighbouring Pakistan has been continuing to sponsor terror and provide a haven to the Taliban insurgents.

Second, if the US succeeds to strike a deal with the Taliban, this would pave the way for subsequent talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government over the country’s political future as promised. The deal might also let the Taliban go slow on its concerned threat to disrupt the September 2019 Presidential polls while giving enough time for negotiations with the Afghan government.

What happened?

During this week, on 5 August 2019, the Home Minister of India, Amit Shah had successfully moved a resolution in the Rajya Sabha to introduce a Bill that revokes all provisions of Article 370. President Ram Nath Kovind has approved this bill. Article 370 of the Constitution provided special status to the region of Jammu and Kashmir allowing the separate Constitution, a state flag and also autonomy regarding the internal administration of the State.

Shah also introduced bills to bifurcate the State into Ladakh as a Union Territory without a legislature; and Jammu and Kashmir as a Union Territory with an Assembly. The third bill introduced by him was on the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019.

Following this announcement, there was a massive protest by the Opposition, which led the Rajya Sabha to be immediately adjourned.

What is the background?

Addressing the Kashmir issue was one of the crucial electoral agenda for Modi government when he returned to power this year. His previous tenure was marred with the resurgence of violence in Kashmir valley after a period of silence in the valley. Through these resolutions, the Modi government seem to have addressed their electoral promise. This decision was welcomed by a certain section and criticized by others.

Kashmir valley has vehemently opposed this decision; the Kashmiris consider this as betrayal and undemocratic. On the other hand, both Ladakh and Jammu regions have welcomed this decision.

The three regions who were clubbed together to be one state of Jammu and Kashmir are different in several aspects. The recognition as a separate Union territory has been a pending demand from Ladakh for a long time. Hence, they are happy with this decision. The latest move by Delhi also reflects the difference between three regions of J&K.
 

What does it mean?

Firstly, through these resolutions, the BJP has not only lived up to its electoral promise but also asserted its Kashmir position. As well expressed in shah's Statement, “I want to make it very clear once again that J&K is an integral and inseparable part of India. There is absolutely no doubt over it, and there is no legal dispute on this," as said in Lok Sabha. As aforementioned, this has also assisted them to please their vote bank in Jammu and Ladakh region. However, this has made other states and regions, especially Northeast India, wary of this government's next move.

Secondly, although there have been several criticisms regarding this decision domestically, internationally no country except for Pakistan have questioned this move. Russia has supported the government and claimed this decision to be constitutional. In the case of India and Pakistan relation, it has seen a downward steep since the last tenure of this government; this issue has just worsened it further.

Thirdly and most importantly, the impact of this implication in Kashmir Valley will be only be understood after the removal of curfew. The valley is brewing although may seem to be peaceful to many; it could just be the peace of the graveyard.

What happened?

On 02 August 2019, North Korea fired a short-range ballistic missile, the third in eight days. While South Korea assessed the missiles to be different from the previous model which flew unusually fast, the missile is said to have travelled up to 220 km.

However, statements from the White House following the launch indicated that the US President Donald Trump wasn't wary about the recent spate of retaliation from North Korea. According to popular media, he called it a "very standard" response from the north and denied any links with the North Korean supremo.

What is the background?

According to South Korea, Pyongyang had previously fired two missiles that reportedly flew to a distance of 250km and reached a height of 30km near the East sea. The North had launched its first missile on 25 July 2019 after the US President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met at the demilitarized zone in June where they had agreed to resume talks on denuclearisation. Despite pressing economic sanctions, Pyongyang had also launched a new submarine recently which is reportedly capable of carrying up to three ballistic missiles.

What does it mean?

The most apparent reason for North Korea's recent spate of missile launches is the Washington-Seoul military exercise scheduled later this month. The strong reaction comes as the North views this as a considerable threat and violation of norms signed under the joint statement by the US president and his North Korean counterpart during their meeting at Singapore the previous year. Pyongyang has further notified that the drills could affect the duo's future talks on denuclearisation. Evidently, this will affect Seoul's efforts to build strained ties with Pyongyang and further divide the Korean Peninsula.

Second, Trump's cold response to Pyongyang's actions would have been fuel to the latter's actions. The latest spate of launches could also be seen as Kim Jong un's strategy to create a sense of panic and urgency in the peninsula and eventually get the upper hand on the nuclear negotiations.

Alongside this, Japan and South Korea have deployed missile defence systems based on US military technology in the recent past. Little has this found fruit when North Korea's capabilities are steadily growing. The push could also be an effort to threaten the US by putting pressure on Japan and South Korea, its key allies in the region. Evidently, given Japan and South Korea's diplomatic tensions, North Korean actions are only straining the relation further and putting the US's efforts to bring the former together in vain.

What happened?

This week, the US withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces(INF) Treaty. A Cold war era-arms agreement signed in 1987, between the US and Russia, which necessitated them to eliminate both conventional and nuclear land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and missile launchers with a range of 500km to 5500km. The US cited the development of its warheads and Russian violation of the treaty as being the reason for its withdrawal. In October 2018, the US announced its decision to withdraw, which was followed by its suspension of obligations in February this year. The act of suspension provided a window for Russia to revisit the treaty, which seemed unlikely to happen.

What is the background?

This comes in the backdrop of US and NATO alleging Russia for their violation of the treaty. The US, in its 2014 Compliance report, pointed out to Russia's development of warheads, which could undermine the terms of the treaty. The state department in its reports has repeatedly alleged Russia of dishonouring the agreement. Russia has continued to deny these allegations amidst US's warning to withdraw.

Russia, despite pressure from NATO and the US, failed to destroy their 9M729 cruise missile system which, according to the US, is a breach. Both the US and Russia are barred from launching these missiles, but this limitation does not extend to air and sea-based missiles. The agreement aimed to eliminate an entire class of missiles and limiting any further development of the same. It also necessitated on-site assessments and inspections, furthering accountability and strict control to avoid negative offsets.

What does it mean?

This move could essentially elevate the American position on arms trade and boost employment in the US. But it also risks the possibility of aggravating trade tensions concerning arms and strategic weapons. China already has a significant number of medium-range missiles in its armoury, which is also exported to Asia. The US pulling out of the treaty could help the Americans export similar missiles to Asia furthering arms tensions. With the US emerging as a player in this class, it could potentially disrupt the movement of the arms trade on a global level.

On the other hand, the range bandwidth and proximity under this class are equally threatening to neighbouring nations and elsewhere. Following this, one should not fail to anticipate harsher possibilities of conflict in the middle east and war-prone areas surrounding Syria and Africa. Also, this could intensify Iranian ambitions and North Korea's military adventurism.

What is interesting is it provides Russia with an undue advantage, which is notably ahead in this technology provoking the US furthermore. This development is also a blow to the rules-based order in arms control. Observing the American steps to arms diplomacy, it could also pose a threat to the fate of New Start Treaty, yet another agreement the US has with Russia which aims to limit strategic nuclear arms by a third, which is due for renewal in 2021.

While nations across the world produce medium-range missiles, as analysts suggest, limits imposed on the US in doing so could also have led them towards withdrawing from the arms agreement. This could unfold into a larger picture in the race for arms expedition. On a concluding note, radical steps and knee jerk reactions by superpowers in matters of defence and critical arms technology can destabilise efforts to non-proliferation and arms control

What happened?

This week, the Netherlands introduced a new law that bans burqas, niqabs, and other face coverings in public places. The law called Partial Ban on Face-Covering Clothing Act, prohibits the wearing of ski masks, full-face helmets, balaclavas, niqabs and burqas in public buildings that include schools and hospitals and on public transport. The law is yet to be enforced, but it states that people not following the law will be given an option to remove the offending item, or they will be fined €150 to €415. The law is restricted only to the public buildings and transport but does not apply on the streets.

Both the police and transport workers have stated that the law will not be imposed strictly on their behalf. The police mentioned that the enforcement was discomforting as it will hinder a veiled woman from reaching out to the police station to make any complaints or for redressal of any problem. Motivated by this, transport companies have also stated that they will not enforce their staffs on trains, metros, trams or buses to impose this rule.

This has created confusion regarding the seriousness of this law. Regardless, this law has been criticised vehemently to be partial and also seen as a result of Islamophobia. The Dutch government has denied Islamophobia to be the basis of this law. The government insists that this was a security measure and will also ensure proper communication.

What is the background?

A far-right lawmaker Geert Wilders pushed this law and his party, make the intention of the imposition of this law, questionable. Mr Wilders is known for his anti-Islam view. He has openly revered the passing of this law and twitted that the "next step" should be to ban headscarves also and highlighted that, "If you want to wear a burqa, then go live in Saudi Arabia or Iran." Mr Wilders is not alone, both his party and several other lawmakers have openly supported this law.

But the Netherlands is not first to impose such ban six other European countries are prohibiting face-covering clothing in public buildings. France, under the presidentship of Nicolas Sarkozy in 2011, was the first to state that full-face veils were "not welcome". Apart from France and the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Latvia, Belgium and Bulgaria are among those who have imposed a similar ban.

What does it mean?

First, this law could be a broader indicator of growing intolerance towards a pluralist society. This has also impacted the shift in Europe's policy towards migrant, which has often been unwelcoming. Alongside this, similar discussions are in place in other parts of European such as Germany, Switzerland, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania and Norway. Parts of Spain have introduced such bans locally. It seems legal imposition of this ban became crucial for these countries since 2010, quite around the same time when the migration wave shifted towards Europe. 

Second, the law could be hinting a shift in discourse towards Dutch nationalism under which anti-Islam remains a critical component.

Thirdly, the new law and drift in discourse could also imply the more significant shift from liberalism in Europe and other parts of the world. This is more evident through the rise of populist governments around the globe.

What happened?

Japan announced that it would remove South Korea from its list of 'Trusted Trade Partners.' Stating that these measures are based on National Security Concerns and address Seoul's inadequate controls on export. Seoul was quick to respond to this, Ko Ming Jung, a government spokesperson, have said, "Our government will sternly respond to Japan's unfair decision." Not long ago, South Korea had warned that it may reconsider its decision over an intelligence-sharing accord with Japan if the situation were to get worse.

The "white list" includes 27 countries of which South Korea would be the first one to be removed, later this month, according to the announcement. The decision by Japan has come a month after Japan tightened rules on the export of materials crucial for South Korean tech manufacturers. Protests in front of the Japanese embassy in South Korea, called for a boycott of Japanese goods during a rally, while also demanding compensation and apology for the forced labour and wartime sex slaves.

What is the background?

The complicated history between the two countries is set to be a smaller version of the ongoing trade war between the US and China. The dispute began with the court ruling by a South Korean court on the comfort women and forced labour, ordering Japanese firms to pay compensation, thereby inflating the long-running tensions. These decisions were condemned by Japan who said that the dispute was settled in 1965 when diplomatic ties were normalised between the neighbouring countries.

South Korea has seized the assets of two companies' part of the case and Mitsubishi Heavy, one of the firms involved has refused to comply. Fast forward to a month ago, and Japan restricted access to products needed to make display panels and memory chips, which are critical industries for South Korea. The country's tech giants Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix exported around 60 percent of global memory components last year, according to IHS Markit, showing potential to rattle the electronics industry over potential threats to the global supply chain.

What does it mean?

Moon Jae-In on Friday tweeted saying, they would never be back to Japan "….We are expecting a lot of difficulties ahead of us, but it is not that we cannot overcome." Shows that there is no end to this dispute shortly. The immediate impact would be on the electronics industry, and as Japan's third-largest trading partner, buying about $54 billion worth of their goods, the impact would fall heavy on the industrial machines, chemicals and entertainment industries of the countries. A trade- war in the East, which has the largest technology-driven economies is just what the world did not need with 5G issue still around. On the political front, these actions by Japan could be an answer to the Chinese question on whose side does Japan stand, by taking the US route to trade conflicts.

What happened?

The 13 months long US-China Trade war has taken a new turn, after the recent meeting between US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin with Chinese officials, in Shanghai on Wednesday. The negotiation ended with little cooperation between the two countries. After the meet, Donald Trump's tweets have brought back both countries to a pre-G20 phase. Trump's tweet on 'putting an additional tariff of 10 percent on the remaining $300 billion of goods and products' coming from China has created an atmosphere of tension.

The White House said that the two sides had discussed topics including "forced technology transfer, intellectual property rights, services, non-tariff barriers and agriculture". The negotiations led China to commit an increase in the purchase of US agricultural products. Further, President Trump tweet claimed that China failed to keep the promise to curb the sale of Fentanyl, which had led to the death of more than 16000 US citizens.

What is the background?

Since July 2018, the two sides have imposed tariffs on more than $300 billion of goods. Both had agreed on a truce to end the trade war at G-20 summit in Japan 2019. Late in June, the US President had eased some restrictions against US companies selling hi-tech gear to Chinese telecom giant Huawei. With no substantial outcomes from the trade dialogue in Shanghai in July and with Donald Trump's tweet, the global markets took a hit. The trade war has shown a visible impact on both country's farmers, workers and consumers, and has put the country's economies at stake. The back and forth imposition of tariffs have shown a decrease in the growth rate of 6.2% in the Chinese economy, second quarter of 2019, which is the lowest since 1992.

What does it mean?

Trump's additional tariff from 01 September on China will increase the chance of further retaliatory tariffs from China in US-China trade war. The trade war has shown its repercussion on markets. The trade war between the two has disrupted the global supply chains and has affected commodity prices. This is not only hampering China but has brought in high inflation on goods and has changed the purchasing power of the US citizens. The deal between the two powerful economies of the world is turning as a 'threat' for the global growth rate. The trade war is likely to continue since both the countries have failed to make any substantial progress in the trade dialogue. Also, Trump's actions may be an attempt to bring China according to his terms before the 2020 presidential election

What happened?

On 23 July 2019, Russia and China carried out their first long-range joint air patrol in the Asia Pacific region. The patrol was reportedly carried out to project deepening relations between the two and their armed forces to facilitate and perfect possible joint actions in the future. 

The exercise sparked controversy when a patrol plane violated the airspace over the disputed Dokdo islands between Japan and South Korea. As a response to this violation, the South Korean forces fired hundreds of warning shots while Japan came up with harsh protest. 

What is the background?

At America’s expense, Russia and China have come to give increasing importance to their joint military actions and exercises in the recent past. In September 2018, the duo conducted a massive military exercise which was advertised as the biggest war games for decades close to Siberia. Known as Vostok-2018, the joint operation featured 300,000 Russian troops, 1,000 aircraft, 36,000 tanks and armoured vehicles from Russia alongside 3,200 Chinese troops, 900 tanks and armoured vehicles, as well as troops from Mongolia. Vostok-2018 was intended to project to show the strength of an upcoming Russia-China rapprochement in the Asia-Pacific region. 

Although troops and naval ships from Russia and China have taken part in combined exercises before, the recent joint air patrol was the first of its kind so far. 

What does it mean?

Both Russia and China have denied protests and responses over the alleged airspace violation. However, the action could mean that the duo was deliberately trying to provoke Washington's two key allies. This could have been in order to project their dominance in the region. 

Second, the Joint patrol and the subsequent violation shows a direct challenge to the idea of an Indo-Pacific and their larger hostility to democratic institutional frameworks which are propagating the idea. 

Third, Washington has repeatedly remained hostile over the concerns expressed by China and Russia over the deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems that include long-range radars on the Korean Peninsula which posed a direct threat to their security. While, the combined exercise signals that the two countries are moving towards a political convergence, the choice of conducting their air patrol close to disputed territory and the Korean peninsula at large might be read as a strong message to the US. 

Finally, the latest reports of apology from Russia to South Korea over the violation further shows that the entire incident was forged in order to send a direct strategic signal to the US and never intended to create a rift with South Korea or Japan

What happened? 

On 26 July the two-month-long protest in Hong Kong expanded when flight attendants and airport staff started an 11-hour protest at the Hong Kong international airport. The protest was in response to the government’s account for a violent attack on residents by suspected gang members last week. The aviation staffs were joined by demonstrators dressed in black, which is the signature colour of the Chinese territory’s protest movement. The protestor’s sat on the ground chanting “Free Hong Kong.”

What is the background? 

Hong Kong has been gripped by nearly two months of demonstrations by residents calling for democratic reforms and the withdrawal of a controversial extradition bill. However, so far the protest has been an impeccable display of peace, apology and restraint by the protesters. The protest took a violent turn on 21 July after an attack on commuters by suspected organised crime groups or as triads. This attack left 45 people hospitalised, and dozens of groups planned rallies and issued public petitions in response. In addition to this, a ruling on 19 July added to protesters grievances when Hong Kong’s appeal court overturned the conviction of two police officers previously found guilty of beating a protester in an alley during pro-democracy demonstrations in 2014. 

What does it mean? 

Over the past two months, the protests have spread from central Hong Kong to the border town of Sheung Shui and other rural parts. However, the choice of an international airport as their new centre to stage the demonstration against the government and police, is an attempt at urging international visitors to pay attention to Hong Kong. Throughout the last two months, both the means and sites of protest have remained dynamic. Thus it was not a surprise when after the triads’ attempt to disperse the moral of the protesters; it became necessary to call for international attention. 

The protest at the airport saw a group of students holding signs in English, Japanese, and Korean calling on “international friends for help standing up to the Hong Kong government”. Many held signs in red and white, designed to look like warning flags raised by police before firing on demonstrators, which said: “Tourist warning: do not trust the police or the government.”  

Secondly, it is essential to note that the protesters this time has attempted to overturn the traditional notion of ‘blockage, thus disrupting economy’ labelled by the Chinese authorities. Instead, protesters are calling on residents to come “for a walk” or to “stimulate the Yuen Long economy”. Organisers have filed an appeal to overturn the police decision to bar the march planned on 27 July. As the airport is chosen for protest, it has also called out to the mainland Chinese travellers to come to Yuen Long for “major discounts” on makeup, branded goods, and milk powder: items very popular with Chinese visiting Hong Kong. 

Lastly, why even after two months and suspension of the extradition bill the Hong Kong protest refuses to fizzle out? Perhaps, the bill is a trigger to several other issues that had remained unresolved for long, such as the housing market and Beijing’s continuous interference since 1997.  As a Chinese proverb goes, when you pull a hair, the whole body moves, the protest is Hong Kong’s way of protecting their right to governance. In the political history of Hong Kong protests are particularly crucial as a tool and an expression of their identity. For more than half a century, the people of Hong Kong have been taking to the streets to force distant authorities – first in Britain and later in Beijing – to reconsider how they govern the city. 

What happened?
On 22 July 2019, Imran Khan held his first face to face meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington DC. Lieutenant-General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Pakistan's military chief, accompanied the PM, along with ISIS chief Lieutenant-General Faiz Hameed. These meetings were a three-day state visit that comes amid strained relations between the two countries. 

The two leaders discussed several issues starting with how Pakistan would help the US to extricate troops from Afghanistan through political negotiations. Trump wants Pakistan to help initiate a peace deal with the Taliban. Further, they deliberated on economic matters. The US is one of the largest investors in Pakistan; with the grave financial situation that Pakistan is facing today, Imran Khan needs US support. Trump also offered his service to mediate in the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Khan and his delegation also met with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US congressional leaders, and the heads of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

What is the background?
Relations between the two countries have been strained ever since Trump assumed office in 2017. Trump administration took a hard stance and accused Pakistan of its support to militants and a few other issues that caused mistrust in the relation. 

The two heads of state over the years have exchanged opposing views via Twitter. However, efforts were taken to reset the relationship between the two countries.

What does it mean?
First, did both sides receive a positive outcome from this visit? At this stage it could be too soon to tell if it’s a positive outcome. Washington’s aim is to help use Khan’s visit as a means to get Pakistan to do even more on the Afghanistan for which they did get an adequate response. Islamabad hoped for the recognition for the assistance it has given to the US.  This was seen from the praises and kind words from many top US officials. 

Second, what will be the next steps when it comes to the Taliban? Although the two sides have decided to up the game on Taliban, Pakistan has a difficult task ahead of itself, as it may not be so easy to convince the Taliban to the demands that the US wants. However, Pakistan appears to be invested in helping reach a successful peace process in Afghanistan, mainly because of their vested interests. 

Thirdly, what significance does Pakistan's military and intelligence chiefs as part of these meetings have? The Pakistan-US relationship has an important security angle to it. Thus, having Pakistan's military and intelligence leadership shows that there was an agreement of views on commitments by Pakistan. 

Lastly, when it comes to the Kashmir offer, this is a much larger issue that a side comment such as this is not going to make much of an impact. In all it does seems that Khan and Trump have built a comfortable space to work in. However, this space is still not free from challenges such as Afghanistan, terrorism, India, and China will all have a significant impact on the relation

What happened?
The special counsel Robert Mueller during his hearing in front of the Congress this week has rejected the charges of exoneration on President Donald Trump. He stated that he had not exonerated Mr Trump of obstruction of justice. 

Apart from ‘what’ Mueller spoke, there was much discussion on ‘how’ he spoke. As described by several he appeared to be apprehensive, ‘dodder’ and ‘donnish’. Also, while answering the questions during the hearing, he strictly remained confined to his 448-page report. 

Trump, evidently happy with this proceeding, tweeted that it was a great day for him. 

What is the background?
In his report, Mueller has concluded that Russia had interfered in the 2016 American Presidential election in order to provide leverage to Mr Trump's campaign. Concerning this allegation against Russian interference, a total of three companies and 35 people have been charged. However, the list does not include any member of the Trump family. Among the 35 people, White House Counsel Don McGahn name is also included, against whom the Democrats have decided to move to Court in order to request enforcement of Subpoena. 

This report titled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" highlighted Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. It also investigated the role of Donald Trump in conspiracy or any coordination between him and Russia. 

A special court has been investigating since 1 May 2017, leading to the charges against the 35 people and three companies. On 22 March 2019, the Muller report was submitted to Attorney General William Barr and in April 2019 was made public by Department of Justice (DOJ). 

What does it mean?
The Mueller report highlights two polarisations. One, between the Republic and the Democrats; the latter wants to make the report as the basis for an impeachment procedure against Trump. Second is the difference between the Congress and White House. 

On 8 May, Trump retained redactions and its supporting material under his temporary "protective assertion" of executive privilege preventing the Congress to pass the material. This divided the Congress and the White House, which is rare in American political history. 

Mueller's testimony is likely to divide the Democrats and provide more confidence to Trump. For the Democrats, Mueller's testimony has been a disappointment. They were hopeful of initiating an impeachment process against Trump. The Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was a strong advocate of Trump’s impeachment, took steps back after the testimony by Mueller. Now, a section of the Democrats believes they cannot move with the impeachment any more. Disagreeing to this view, another section still wants to go ahead with the impeachment request. 

The testimony, however, is going to enhance Trump's confidence. This is going to shape American politics further. 

What happened?
Iran’s elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps detained two oil tankers – one registered in the UK (Stena Impero) and the other in Liberia - in the Strait of Hormuz on 20 July 2019. The seizure was in response to the UK impounding an Iranian tanker. According to Tehran the ‘Stena Impero’ collided with a fishing boat while sailing towards Saudi port and then suddenly changed course breaching international maritime laws. Will Tehran and London truce or will the situation spiral out of control?

What is the background?

In a recent episode of the US-Iran standoff, Iran shot down an unmanned US “spy-drone”. Trump retaliated by launching an airstrike on Iran but cancelled at the last minute. In early July, Tehran announced its decision to breach the nuclear deal. On July 4, the United Kingdom seized the Iranian oil tanker ‘Grace 1’ just off the coast of Gibraltar, accusing the tanker of selling oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions. Tehran warned of retaliation. On July 11, Iran attempted to seize a UK tanker in vain; only to succeed a few days later.

What does it mean?
Trump-exit from JCPOA and the re-imposition of crippling sanctions put the deal on life-support making the remaining signatories scuttle for a working relationship with Tehran. However, Iranian decision to exceed the 3.68% Uranium enrichment levels and heavy-water stockpiles – a significant breach of the nuke deal, has put the signatories in a tricky position. The UK-Iran conflict is a small piece in the broader Iran-US impasse. 

Iran has carried out the threat of retaliation rising tensions between Iran and the West another notch. The international naval coalition for protection of ships sailing in the Gulf, proposed by Britain saw strong opposition from Tehran. Although Iran’s Rouhani had hinted a possible tanker swap-deal, nothing has materialized. The tensions are only spiralling and may end in another Gulf war if not curbed.

Meanwhile, the UK now provides military escort to their ships sailing in the Gulf; the US plans to ensure “free passage” of ships in Iranian waters; Tehran claims to have arrested 17 CIA officers spying on Iran’s nuclear and military establishments; India has stated that Iran has released nine Indian crew members; and the existing signatories - France, Germany, the EU, China, Russia and the UK will meet in Vienna, on July 28, to save the deal

What happened?
This week, Boris Johnson succeeded Theresa May as the new Prime Minister of Britain. He has the task to deliver ‘do or die,’ pledge for Brexit with just over three months left. The Parliament has already rejected the Brexit deal three times. A large part of Boris Johnson’s role would be to persuade the European Union to revive talks on a withdrawal deal. He has promised that he would ramp up preparations for a no-deal Brexit to try to force the EU's negotiators to make changes to the accord. 

What is the background?

A known controversial figure in the British politics and journalism, Boris Johnson’s supporters have praised him as an entertaining, humorous, and popular figure, with an appeal stretching beyond traditional Conservative voters. Conversely, he is also accused of elitism, dishonesty, laziness, and using racist and homophobic language. 

In 2016 Johnson became a prominent figure in the successful “Vote Leave” campaign for Brexit. He was subsequently appointed as the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Theresa May but resigned criticizing May's approach to Brexit and the Chequers Agreement. In July 2019 he was elected Conservative Leader and appointed Prime Minister.

When he showed his support for May’s deal, he said, “I genuinely think that unless this thing goes through, the House of Commons is going to steal Brexit.” His logic being, it is this Brexit or Brexit may never happen at all. Just as how bleak the difference in the referendum was, so is the divide in the opinions among the Parliamentarians on the Brexit deal. This uncertainty has led to the rise of a strong-worded leader as Boris Johnson. The Parliament would break for a summer recess and return in September.

What does it mean?

The lawmakers, the pro-EU Conservatives and the members of Parliament have rejected the deal three times. They have also vowed to do the same with Johnson if he would try to take Britain out of the EU without a deal. If nothing changes over summer break, Boris Johnson might find a parliament even more obstructive than they were with Theresa May. 

Britain seems to have failed to understand and address the fundamentals that have led to Brexit. The referendum has exacerbated, rather than resolved the fundamentals that led to Brexit. Boris Johnson might be their last bet at hoping the process ends, one way or another, an accurate representation of the mood of the people. 

What happened?

After fully closing their airspace on 26 February 2019, Pakistan partially opened its airspace in March 2019. On 16 July 2019, Normal air traffic operations between India and Pakistan resumed, and Islamabad opened its airspace for all civilian flights. The earlier open sky policy has now been switched over to fair sky policy which offers equal opportunities to domestic air operators to expand their businesses. Previously, domestic airlines did not have space to expand their operations because of open sky policies. 

What is the background?

Five months after closing the airspace due to escalating tensions between Pakistan and India; Pakistan reopened its airspace, with a NOTAMS, "With immediate effect, Pakistan airspace is open for all types of civil traffic on published ATS (Air Traffic Service) routes." Indian Civil Aviation Minister, Hardeep Singh Puri, stated to India's upper house of parliament that the airspace closure had cost the Indian airlines more than $80.1m loss. The bulk of the losses affected Air India, the national flag carrier, which lost more than $71.65m; other carriers affected include Indian airlines SpiceJet ($4.48m), IndiGo ($3.66m) and GoAir ($0.3m). Pakistan is reported to have lost $50 billion by closing its airspace. 

Additionally, this situation led to carriers having to fly around Pakistan rather than over it. This diversion resulted in flight times to India (especially Delhi) and SouthEast Asia to increase significantly. After it was reopened, fares to the US, Europe dropped by 15-20%. Immediately, aviation minister H S Puri tweeted that India would resume its tri-weekly Delhi- Amritsar- Birmingham service.

What does it mean?

It took five strong months for Pakistan airspace to remain closed, despite requests from India. Eventually, the logistics and economics of the issue made the upper hand. This period was necessary to understand the level of economic and geographical interdependence that the two nations have. Pakistan chose to forego their condition to have India remove its fighter jets from the vicinity, this speaks for itself. 

What happened?

The US authorities have begun the process to exclude Turkey from the F-35 program. The move comes after several rounds of negotiations. Turkey had called for reconsideration, but the US chose the harsher response. Donald Trump on Thursday said that imposing sanctions on Turkey for its purchase of the Russian made S-400 Triumf missile defence system is still under consideration in the US administration. This comes after the US ended Turkey's involvement in the development of the F-35 fighter jet. 

By March 2020, the withdrawal of Turkey's industrial participation in the development of the fighter jet will be completed.

What is the background?

The tensions between the two countries have been on for several years. Sharing a long history of alliance from the Cold War era where they found a common enemy in the Soviets. The interests of the two nations diverged in the case of Syria. The US support to Kurd rebels made Ankara dubious of its real interests. 

Though a NATO partner, Ankara has grown sceptical of how important Turkey's security to Washington is. The watershed moment could be the 2016 coup attempt on Erdogan. While the cleric who ordered the coup was located in the American soil and a lukewarm response by the US annoyed Turkey, Vladimir Putin was one of the first international leaders to phone Erdogan. 

The S-400s are the best anti-aircraft defence system in the world, quintessential for Erdogan to defend his palace against the NATO jets flown by rogue pilots that are proving to be a security risk. Hence the alliance seems to be also out of necessity.

What does it mean?

While Turkey is diverging from its earlier position in the world stage as a NATO partner, as a staunch ally of the US against the Russians in this radical pivot move, the one that would benefit the most would be Russia. Russia has been looking to increase its global footprint somewhat slyly by signing agreements and deals with several nations facing sanctions from the US. 
About Turkey, the case is no different. An offer for Su-35 fighter jets as a replacement for the F-35s is already on the table from the Russian Rostec corporation. 

With the Congress calling for enacting sanctions on Turkey through CAATSA, the US is dismayed with the developments. While the US sanctions are undesirable for the nations, it is also becoming a tool for Russia to find common ground to engage more with the affected countries. 

What happened?

On 17 July 2019 Sudan's pro-democracy movement and the ruling military council signed a power-sharing agreement. The ceremony was held in the capital, Khartoum. This marks the end of protests and negotiations that have been going on for more than three months. Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan was a signatory for the military to the power-sharing deal.

The deal lays down that there would be joint civilian-military sovereign council which would govern Sudan during the three- year transition period. The council will be made up of 11 members, five civilians, five from the military, and one person will be chosen by the council. The military will head the council for the first 21 months after which the civilian leader will lead for the remaining 18 months. They have also agreed for a cabinet in which the civilians will choose the prime minister and two other posts of defence, and the military will nominate interior minister. Further, the deal also promises an investigation into all the violence that has taken place. 

What is the background?

Sudan has gone through several struggles to reach this deal. The unrest can be traced back to when President Al Bashir's government imposed emergency austerity measures which cause the beginning of the uprising, leading to him being ousted by the military. However, the demonstrators demanded that power be transferred to the civilians. Since then, the military and civilians have clashed many times, causing many deaths and turbulence in the country. The military and civilian representative met to discuss in June. However, no consensus was reached, which is when Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed flew to Sudan to help mediate a new agreement between the two sides. It was only after a few days of talks that his special envoy, Mahmoud Dirir stated that protest leaders had agreed to suspend their strikes and return to the negotiating with the military, after which two sides reached a new power-sharing agreement on 5 July 2019. 

What does it mean? 
This deal is a step towards civilian rule for Sudan. After months of disrupted talks, the coming together of the two sides to sign such an agreement is noteworthy by itself. On paper, this means that in three years, there will be a fully established civilian administration in Sudan. Even though the agreement fails to mention finer details of how the power is to be shared and various other elements, it is a well enough foundation for the two sides to build upon. Sudan is a country that is familiar with transitions; they have witnessed three transitions in the last six decades. Thus this is a process they are familiar with, and the only difference now is that if things go as planned, Sudan will see democracy at the end of this

What happened?

On 17 July 2019, the US House of Representatives has reportedly passed a resolution to block Trump's plan to sell weapons and guided missiles to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Jordan. Given the mounting rift between the White House and the Congress, the latest blockade could be read as an expression of political displeasure of Trump's involvement with Saudi in the human rights abuses and the increasing causalities in the Yemen war. 

What is the background?

Initially, in May 2019, the Trump administration had pushed for an $ 8.1 billion worth of arms deal with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Jordan by issuing an emergency declaration available within the Presidential powers. The "emergency powers" from the US Arms Export Control Act under the arms control law was tweaked to complete the deal by circumventing the Congress. As per US law, Congress holds the right to review significant weapons sales. 

According to the White House, the fast-track decision came as a measure to tackle new military tensions with Iran that has been threatening the stability of the region while putting a strain on major international trade routes. Most significantly, it has been putting US security and national interests at risk.

What does it mean?

The primary reason for this move is the increasing divide within the system. 

Firstly, the latest blow on the President's decision could be viewed as an extension of ongoing efforts to put restraints over the American President's war-time powers and restructure current defence policies. It could also be read as an effort by Congress to exert its importance as a constitutional authority. According to US Arms sales law, the Congress review "stands to be the only instance that allows the open scrutiny of major arms sales to foreign countries."

Second, concerns over the message that USA's deepening relations with Saudi would send at a time when the former has to be seen holding the kingdom accountable for the murder of US journalist Jamal Khashoggi. It is imperative to note that Trump had earlier dismissed UN requests over investigations into the Khashoggi murder claiming that it could affect the existing weapon transactions and sales with Saudi. 

Finally, the move shows mounting discomfort over American involvement in the Yemen war. The weapon deal has come at a time when Yemen is trying to push for a peace process. In April this year, Trump had vetoed a Congress decision to end US involvement in the Yemen crisis through Saudi. Widespread reports suggest that the latest weapon-transfer is to be used for the Yemeni war by the Saud as they have used up their weaponry and are looking for supplies. This is on par with Trump's idea that Saudi supported coalition in Yemen would help in differentiating targets better and thereby reduce civilian causalities. 

What happened? 

On 17 July, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stayed the death sentence by Pakistan's military court on Kulbhushan Jadhav. Jadhav was convicted of espionage and placed on death row, but India has described him as a retired naval officer-turned-businessman. As a result of the verdict in Hague, not only the death warrant was stalled, the court recognising the right to counsel has asked Pakistan to grant Jadhav his right to defend himself in front of the law. Following this verdict, Pakistan on 18 July has granted consular rights to Jadhav.  

What is the background? 

Pakistan announced Jadhav's arrest on 29 March 2016, following a video confession he reportedly made was broadcast that day in which he was heard saying that he was an Indian spy and had carried out terrorist acts on Pakistani soil. Following the arrest, India and Pakistan relation worsened. Pakistan for the first blamed India for instigating proxies and indulging in cross border terrorism the same that Islamabad is accused off. Upon his arrest and death sentence, India decided to move to the ICJ on the ground of Jadhav's right to consular access under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) of 1963. 

At the ICJ, both the countries vigorously argued their case, and at the end, Pakistan's contention that Article 36 of the VCCR did not apply on the grounds of espionage was rejected. It also overruled the argument that a 2008 India-Pakistan bilateral agreement on consular access allowed it to deny consular access on 'security' grounds. Instead, the court concluded that Pakistan had indeed violated international law when it deprived India of the right to communicate with and have access to Jadhav. 

What does it mean? 

The ICJ judgement is balanced that offered both the countries space to drive the outcome. Thus it wasn't a surprise that ICJ didn't ask for the release of Jadhav and asked Pakistan to grant consular access to Jadhav.  

But it is also important to note that this is how far international law can go. How long the stay lasts and what sort of outcome emerges from the review process will likely be determined by political considerations – both within Pakistan and at the bilateral level with India. Thus what next after the verdict?

First, the ICJ left the choice of the review process to Pakistan. The latter will decide to go with the military courts or civilian courts. If the civilian courts get into the act and display an independent judgement, then it is possible for relief.  Second, what Pakistan does next will determine how it wants to maintain its relation with India as well as its global image. Thus while Pakistan is obliged to review and reconsider the conviction and sentence, it will also be wary of the adverse impact it causes.  Lastly, the possible outcome could happen that Jadhav is put on trial before the military court once again, and he is found guilty one more time. But this time India will also be witnessing the process. 

But all said and done, the Jadhav case is the product of the central position that terrorism and allegations of state sponsorship of terrorism have come to occupy in the discourse of India-Pakistan relations. The case should remind one that while New Delhi's case against Islamabad may have strong support worldwide, but the Pakistani military has also made rhetoric through Jadhav's confession video that it too is a victim of "cross-border terrorism".

What happened?

This week, the United States of America has imposed sanctions on four senior leaders of Myanmar's military, including their Commander in Chief Min Aung Hlaing over the atrocities and human rights abuses against Rohingya Muslims. Apart from the Commander in Chief his deputy Soe Win and Brigadier Generals Than Oo and Aung Aung's names are also in the list. The sanction bans these Myanmarese military leaders and their families from entering the US territory. This is the first strict measure taken against them on behalf of the US. The sanction may be extended soon to include the names of two more military leaders identified in UN investigators report in 2018. This report has been compiled by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, and have blamed six Myanmarese military leaders including of those mentioned above, for genocide against the Rohingyas.

What is the background?

The riots and attacks against the Rohingya in Arakan province, an ethnic community, has been a significant cause of conflict since 2012. The Rohingya, who are Muslims do not figure in the list of 135 ethnic communities in Myanmar and hence are stateless since 2008. In 2012 the rise of radical monks and organisations like 969 and Ma Ba Tha acted as a catalyst for this conflict. This has forced many Rohingya to migrate to Bangladesh over the years. But in 2017 a military crackdown drove more than 730,000 Rohingya to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh, according to UN figures. UN investigators have stated that the atrocities included mass killings, gang rapes, and arson and was executed with "genocidal intent." This issue has also led to Aung San Suu Kyi, the State Councilor, loss of the Noble Peace Prize awarded to her, due to her inaction against the military. Both the army and the State have denied the charges of attack and genocide. Since 2018, Myanmar has agreed for repatriation of the refugees from Bangladesh; however, not even one Rohingyas are repatriated yet.  

What does it mean?

The US measure has been appreciated by many especially by Bangladesh, as a right move against Myanmar. Both the US and Bangladesh have called upon other countries to follow the same. But as rightly pointed out by the UN special rapporteur Yanghee Lee that this sanction will "do not go far enough." Most of these leaders may not even need to travel to the US. If other countries follow suit, that will not have any significant impact on these leaders neither will it assist to reduce any misery for the Rohingya refugees. As insisted by Yanghee Lee the properties of these leaders in the US or in different countries must be frozen. However, until China who is the biggest investor in Myanmar, supports the military not much could be done through sanctions on the military. Even ASEAN is yet to take steps against its member although this issue has been discussed in several committees and annual meetings. It seems although appreciated the US-led sanction will not be of much help.

What happened?
On 7 July 2019, Iran announced that it would breach the limit of stockpiling low-enrichment Uranium, set by the landmark 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). After a year of US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, for the first time, the Islamic Republic announced the violation of the terms of the multilateral agreement. According to the agreement, Iran was allowed to enrich not more than 300 kg of Uranium as part of its atomic research activity. Iran has also announced its next move to increase Uranium enrichment level beyond 3.67% purity, which is threatening as it will help Tehran to acquire weapon grade Uranium. Highly enriched Uranium isotope of  Uranium-235 of 90% purity is considered as weapon grade Uranium. According to experts if Iran can produce Uranium of 20% purity from low enriched Uranium, it is considerably easy to produce weapon-grade Uranium. The international community, especially signatories of the deal other than the US, have expressed extreme concern and requested Iran to abide the terms of the agreement. While China has primarily blamed US sanctions on Iran for the present situation.  

What is the background?
On May 2019, Trump announced the US withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear deal and reimposed the unilateral economic sanctions. With US maximum pressure strategy back on Iran, Iran turned to other signatories, especially EU to save the agreement and hence continue trade with Iran. From past one-year major European companies pulled off from Iran under US pressure and Iran's crude oil export has also faced a severe challenge under US policy of "zero oil import" from Iran, intended to cut off Iran's oil sale to any country. Apart from designating Iran's Islamic Revolutionary  Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), the US has also recently imposed a set of new sanctions against Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While EU's effort to continue trade with Iran via alternative payment method remains largely unsuccessful, Iran decides to put pressure on the international community to uphold the deal and confront the US by the threat to cross the uranium enrichment limit, which can be used to build an atomic bomb. 

What does it mean?
Left with tough choices, Iran is taking the path of confronting the US rather than submit to US pressure. While other signatories of the deal seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis, of the present situation, possibilities of the same remain murky. While the US adopts a different policy of engagement for another de facto nuclear power North Korea, Washington's policy of isolation towards Tehran might not be sustainable in the long run, as it can aggravate Iran to develop its nuclear programme to build nuclear weapons in order to deter regional threat perception from Arab countries and Israel.

The US and Iran have created a dangerous stalemate in the nuclear crisis which if not solved diplomatically, the emergence of another North Korea seems very likely, let alone the possibility of another conflict in the already war-torn West Asian region.

What happened? 

On 30 June Donald Trump became the first sitting US president to cross into North Korea walking next to Kim Jong-un in the demilitarised zone. Trump has earlier in the day arrived in Seoul for talks with the South Korean President Moon Jae-in after attending the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan. It was during this summit he had made the Twitter invitation to Kim making a seemingly spur-of-the-moment desire to meet the leader. However, what was intended to be an impromptu exchange of pleasantries had later turned into a 50-minute meeting. 

What is the background? 

This new diplomatic approach to North Korea comes since the fall of 2017 when Trump had mocked Kim as “Little Rocket Man” and promised to “totally destroy” North Korea if it didn’t stop developing a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile which is a threat to US shores. Pyongyang, on the other hand, had responded by calling him a ‘mentally deranged dotard.’ While the Singapore summit had achieved little and just little more than a pledge from Pyongyang to suspend nuclear and long-range missile testing, Kim has remained frustrated after the failed Hanoi summit in February this year. In addition to firing some short-range rockets, he had also made sure that the envoys to Washington meet their due ends for failing the talks. Kim’s image got a boost after Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Pyongyang earlier last month and now with Trump’s visit, it has been taken further.  

What does it mean? 

But was the visit a surprise to both the leaders. Not as much. Trump had just delivered to the North Korean leader a degree of global recognition and acceptance which Kim was hoping after the Hanoi fiasco. This visit had come after much deliberation from Trump about what he would gain as he heads home into his 2020 re-election campaign. The President is rightly aware that he needs to make few good choices on his negotiating and transactional skills, after all, that’s his signature tones and shifts in the US foreign policy. Thus, on 20 June when he restarted the faltering US-China trade talks in a meeting with Xi Jinping, it was in line with this thought. And later in the same day when he tweeted, “Great friendships have been made,” he was focused on the need to show the home audience that something has been done. In 2016 he had promised the electorate that the US is going to win much that it is going to be sick and tired of winning. But after Singapore nothing much has reached in the nuclear deal or denuclearization aspect, relationship with China is still stuck even after almost a year of the trade escalation, pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership didn’t mean it was America First and lastly, in West Asia, in spite of withdrawing from JCPOA the sanctions hasn't worked much in Iran adhering to the limited nuclear built up. It is in this context that the visit assumes significance.

Also, it is noteworthy that Trump has designated Stephen Biegun as the lead US negotiator on the renewed talks with North Korea as Biegun has in the past favoured a more phased approach than National Security Advisor John Bolton and other hawks. Does this mean he is now looking at more stable solutions and results than outright high tempered approach?

Sourina Bej is currently a Research Associate with the ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at sourinabej92@gmail.com

What happened? 
As per reports, the ongoing seventh round of negotiations between Taliban representatives and US officials from 29 June 2019 in Qatar has shown remarkable progress. The Doha talks aim at achieving a draft agreement which would facilitate withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and also end the 18-year-old conflict in the region. 

But, on the contrary, when the negotiations seem to head to peace, attacks from Taliban fighters continue fading the prospects of the process. On 29 June, when the talks began, reportedly, the Taliban killed 19 people in an attack on a government office in Kandahar province. While on the very next day, they detonated a car bomb in a Kabul area killing 16 people and wounding at least 105.  Following this, Germany and Qatar announced an all-Afghan peace summit to be held in Doha without the participation of the Afghan government in the coming week.

What is the background?

The Taliban-US meeting is the seventh since October in Doha to end the 18-year long war in Afghanistan. According to the US special representative for Afghanistan, the six failed attempts indicate that faster progress would be the key as tensions escalate and innocent civilians die. 

Following this, the latest round is said to focus on four key issues. First, a Taliban guarantee that it will not allow fighters to use Afghanistan to launch attacks outside the country, withdrawal of the US and its allied forces, a permanent ceasefire and an intra-Afghan dialogue. The Afghan government is still kept away from the process as the Taliban regards them to be a "puppet of the US and further refused to hold peace with them. 

What does it mean?

It means that despite the optimism, the present situation suggests that the possibilities of full-on peace in Afghanistan seem afar. First, the trend of continuing talks on one hand while perpetrating violence, on the other seems to be the Taliban’s strategy to effectively consolidate its influence by all possible means. If negotiations succeed, the insurgents will easily expand their influence and eventually return to power. If it doesn’t find fruit, then, the Taliban would continue acquiring territory using terror. 
Second, given the above strategy, the divide within the present governmental institutions over domestic issues is only dragging the war further and complicating the process. This is thereby pushing the conflict in the Taliban’s favour. 
Third, the US and its allied forces have tried to argue that military pressure which included multiple airstrikes and raids have kept the Taliban at bay even as talks progressed. But the latter seems to have a counter-approach to the same. The Taliban seems to view its participation towards peace signifies their growing influence in the country. 

Hence, the faster progress to peace indicated by the six failed attempts to negotiations previously might remain bleak even as the present scenario seems optimistic.  

Seetha Lakshmi Dinesh Iyer is a Research Associate at ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at ssethadinesh2807@gmail.com

What happened?

Protestors bashed through Hong Kong’s Legislative Council building this week. On the occasion of the 22nd Anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to China, a bunch of young protestors took to the streets, smashing windows, defaced walls and destroyed property in the vicinity have filled the headline news around the world. One of the city’s most sacred political institutions has been spoilt shockingly; the protestors have begun resorting to hardline tactics in the name of democracy- which is both counterproductive to the cause and also crossing the red line. There is concern among the moderates after how uncontrollable the movement might continue to become, the effects of the turmoil on the city’s reputation, economy and investments. 

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, this week warned that Beijing would face ‘serious consequences’ if it failed to honour the terms of the agreement to hand over Hong Kong. Hunt said that the Sino-British Joint Declaration, signed in 1984 and setting out the terms for Hong Kong’s return to the Chinese sovereignty, was a “legally binding” agreement to be honoured and if it is not, there will be serious consequences. 

What is the background?
Demonstrations erupted last month against the proposed extradition law that would allow the mainland to take decisions on the crimes that were committed on the autonomous regions. The protests did not stop despite the promise of postponement of the hearing of the legislation. 

The protests rose to a new level this week, on 1 July 2019,  when demonstrators stormed the city’s legislature, left anti-Beijing messages on the walls such as “Hong Kong is not China”, and hung the colonial-era flag. This was coupled with the provocative response from Jeremy Hunt and the western media who did not fail to target the Chinese government. 

What does it mean?

Hong Kong police have arrested a few people over the protests, but the authorities and the Chinese government have their hands tied. It seems like the protestors, and the world is waiting for a response from them, and any response from their side would have a drastic impact on their reputation. Neither of them wants another Tiananmen-like incident. 

Harini Madhusudhan is a Research Associate at ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at harinimadhusudan@gmail.com

What happened?

On 4th July 2019, at least 60 people were killed and scores more wounded by two air raids on a migration-refugee detention centre in Libya’s capital, Tripoli, sheltering African migrants – the latest victims of the Libyan civil war. According to the UN’s special envoy, the attacks amount to ‘war crime’. Meanwhile, Tripoli has blamed Khalifa Haftar, the renegade military commander attempting to seize the city, for the attacks.

What is the background? 

The contemporary Libyan civil war, as we know it, is the second in the history of Libya. The first Libyan Civil War also is known as Libyan Revolution or 17 February Revolution (2011) essentially commenced during the fag end of Gaddafi’s rule. Ever since the lynching and crude killing of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s revolutionary politician, the power vacuum has only further skewed and strained the country’s domestic politics; the humanitarian situation has deteriorated, and ethnic targeting and refugee crisis have peaked.
The second Libyan Civil War (2014) is the ongoing conflict with parties seeking to seize Tripoli and control Libya’s oil resources. In this scenario, Khalifa Haftar, the head of the Libyan National Army, escalates the threat of military bulldozing of Libya. 
Egypt, UAE, Qatar, and Sudan have all time and again assisted different factions in this strife hence reflecting regional conflicts within the domestic political scenario of Libya and in turn gradually escalating the Libyan civil war into a regional conflict. 

What does it mean?

Recently, WHO released reports stating that over 1000 had died as a result of the three-months fight for Tripoli. The conflict is claiming more and more lives every day. The air raids were orchestrated on the detention centre despite the UN providing the conflicting parties with precise coordinates of the detention centre. The Libyan guards also shot at refugees and migrants fleeing the centre. These point towards the attacks were planned and deliberate. In this scenario, the UN’s inefficacy in resolving the Libyan crisis is creating a dent in the organization’s credibility. 

Whether this eruption of conflict is a boon or curse in disguise for Italy is yet to be comprehended. Nonetheless, with militias about, fewer boats will transport refugees and migrants across the waters. 

This conflict is not going to fizz out shortly. Only time will tell if Haftar will succeed in seizing Tripoli and if the only solution left to Libya is one requiring military might. The larger worry – the world’s reluctance to condemn Haftar is looming large!

Lakshmi Venugopal Menon is a Research Consultant at ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at lakshmimenon0410@gmail.com.

What happened?

Sudan’s military council and the pro-democracy council reached a new power-sharing agreement on 5 July 2019, with help from the African Union (AU) and Ethiopia who played roles of mediators. AU mediator Mohamed Hassan Lebatt stated that both sides have agreed to establish a joint military-civilian sovereign council that they would rule on rotation for three years and three months, where the military would be in charge for the first 21 months, then a civilian-run administration would rule for the remaining 18 months. The agreement laid out that five seats would go to the military and five to civilians, with an additional seat given to a civilian agreed who would be selected by both sides. 
They have also agreed to have a detailed, transparent, national and independent investigation into violent incidents that the country has witnessed over the past few weeks. The deputy head of the Transitional Military Council, Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, said that this agreement would be one that includes everyone; however, the protesters did not have the same response, they stated that they wanted more from the deal and many are still sceptical about the details.

What is the background?

The deal has come after the uprising which had started with a protest against the increasing price of bread, that turned into a movement which led to the ousting of Mr Al-Bashir after 30 years of troubled and brutal rule. Since then, Sudan has witnessed turbulent times with the military taking over and determination of how the transition would take place.

The Military and representatives of the protester met to discuss who would take over control of Sudan last month, however, negotiations failed when a military clampdown took place on the 3 June 2019, leaving many dead. The army then stated that they had rejected all agreements with the opposition and that the elections would be conducted in nine months, but the protesters asserted that a transition period of three years was required to guarantee free and fair elections. When the talks failed, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed flew to Sudan to help mediate a new agreement between the two sides. It was only after a few days of talks that his special envoy, Mahmoud Dirir stated that protest leaders had agreed to suspend their strikes and return to the negotiating with the military.

What does it mean?

With this new deal, it sets the ball rolling for Sudan’s fight for democracy. The provision of the deal that was put down would help in the smooth transition of power from the military to civilians as the first phase of the rotation is given to the military and the second to the civilians, thus enabling them to make a rather easy transition. The deal also goes to imply that the military council is not hesitant to let the people taken control. Their willingness to a deal of this kind only reiterates that they are ready to work with the people.
The regional and international response that the deal has got has been positive, UAE's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash stated that he hoped this next phase would see the foundation of a constitutional system that would strengthen the role of institutions with broad national and popular support, he also went on to say that Abu Dhabi will stand with Khartoum in "good times and bad times”.

Although thousands of protesters took to the street in celebration of this new deal, the reality of the deal rests in the implementation of it by the military, for they now are the ones who control everything in Sudan, thus it important to know how the military would react and act on this. It is no doubt a good step for Sudan in the context the fight for democracy; however, much cannot be said because of the complexities and uncertainty of the situation.

Abigail Miriam Fernandez is pursuing post-graduation in Stella Maris College, Chennai. She can be reached at fernandezabigail123@gmail.

What happened?

On 3 July 2019, Pakistan's Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD) announced to have filed 23 cases against Hafiz Saeed and his 12 aides for terrorism financing. He is the head of Lashkar-i-Taiba, the terrorist organisation which was the perpetrator of 2008 attack on Mumbai. LeT-linked charities such as Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation (FIF), were also charged. One of the senior counter-terrorism officials anonymously stated: “all the assets of these organisations and individuals will be frozen and taken over by the state.”
The case was registered at three places, namely Lahore, Gujranwala, and Multan.  The charges also include several trusts such as Al-Anfaal Trust, Dawat ul Irshad Trust, Muaz Bin Jabal Trust, Al Hamd Trust and Al Madina Foundation Trust “for collection of funds for terrorism financing through assets/properties made and held in the names of trusts/non-profit organisations (NPO).”

What is the background?

LeT has been banned in Pakistan since 2002, and previously also Saeed has been detained in his home several times, without any success. These fresh cases filed against him seems to be a re-new effort towards curtailing terrorism financing which Pakistan has been blamed to have failed to restrict over a long period. According to the CTD, the case was filed due to the sanctions imposed by the UN on Saeed and his organisation. But UN sanction was not the only pressure points, both the US and India have been criticising Pakistan for its inaction for a long time. The US had declared prize money of US $10 million for the head of Hafiz Saeed.

Additionally, last year, Pakistan was designated on the “grey list” category by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The countries who are unable to contain over money-laundering and terrorism-financing are categorised under the "grey list". This international watchdog had given Pakistan 2019 as a deadline “to improve its efforts against terrorism-financing”. These pressures seem to have triggered Pakistani authorities to act against Saeed and his organisation.

What does it mean?

There could be two implications, one, Pakistan’s effort to appease its equation with India. To an extent, there was hope given the massive coverage of this news in Indian media even compare to Pakistani media itself. Unfortunately, the news failed to create a stir in the political clout in New Delhi. It was dismissed by Indian foreign ministry as a ‘cosmetic steps.’ As stated by Raveesh Kumar, Spokesman of Indian foreign minister, “Pakistan is trying to hoodwink the international community on taking action against terror groups. Let us not get fooled by cosmetic steps against terror groups by Pakistan.” Hence if appeasement was Pakistan’s intention, it seemed to have failed.
Second, this was essential to evade the sanctions and also for being “blacklisted” as threatened by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The international sanction would have been shameful for Pakistan and harmful for the country’s economy. But the seriousness of these charges against Saeed and also the intensity of these cases will be understood only over time.

Aparupa Bhattacherjee is a PhD scholar at the School of Conflict and Security Studies, NIAS. She can be reached at aparupa.bhattacharjee@gmail.com

What happened?

The fourteenth International leaders' Forum of leaders from 19 countries plus the EU, is underway in Osaka, Japan. This group collectively represents two-thirds of the population and more than 80 per cent of the world's economic output with its primary aim being- to promote international financial stability.

On the first day of the Summit, 28 June 2019, bilateral meetings took centre stage. During the meeting between Trump and Putin, a reporter asked Trump if he would tell Russia not to meddle in the upcoming US presidential election in 2020. The US leader seems to have  turned to Putin with a smile and said: "Don't meddle in the election, please." Multiple meetings were held between Trump and Merkel, May and Putin, Modi and Merkel.

The EU and the US have displayed differences in their stance regarding Climate Change; the US has been trying to get them to soften their stance on Climate. However, in his meeting with Macaron, the French president said, removing any reference to the Paris deal in the final statement would be a red line for him.

Leaders of Russia, India and China have urged joint action against unilateralism during their meeting on the sidelines. Emphasis was given to the three countries' agreement on the need to rely on international law, respect for national sovereignty, and refrain from interference in internal affairs of other nations. Apart from these, there were a couple of mentions on the Iran issue, the protests in Hong Kong, and the tensions in the Gulf. Another interesting note is that in Japan too, protesters staged a demonstration outside the venue in Osaka. 

What is the background?

The Summit is based around eight themes: ranging from climate change to women empowerment. They include; global economy, trade and investment, innovation, environment and energy, employment, women's empowerment, development and health. The Summit took place when there were increasing trade tensions between China and the USA, protests in Hong Kong, the global growth damage from the 'Trade War.' There were many expectations from the Summit. 

Japan makes a few strong points while it hosts the event. First, it shows, Abe's intent to encourage unity among the leaders in support for free-trade. Second, it wants to draw attention at the need to revive denuclearisation of North Korea. Third, Japan could show that it is capable of taking responsibility for the world. Most importantly, Abe and Trump's dialogues have managed to tone down the brash approach of Trump. 

Meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping is the most anticipated among all. One could expect another truce between them, like the one from Argentina except, Trump has the 2020 election coming, and this may have an impact on the way he negotiates. China, however, hopes that the US can meet China halfway and work together to promote a positive result from the meeting. 

What does it mean?

In the technology and data section, Japan has put the Fourth Industrial Revolution front and centre for its G-20 presidency. The meeting between Trump and Xi will leave a significant impact. What is also interesting is the statement from Rebiya Khadeer, saying the world should open their eyes to the challenges of the Uighur struggles. The Summit will collectively make a few promises on Climate and their responsibilities.

Trump, Abe and Modi fist-bumping each other is one of the many images that will emerge as an outcome of the Summit. In the next week, one can tell for sure what the impact of the Summit would be on the slowing-down global economy, on the commitments that the nations are willing to make, despite the uncertainties and what would happen to the 'Trade War,' between the US and China.

Harini Madhusudhan is a Research Associate at ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at harinimadhusudan@gmail.com

What happened?
In an escalation of existing tensions between Iran and the US, the Iranian forces shot down a US drone. As per official sources from Iran, the drone was shot down once it entered the Iranian airspace. The US, on the other hand, said that the drone was hit over international territory. There have been disagreements over the issue ever since. It is important to note that this incident is the first attack which Iran has directly claimed against the US and its assets after tensions between the two intensified into a war-like scenario. 

Also, on 26 June 2019, the Iranian foreign minister marked in twitter that a "Short war with Iran is an illusion" and warned the US President that he was mistaken if he thought that a war between the duo would not last long. 

What is the background?

US relations with Iran has taken a toll since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal over Iran's Nuclear Programme and imposing harsh economic sanctions. There has been a further escalation in tensions when the Trump administration sent an aircraft carrier to the region and moved to send additional troops indicating the possibilities of a military confrontation.

While both the nations are still working on different pages, recently, the friction had also taken paradoxical shifts when Trump announced his openness to holding diplomatic talks with Iran.

What does it mean?

First, apart from the fact that the incident intensified the possibilities of a war between Iran and the US, it demonstrated Iran's defence capabilities and how that could further go on to pose a challenge to the American technological superiority. Besides, it is also imperative to consider the possibility of Iran extending its potential to work along with its proxy groups across the region to threaten the US and its Middle Eastern allies.

The attacks on the US and its allies by Iranian proxies have reportedly already been increasing in recent times. Second, Iran will not give up on its regional ambitions easily. It has been continuously trying to put pressure on the US both diplomatically and militarily for the regime is toiling with sanctions and unable to survive. The current attack might be smaller in scope but has managed to put significant pressure on the US to recalibrate its stance and also to an extent boasted its image in the regional front.

Finally, just because the US President Donald Trump called off a counter-attack in retaliation, it wouldn't mean that the US wouldn't make any further military move. The chances of a confrontation remain high. 

A "maximum pressure strategy" of Washington will not make Iran surrender. Since both the regions cannot afford a war, the present scenario seems unstable. However, the coming days will inevitably see a "limited military confrontation" that could further pave clear paths into newer negotiations and eventually peace. 

Seetha Lakshmi Dinesh Iyer is a Research Associate at ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at ssethadinesh2807@gmail.com. 

What happened? 

Trade and tariff, restrictive oil imports from Iran, the Russian S-400 air defence deal and Huawei's entry in 5G are the important issues that were of significance in the agenda from the recent visit by the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to India from 25 to 27 June.

The tour took place amid the current trade tensions between the US and India, and both the ministers Pompeo and Jaishankar equivocated that this "won't impact ties between the two nations, and their partnership is already beginning to reach new heights." The two sides discussed at length on India's $5 billion deal with Russian and on the on-going tensions between the US and Iran that have led India, who is heavily dependent on imports, look for options in meeting its energy needs. 

What is the background? 

The visit of the Secretary of State comes in less than two weeks after India increased tariffs on some of the exports from the US. This decision was seen as a response to the Trump administration's move to end India's participation in a preferential trade program. Delhi first announced plans to impose new tariffs a year ago in retaliation to the increased US import duties on Indian steel and aluminium. However, that decision afterwards was repeatedly delayed while both the sides held a series of trade talks.

When it comes to the aircraft deal with Russia, India had signed it in October 2018 during Putin's visit to India. However, perceived as a violation of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), the US has opposed the deal and has threated India with sanctions. In addition to this, the visit also came at the backdrop of US's rift with Iran and trade conflict with China that has made India's energy deficits and Huawei issue as major talking points for Mike Pompeo in the visit. 

What does it mean? 

As Mike Pompeo's visit concluded, the Indian Prime Minister was seen flying to attend the G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan. Where do India-U.S. relations figure as New Delhi seeks to leverage its relationships with all the major powers in the Summit and the subsequent bilateral meetings?  Mike Pompeo's visit should be seen precisely as the groundwork to India's act of leveraging. Hence what opportunity did Pompeo's visit give or didn't give for India?  

Firstly, it opened and acknowledged a deeper level of communication that needs to be done if the problems at hands regarding trade have to be dealt with. Thus both Pompeo and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar were seen taking a pragmatic approach by saying that while trade differences exist, they are keen on addressing them effectively as well. At the outset, it might seem that no fruitful agreement or resolution was begotten from the visit, but Pompeo was never meant to meet that requirement. 

Secondly, Trump's decision was seen by many as a sign of strain in a bilateral relationship in recent decades, but India has dealt with several lows in the relation between these two once 'estranged democracies.' As always Russia continues to be an irritant when it came to the Indo-US relationship. Moreover, historically, India has been able to channelize the differences and have tilted towards buying more in the defence sector from the West. However, what has differed in this situation is along with the US, India has to simultaneously make its decision clear vis-à-vis China and 5G tussle and its interests in Iran over Chabahar have now hit a slag. This is where Pompeo's visit assumes significance as clarity was needed in terms of what Washington thinks constituted a "strategic partnership." 

Thirdly, the visit also brought to light what India is likely to do in its stance in the Huawei. With no comment on it, India will remain non-committal on allowing the company in 5G rollouts. Previously, the government has already formed a panel to examine concerns arising out of Huawei's participation in 5G. 

Sourina Bej is currently a Research Associate with the ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at sourinabej92@gmail.com. 

What happened?

The 34th ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Summit was held from 20 to 23 June in Bangkok, Thailand. As per the statement realized by the ASEAN chairman, the discussion by ASEAN head of the States "emphasized the importance of advancing partnership for sustainability to achieve a people-centric, people-oriented and forward-looking ASEAN Community that leaves no one behind in the rapidly changing regional and global environment."

This year the theme was emphasizing on "advancing partnerships for sustainability". Along with many other topics discussed in the Summit, some were on tackling marine debris, technology for sustainable growth and promoting co-operation in the face of rising regional powers. However, the critical agreement reached was the 'ASEAN Outlook on the Indo Pacific' which was adopted after more than a year of negotiation.  

What is the background?

This was the 34th Summit for ASEAN a regional organization with ten members (Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos). The regional organization which was once considered one of the most successful ones had lost its charisma due to lack of involvement and discussion in case of many pertinent issues like the Rohingya conflict that have been affecting the members.  

This year's Summit took place after two important democratic elections in Indonesia and Thailand, which was also hosting the Summit. Thailand witnessed the return of Prayuth Cha-ocha in a democratically concluded election. He was the previous military leader who abolished the previous democratic government by a coup in 2014.  In Indonesia, Joko Widodo is re-elected by voters. It is important to note that it is these two countries that have proposed and taken the lead in evolving the Indo Pacific outlook for ASEAN. Indonesia proposed a distinct ASEAN Indo-Pacific approach at a foreign ministers' retreat in January 2018 and has since led the discussion. The primary push for finally concluding the 'ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific' came from Singapore's who demanded further meetings as the growing US-China trade war started affecting its economy.   

What does it mean?

Firstly, no outcome was seen on the issue of the Rohingya crisis and their repatriation to Myanmar from Bangladesh or the South China Sea issue, which was highlighted by Rodrigo Duterte. Due to lack of ASEAN's stand on the above issues, the regional organization might end up losing its significance. However, by adopting the Indo Pacific approach, the organization was seen collectively taking a stand on the trade war and the broader power politics.  

Secondly, Indonesia's keenness to push for the Indo Pacific reflects the countries' desire to evolve as a primary power from being a middle power in the geo-strategic theatre of the Indo-Pacific and the organization. This ASEAN centric vision to the Indo Pacific creates an alternative narrative taking the region away from 'bandwagoning' either behind America's 'Free and Open Indo Pacific' or China' BRI. 

Lastly, the trade war has negatively affected the economies of many ASEAN countries, as is evident with Singapore's slowing economic growth. Thus one could see China becoming the core of ASEAN's economic discussion. However, in spite of the negative growth, but some ASEAN members like Vietnam have also gained out of this trade war.

Aparupa Bhattacherjee is a PhD scholar at the School of Conflict and Security Studies, NIAS. She can be reached at aparupa.bhattacharjee@gmail.com. 

What happened?

On 26 June 2019, protesters in Hong Kong directed their petitions to the world by demonstrating at foreign governments' consulates demanding that world leaders meeting at the G20 Summit which is to take place this week in Osaka, Japan should address their concerns. This, they believe, could be a means by which they can put pressure on China. Zhang Jun, an assistant foreign minister, responded to this plead from Hong Kong by stating that Beijing opposed discussing Hong Kong at the Summit and that they would under no circumstance allow any country or individual to intervene in Chinese internal politics.

Thousands of protesters turned out for a peaceful demonstration outside City Hall chanting "Free Hong Kong! Democracy Now!". However, later that night the demonstration took a wilder turn as thousands of young protesters walked to the headquarters of the city's police force and surrounded it, few of them went on to pile metal barricades against a closed metal gate outside the complex while the officers watched from inside.

What is the background?

Protesters in Hong Kong have flooded the streets and the grounds of government offices over the past three weeks against an unpopular extradition bill that has caused a political crisis in the country. The bill allowed criminal suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial in courts controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. The protesters have also accused China of constant meddling their democratic reform, interfering in elections, suppressing young activists, as well as being behind the disappearance of five Hong Kong-based booksellers whose works were critical of Chinese leaders.

Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam has kept a low profile since her latest public apology, gave in to public pressure and suspended the bill a day after the violent protests, however, no measure was taken to cancel the bill and she rejected repeated calls to step down.

What does it mean?

Protests in Hong Kong has several implications. Is there gradual withdrawal from the political side that was once also fighting for the cause? Moreover, will this gradual step down hinder the result that the people are also fighting for? What comes next for Hong Kong?
To highlight the first question, Carrie Lam appears to be lying low, maybe she is doing this to avoid embarrassing President Xi Jinping of China ahead of his trip to Japan, or she is trying to get things to settle down back home. However, this behaviour only implies her gradual backing away from this issue. The reason for her to act this way remains unknown, but the implications of this are clear. If the political front backs down, half the cause is lost as there needs to a synergy between the political leaders and them civilians, without which no cause can be fought for effectively.

What next for Hong Kong? Do they wait for help to come from external parties, whose attention they are seeking to gain? Alternatively, do they take matters into their hand like the clash with the police station? Hong Kong may not see much results from the G20 members for no country has responded to this pleading, and the Chinese have made it clear that they will not encourage any discussions regarding Hong Kong. The main issue is the extradition bill, which most countries do not take very seriously as they are many such bills that exist between countries; however, Hong Kong has a larger picture that is to tackle China which many countries may not want to get involved in as it is uncharted territory. 

The people of Hong Kong have drastically taken matters into their hand, whether they are going to fight this issue alone remains a question. Although the political side of this issue seems to be taking a back seat, the people of Hong Kong are fighting passionately for their cause. 

Abigail Miriam Fernandez is pursuing post-graduation in Stella Maris College, Chennai. She can be reached at fernandezabigail123@gmail.com.

What happened?
On 25 June 2019, the US-led two-day workshop in Bahrain unveiled a part of the much-awaited Trump-Kushner' deal of the century' drawn up by Trump's advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner, Jason Greenbalt and David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel. The plan's economic fabric was proposed by the US, aiming to raise investments worth $50 billion. Kushner stated the need for an economic pathway deal as a precondition for peace. While the 'economy first' US approach saw approvals from some Arab countries, UN upheld the two-state solution, and the IMF urged "job intensive" growth in West Bank and Gaza. 

Meanwhile, Palestinians protested, and Palestinian leadership boycotted the Bahrain workshop saying the lack of political vision guaranteed the deal's failure.

What is the background?

Since the birth of Israel, numerous peace initiatives have crumbled owing to the inability to negotiate, discrepancies in conditions of the deals, changing demands with a change in leadership, extremists on both sides, unending violence, regional turmoil and the US and Arab states rooting for Israel and Palestine respectively.

The Arab-Israeli conflict commenced with the 1917 Balfour declaration. The major points of the clash were 1948 first Arab-Israeli war, 1956 Suez war, 1967 Six-day war, 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 2018 opening of US embassy in Israel's US-recognized new capital, "undivided" Jerusalem. The peace initiatives starting from UNSC Resolution 242, though internationalized and glamourized were futile. Trump's Middle East plan is the latest in this series.

With the Trump government, Israel has mostly benefitted. The Jerusalem vote, US recognition of occupied Golan Heights as Israeli territory, statements on recognizing occupied West Bank as Israeli territory all point to Israel's victory; pushing Palestinians further away from the negotiating table. 

What does it mean?

The end game is always Arab-Israeli peace and not a mere resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestine, over the past six decades, has been reduced to tiny spots on the map and an insignificant entity in the broader peace process. Meanwhile, the collective Arab identity has been progressively dwindling. With the unprecedented Saudi-Israel rapprochement, the turbulent Saudi-Iran relations (unfolding in the Yemen war) and the fast-changing geo-strategic dynamics, the Arab states are swapping loyalties. 

The UAE has said the Trump-Jared initiative must be given a chance. Saudi officials have said that the plan could succeed. All this while Palestinians are vehemently rejecting the plan with teeth and claws.

These Arab states have made their choice clear. They are going Israel's way. Though Palestine is a trump card they have used time and again for domestic, regional and global benefits, they can no longer dither. Arab states have realized that it is domestically and foreign policy-wise more beneficial to give Israel what it wants, especially with a US President spearheading for Israeli interests.

However, boycotting by Palestinian leadership has made critics question the credibility of the proposed deal. Furthermore, IMF has expressed concerns regarding the failure of the plan as "peace, political stability and re-establishment of trust" are pre-requisites to economic success. Sultanate of Oman has expressed intention to open an embassy in Ramallah, West Bank in solidarity with Palestinians. Turkey may join Oman. Other Arab states are yet to make statements. Is their silence saying something!

Substantially the peace process has narrowed down to a question of real estate; is the Palestinian cause slowly sinking deeper into depths?

Lakshmi Venugopal Menon is a Research Consultant at ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at lakshmimenon0410@gmail.com. 

What happened?

Protests broke out in the capital city of Tbilisi on 20 June after a Russian lawmaker Sergei Gavrilov announced the speaker’s chair of the Georgian Parliament.

The police used tear gas and rubber bullets to retain control. The protests have since grown, drawing international attention and questioning its relationship with Russia.  

What is the background?    

Georgia was formerly a part of the USSR. Ever since its disintegration, Georgia has built closer ties with the US. In 2008, it lost the war with its neighbour Russia. The war left more than 12,000 casualties and displaced around 250,000. The war cost Georgia two of its regions- South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia recognised these two and Russian troops are garrisoned there today much to the anger of the Georgians.  

The protests were triggered for letting the Russian delegate speak at the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy (IAO) which is a body constituted by the Greek Parliament to foster better relationships between orthodox Christian lawmakers. To add fuel to the fire, he spoke from the parliament speaker’s seat which angered the citizens even more.

The ruling Georgian Dream party faces criticism from the protesters in not being able to stand up to Moscow’s influence. Georgia - is the third largest troop contributor in the Iraq War, has always been closer to Washington and was slated to join NATO during 2004-2008 which did not materialise due to Russian opposition.

What does it mean?

As the protests have grown over the days, the leader of the political party has promised reforms in the upcoming elections to ensure more representation taking away a rule that limited party representation in the Parliament. However, it may not be enough.

Russia has been trying to exert its influence in the region and Georgia being a small state seems to be turning to the larger state in the neighbourhood for its gains. The domestic argument is that the ruling party is incapable of fending off the Russian influence. This has been explained by the government to be a ploy of the opposition. The session was cancelled and rescheduled. While the IAO session was attended by several countries, including the US, the Georgians are not yet ready to reconcile with the Russian occupation of its northern regions.

Russia criticised Georgia’s inability to be a host that respects international decorum of providing safety for the delegates. Though the meeting does not explicitly show a growing cooperation with Moscow, it shows that the government of Georgia does not want to continue showing spite to the gigantic neighbour and rule out any possibility for better cooperation in the future, all the while the American glory seems to be weakening in the face of rising Asian giants. It may be the government’s stand, but the people don’t seem happy with Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be water under the bridge so soon.

What happened?
President Donald Trump approved a military strike against Iran but pulled back from launching the late-night. US officials awaited the strike after long discussions and briefing had taken place. When the operation was in progress, with ships and planes in position, the order to stand down came ten minutes before the attack. Trump later tweeted that the attack would have probably killed about 150 people to which he believed would not be proportionate to the shooting down of an unmanned drone. He also went on to add that Iran can never have nuclear weapons and that he is going to increase the sanctions on Iran further. Earlier, Iran shot down a US military drone.

Iran responded by saying that the US has no reason to retaliate back and if they did, they would respond firmly. 

What is the background?
Tensions have been escalating between Washington and Tehran over the past month drastically; both countries have accused each other of several activities. The US accused Iran of continued damaging activity that threatens the US and its allies. This has also caused Washington to increased its military presence in the region.

During this week, tensions escalated substantially when Iran had shot down a US drone on 20 June 2019. The RQ-4 Global Hawk drone, according to Iran, was targeted when it entered Iran's airspace. General Hossein Salami, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, said that this was done to send a clear message to the US, further stating that Iran does not have any intention for War with any country, but they are nevertheless ready for the War. The US responded to these claims by saying that they had not violated Iranian airspace and the US president Donald Trump has made a statement saying that this was a very bad mistake made by the Iranians.

There have been a series of clashes in the region during the recent weeks. The attack on oil tankers allegedly by Iran has raised tension in the Gulf. The US has gone on to assert that Iran was behind the attacks; the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that they had substantial evidence to prove their claims. Although the US allies initially did not consider the claims made by the US, many of them throughout the week have gone on to issue statements about the issue.

What does it mean?
The constant increase of tensions in the Gulf is an unpredictable situation which could have many implications. An outbreak of War in this region would not only have drastic effects on the region, but it would inevitably impact the whole world. Iran is already facing problems because of the crippling sanction that has been imposed on them and fighting a war would only lead to further problems. 
When it comes to the immediate regions, Saudi Arabia has gone on to state that they will look into all aspects to counter the hostile situation with Iran. With other on-going conflicts already existing in this region, this pushes the region into greater hostility.

When it comes to the other signatories of the deal, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union, have been unable to ease the tension with Iran. Whether or not they have the capability to do so or if they are still obligated to side with the US who is not part of the deal anymore remains a question. 

Trump however still remains to hold the view on not wanting a war with Iran, though the halting of a military attack (to the attack on the US drone by Iran) shows that he is seeking to escalate this issue politically rather than militarily.  However, de-escalation of the situation needs to take place in the Gulf, for the world is already facing the brunt of it through the rise in oil prices.  

Abigail Fernandez is currently a final year MA student at Stella Maris College. She can be reached at fernandezabigail123@gmail.com.

What happened? 
The Chinese President Xi Jinping visited North Korea during 20-21 June thereby becoming the first leader in 14 years after Hu Jintao to visit Pyongyang. The visit comes amid stalled talks with the United States over North Korea's nuclear programme on the one hand and the escalating trade war between China on the other. Acknowledging this, the North Korean mouthpiece said, "when serious and complicated changes are happening in international and regional situations the two leaders have agreed to promote close strategic communication" and develop their "common interests." 

As for China, Xi referred to the nuclear program and urged all sides to "stick to peace talks to make even greater contributions to peace, stability and prosperity in the region." (According to China's official Xinhua News Agency)

What is the background? 
At the current visit, Pyongyang was seen giving a grand welcome to Xi. In these 14 years, much had happened in the Korean peninsula. North Korea had carried out five nuclear tests and launched missiles capable of reaching the entire US mainland. After a flurry of diplomacy in 2018 and early 2019, including three meetings between Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in and two summits between Kim and US President Donald Trump, currently, talks are stalled between the US and North Korea.

The second Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi in February had ended abruptly, with no agreement as the two were unable to overcome differences over the pace and scope of sanctions relief. Amid these developments, Xi's visit was full of political innuendos and expectations. 

What does it mean? 
Firstly, most have thought of Xi's visit as intended to become a signal to Trump of his influence with Kim, ahead of next week's G20 summit in Japan. In this, Pyongyang has also given a larger than life portrayal of his relations with China. Also, it has repeated it's call for Washington to adopt "a new method of calculation" for the negotiations. 

Second, as Hong Min, a senior researcher at the South's state-run Korea Institute for National Unification said Xi's visit might give Kim a 'political and diplomatic opening to resume talks with the US again'. However, what was striking from the visit was the lack of any major announcements. According to an official spokesperson, Xi and Kim reached "extensive major consensus" on the China-North Korea relationship, thereby drawing on the past rhetoric of a strong relationship. 

Thirdly, the visit had many people attending the march of Xi in Pyongyang with him receiving 21 gun salutes. However, the visit was shrouded with symbolism and this was important for both North Korea and China. For North Korea, it was to show the home audience about the necessity to keep the narrative of sanctions lifting and not failing out to US alive. North Korea had invested a lot in the US-North Korea summit amid the hopes of Korean unification. This would have been Kim's legacy had not been for the failed Hanoi summit. With Xi's visit once again, the talk of the future of crisis in the Korean Peninsula has returned.

For China, making no point (announcement) was the point. The two countries are engaged in separate disputes with President Trump — one over trade, the other over nuclear weapons.  

Hence at this juncture, showing solidarity and just merely standing with Kim in place of what Trump could have done has garnered both "political support and encouragement for the party, government and people." The trade war has exhausted the party and in particular Xi's image to being a tough negotiator always emerging a winner. With this image Xi would be seen sharing the stage with world leaders at the G20 summit. 

Sourina Bej is currently a Research Associate with ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at sourinabej92@gmail.com

What happened?
On 21 June 2019, the demonstrators including the activist Joshua Wong blocked a main road through the city centre in Hong Kong and massed outside the police headquarters to demand the total withdrawal of new extradition law, the release of detained activists and apologies for police brutality. This is the fourth major demonstration in the city in less than two weeks. 

Despite the government on 15 June 2019  stating that it would postpone its plans on the extradition bill, demonstrators occupied roads around government headquarters and legislature, in a repeat of the tactics seen during the 2014 pro-democracy Umbrella Movement. The crowds began to parade on the streets, blocking the paths around the legislature and filling up the roads through Wanchai and Causeway Bay chanting for Chief Executive Carrie Lam to resign.

What is the background?
The extradition bill was announced after a young man murdered his wife on Taiwan soil and escaped trial, as he returned to Hong Kong. When the bill was drafted in March, it drew criticism, after which amendments were made to the bill. However, the citizens are convinced that this bill would affect the business prospects of the region. There was also significant scare, regarding the investments spread by the visits by US officials in the past months. 

Before the second debate over the bill took place, thanks to the protests, the administration announced postponing the bill indefinitely. Simultaneously, the protestors clashed with the forces, and many were arrested. The postponement should have reduced the intensity of the protests, but they have instead increased.

The crowds, mostly young and wearing black clothes along with helmets and face masks, staged the primarily peaceful, impromptu rally in Hong Kong's Wan Chai district, chanting slogans and hurling eggs at the police complex. The crowds were well prepared; for example, a bunch of youth taking water bottles and putting off tear gas shells went viral on Twitter. 

What does it mean?
This is a mostly youth-led protest aimed at bringing down rules and regulations that will harm their freedom against the mainland. Lam, is seen as that power which will carry out orders by the mainland. One of the arguments was that the Hong Kong society could not be built on material wealth, and Lam is trained to do just that; she stopped short of withdrawing the bill entirely. However, what then is the solution to the extradition loop that the region has? One can expect more amendments to the bill after a couple of months. It is unsure if Lam will resign. The police would soon use mild violence to take control of the situation. 

Harini Madhusudan is currently a Research Associate with ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at harinimadhusudan@gmail.com

What happened? 
Mohammad Morsi, Egypt's first democratically elected president, died on 17 June 2019, following over six years of imprisonment, after being overthrown in a military coup by current the President Abdel Fattah el Sisi. His death leaves more questions than answers. Egyptian authorities claim Morsi died of a fatal heart attack in a Cairo court. However, many speculate over the possibility of foul play and call for a transparent investigation into Morsi's death. 

While appearing in court in June 2017, Morsi reportedly requested to speak to his lawyers about 'crimes' he suffered in prison, but his request was denied. In its place, an official health report was presented during the court hearing declaring him to be in good health aside from high blood pressure. He was being kept inside a soundproof glass cage to ensure he could not speak at will. When Morsi collapsed in court during his trial on espionage charges, witnesses spoke to reporters and stated that he was left in the cage for 20 minutes after he collapsed. 

In his final moments, Morsi reportedly urged the judge to let him share secrets that could exonerate him. He told the judge he needed to speak in a closed session to reveal the information, a request the deposed president had repeatedly asked for in the past but had never been granted.

What is the background?
As an ailing political prisoner who represented no physical threat or risk of escape from a maximum-security prison, he was isolated brutally. Neither regional powers representing the tyrannical regimes in the Arab world nor their global supporters allowed the Morsi-led democratic government to rule Egypt, the largest and by far the most important Arab country. After intense pressure from external actors, he was ousted by a military junta on 3 July 2013 and imprisoned after the coup. He was blamed for treason and was accused of acting in the name of external powers. The el-Sissi regime tortured and mistreated him while he was in jail.

Writing in a Washington Post op-ed last year, Abdullah Morsi, the former president's son, said his father had lost most of his sight in one eye while in prison due to inadequate health care. "We fear that the Egyptian authorities are doing this on purpose since they want to see him dead 'from natural causes' as soon as possible," his son wrote. Speaking to HRW, Morsi's family detailed how he fainted twice and fell into a diabetic coma during the first week of June 2017. According to HRW MENA Director Sarah Leah Whitson, Morsi told his family that a medical professional told him he needed surgery for his deteriorating sight, but that he was never able to get it. The only medical attention Morsi received, according to HRW, was the occasional blood pressure or sugar level check by a nurse or doctor. No additional medical care was provided. He was even forced to buy his own insulin, according to the group.

Morsi's brief tenure as Egypt's only democratically elected president was characterised by optimism, which quickly turned to frustration. Tens of thousands turned out across Turkey to mourn the deposed leader's passing, in stark contrast to his low-key burial in Cairo. All the major parliamentary democracies, which always speak with one voice about tyranny, were mute. Barring a few, Turkey, Malaysia, Qatar, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood-in-exile and all the usual suspects – Morsi's memory and his final moments were as if they had never been.

What does it mean?
Following his death, the regime declared a state of high alert across the country and dispatched thousands of police patrols to squash any protests. He was not given the funeral that his family requested for. It was swift and largely a secret. This can be seen as a significant blow to the Arab Spring. If one were to assume that there could be a revival of the Arab Spring in the coming months, this would remain precedence for leaders and young adults. 

Morsi's death and the silent burial also speaks volumes about the leadership in Egypt.

Harini Madhusudan is currently a Research Associate with ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at harinimadhusudan@gmail.com

What happened?
On 17 June 2019, a triple suicide attack killed nearly 30 people and injured more than a dozen injured in northeastern Nigeria. Three bombers, two girls and a boy reportedly carried out the bombing outside a hall in Konduga village in Borno state where fans were watching a game of football on television. 

According to popular media, the attack had no immediate claims but bore the evident tactics used by the Boko Haram jihadist group. Boko Haram has targeted video halls in several past occasions calling them un-Islamic.

What is the background?
Boko Haram has been waging an insurgency across the north-east of Nigeria for a decade now. The group which claimed their allegiance to the Islamic State is known for using women and children as suicide bombers into crowded markets and mosques. The northeastern part of Nigeria, especially places like Konduga has remained the group's stronghold and vulnerable to attacks. 

What does it mean? 
While the attack in Borno state is not an isolated event in the northeastern part of the country which remains the centre of action for the action, it emphasises how complex and grave the security challenges remain. While the State claims that the Boko Haram and the Islamic State of West Africa to have mostly disintegrated as their operating terrain had significantly dropped over the years, civilians and military personnel along the region continue to suffer. Besides, several unclaimed armed attacks have increasingly scaled up concerns over regional security and the further spread of terrorism. 

Seetha Lakshmi Dinesh Iyer is currently a Research Associate with ISSSP, NIAS. She can be reached at seethadinesh2807@gmail.com

What happened?

On 17 June 2019, Egypt’s first freely elected President Mohammed Morsi who was ousted in 2013, collapsed during a court appearance in Cairo and passed away soon after. Muslim Brotherhood, of which Morsi had been a part of has called the death a “full-fledged murder” by Egypt’s ruling government.

What is the background?

In 2012, Morsi became the President after Arab Spring ended the three decades rule by President Hosni Mubarak. In July 2013, Morsi was ousted and detained by a military coup led by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Egypt’s current President. Later in 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood was outlawed. Morsi, since his imprisonment faced over six trials. At the time of his death, Morsi was serving a twenty years sentence for killings of protestors during 2012 demonstrations and faced charges including involvement in terrorism, jailbreak and insulting the judiciary. The life sentence for espionage in a case concerning Qatar was revoked in 2016. Concerns about the charges being political motivated had since surfaced.

What does it mean?

Throughout the imprisonment, Morsi’s family was only allowed three visits. The first in 2013, second in 2017 and the last in September 2018 in the presence of security forces. Mistreatment of detainees, prison conditions and human rights violations in prisons has remained a huge issue in the Middle East for many years now. Time and again, it has drawn global criticism. As per Morsi’s supporters, denial of medical treatment and solitary confinement for over 23 hours a day (which qualifies for torture according to UN), were for his premature death. The rushed burial against Egyptian traditions in Cairo's Madinat Nasr (and not in Sharqiya, Morsi’s home province) in the middle of the night in the absence of some of his family members points to Emirates’ growing power in Egypt’s domestic matters. Amidst the Saudi-Iran-US standoff, Yemen war, Sudan protests and the Syrian crisis, any eruptions within Egypt would only further disrupt the regional fabric and skew geo-strategic dynamics.

Calls for an independent medical inquiry into Morsi’s death and a mass funeral are soaring. While Amnesty International and HRW called for an investigation, the UN emphasized the need for a thorough probe. Meanwhile, Egypt has blamed the UN of deliberately “politicizing Morsi’s natural death”.
 

What happened?

On June 16, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman accused archrival Iran of orchestrating the attacks on Saudi’s commercial oil tankers and warned that he “won’t hesitate” to deal with forces working against Saudi Arabia. Consequentially, Tehran has blamed Riyadh’s “misguided militaristic, crisis-based approach” for escalating regional tensions. 

What is the background?

On May 12, four Saudi oil tankers, off the UAE port of Fujairah and anchored in the Gulf of Oman were attacked. Amidst US-Iran standoff and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe’s Tehran visit, two more Saudi tankers were attacked on June 13 – a Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous and a Norwegian-operated Front Altair. Washington’s assessment that the attacks were state-sponsored (by Iran) has gained acceptance from the UK and Saudi Arabia. 

What does it mean?

Post US exit from the JCPOA, Washington had re-imposed and strengthened sanctions against Iran. The new allegations find a place in the “maximum pressure” Trump campaign aimed at coercing Iran to the negotiation table to craft a new deal encompassing Tehran’s ballistic missiles agenda. While US military claimed grainy video footage to be evidence of Iranian involvement in the attack, Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif used Twitter to blame the US for accusing Iran with a lack of “factual or circumstantial evidence".

In this new chapter of US-Iran stand-off, both states have made clear that neither want war. However, the gulf tanker row is undoubtedly escalating the regional strife. MBS’s allegations followed by USA’s decision to send 1000 more troops to the Middle East may worsen the already deteriorating diplomatic fabric.

Meanwhile, Qatar, Germany and the UN have called for an independent investigation of the issue. Countries like Russia have urged restraint. Nevertheless, search for evidence, and Tehran’s vehement denials continue.

What happened?

Russia conducted a landing training for its elite troops in Pechenga Bay, 15Km away from Norway’s border. Russian troops in the Kola Peninsula have reportedly held over 100 training exercises since June 1. The training comprised of both offshore and coastal exercises.
Of these, 57 involved the use of weapons. Russia also conducted missile tests two days back, successfully firing its new Tor-M2DT missiles. These are capable of operating in a Tundra environment. 

What is the background?

Moscow has been investing heavily in the region, about one-tenth of its entire investments. It has developed seven bases along its coast and offshore. With global warming and the opening up of more navigable waters, the prospects are too attractive for Russia to not take advantage of it.

The Northern Sea Route(NSR) opens up and offers a shorter route to Europe. Compared to the conventional route through the Suez Canal, this would be 10-15 days faster. The only concern is its navigability period, currently being three months when it is ice-free. This would also cut down carbon dioxide emissions by 52% according to estimates. With the impending warming of the oceans, this is bound to change. Added to this is the vast oil reserves under the region.

Russia has deployed its cutting-edge missile defence system – the S-400 Triumf in all seven of its bases on the islands and peninsulas, which has a 600Km detection range and 400Km striking range, overlapping each other.

What does it mean?

The establishments essentially state how Russia does not want anyone acting in the region without abiding by their rules and regulations, and rightly so. With a fifth of its land territory inside the Arctic Circle, Moscow is leading in placing claims to the emerging geopolitical region, leaving the other countries far behind.

With the only nuclear-powered icebreaker fleet in the world, Russia is well equipped to explore and utilise the frozen North. This will also help it improve its ties with countries like China, which is looking at any and every option to grow its economy. Moscow is in short, establishing its dominance in the most prospective region in the world, making it its stronghold.

Concerns with such developments are also environmental. An increase in the traffic in the region would accelerate the melting of ice caps and extraction of the enormous oil reserves should not be an incentive as fossil fuels have already damaged the planet’s ecosystem. The world is moving towards cleaner fuels, and it is time the developed countries set an example in becoming more environmentally friendly.

What happened?

After multiple visits by Kim Jong-Un to Beijing, Chinese president for the first time has agreed to Kim’s invite and hence will be travelling to Pyongyang on 20th June for a two day visit. It will be Xi’s visit after establishing power in 2012 and the first formal visit to North Korean capital by a Chinese leader in 14 years.

What is the background?

Sino-Korean alliance dates back to the Korean war and because China is North Korea’s biggest trading partner yet none of the Chinese leaders has visited North Korea since it began testing its nuclear weapons in 2006 is a strong statement China tried to convey. Beijing had joined hands with Washington by voting in the favour of denuclearization of North Korea in UN. North Korea’s nuclear program was one of the greatest threats to US security for decades after it started to indulge in nuclear and missile tests in 2016 and especially intercontinental ballistic missile test in 2017. On June 2018, starting a new chapter, Trump and Kim met in Singapore to discuss ways to denuclearize and establish peace in the entire Korean peninsula, however, unfortunately, both sides failed to stick to the negotiations and objectives, which further led to disagreements in their second summit in Hanoi on February 2019. Washington and Pyongyang disagreed regarding the means to achieve an end, where Pyongyang wants to take ‘step by step’ approach and has its demands, while Washington wants to denuclearize it completely failing which, sanctions will be imposed.

China’s attitude towards North has drastically changed compared to its previous regime as it highly emphasizes on preserving peace and stability, for war would severely impact China’s security and will lead to cross border terrorist conflict and hike in the inflow of refugees posing a severe threat to its national security. Any dispute in the Korean peninsula will also create a hard time for China in capturing Taiwan and hence shows much interest in denuclearizing North Korea. 

China has also joined hands with the US in this issue as it poses a significant threat to the regional stability which might lead to US intervention and military deployments triggering regional actors like Japan and South Korea to strengthen their defensive capabilities which are all against China’s interest. However, it is highly impossible to expect only China to exert maximum pressure on North Korea. As far as the peninsula is divided it helps in serving China’s interests while a unified one will pose a threat to its strategic balance, as it might led to Korea becoming US ally by replacing China. The importance of Korea is its role in acting as a buffer state in the great power competition. 

What does it mean?    
The trip to North Korea is a reciprocal visit, but considering the timing of the visit and the trade war, it is a geopolitical move. Possibly the talks can be about denuclearization, North and South Korean relations or to strengthen trade relations between North Korea and China. 
China being North Korea’s strong ally will it be in the position to solve the failed talks between Kim and Trump regarding the denuclearization or is it the visit to strengthen Kim’s position against trump which might have a more significant impact on the ongoing trade conflict between US and China. The timing of the visit leads to suspicion as Trump and Xi are expected to meet at the G20 summit in Japan later this month and Trump’s visit to South Korea as well. Though the ties between the two countries are not as strong as it once used to be, Xi is trying to prove that China is a global player who will have a say in dealing with North Korea and it cannot be sidelined when it comes to establishing a secure Asia. While we cannot ignore the fact that North Korea’s dependence on China is much more than China’s dependence on North Korea’s, as its economy is greatly affected under international sanctions and China is its biggest trading partner and is highly dependent on it.

Even though the trade war between the US and China is a pressing issue, China can either help or worsen the situation in North Korea. As for Kim, Xi’s visit is a matter of pomp and show to justify his power even though there were failed talks between US and North, but it is not wholly isolated as China is there to support.

What happened?
Recently, Botswana's Government lifted a five-year ban on the poaching of elephants in what was the haven of around 130,000 African elephants in the continent. The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation, and Tourism made the statement which has caused an international outcry from conservationists and tourists. Botswana is a country whose second largest income is from tourism. 

What is the background?

The former President of Botswana Ian Khama had imposed a ban on trophy hunting and ordered that all the hunting tourism be changed into photography tourism. He constituted an anti-poaching unit, armed them with weapons and a shoot-to-kill policy was adopted to curb poaching. While this boosted the image of Botswana in the international stage as a conservationist state, it brought on some issues in the country.

The Government cites increased animal-human conflict and the casualty and destruction the wild herds caused as a reason to lift the ban. They also mention hunting as a necessary tool for conservation of the species. While it sounds paradoxical, the supporters give a strange justification. Hunting brings in more revenue. This revenue is in turn, invested in the conservation programs and parks. 

Photography tourism does not have as high returns as hunting trophies do. When the ban was implemented, the Government failed to cover the difference in revenue for the communities. Many turned to agriculture, but elephants caused destruction. 
Around 216,000 African elephants migrate freely between Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, unrestricted. When the other countries proved unsafe for the elephants, the elephants lost their habitat and migrated, increasing the population in Botswana. The frustrated locals also stopped maintaining artificial waterholes, leading to a higher frequency of human-animal conflicts.

What does it mean?
The current President of Botswana Mokgweetsi Masisi saw the problem, lifted the ban, took away the arms from the Anti-Poaching Unit, and revoked the shoot-to-kill policy. While the ideal cycle of hunting, providing revenue for conservation is justifiable for poorer African countries, Botswana's economic status is not very dire. Botswana is the second largest producer of diamonds - their leading income source, in the world. In many countries where a similar policy was adopted, the revenue never reached the ground level. Botswana could be another same case.

The move could be a ploy by the President to appease the voters with the upcoming elections in October. The people of Botswana worry not about the sustainability of an animal in the wild, but their survival. They need safety and employment. Locals are hired as trackers for hunting safaris and offers them better pay.

The population of elephants across Africa declined by 30 per cent from 2007 to 2014. Today, they are under a larger threat with Botswana no longer being their protected space. Recent studies show that every 15 minutes, an elephant is killed in Africa. While the effectivity of China's ban on ivory trade is unclear, there is still a huge demand for ivory from Asia. The animals and the ecosystem are unwittingly at a higher risk. The single legislation has far-reaching consequence for the fate of the wildlife, the people and Government's performance in the upcoming elections. The country needs to follow up on the legislation with care and ensure the haven of elephants don't become their graveyard.

What happened?
Recently, the President of Iran Hassan Rouhani made a statement saying the rising tensions with the US calls for closer ties with Russia. He was speaking at the Shanghai Corporation Organization summit held in Bishkek on 14 June. This is significant as it makes it clear that Iran is looking out for any and every help it can get against the pressure it is under from the West led by the US.
Whether Russia is looking forward to such a relationship is unclear yet.

What is the background?

Iran has been under immense pressure from Washington following Trump pulling the US out of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, citing it was 'the worst deal ever'. Iran eventually threatened it would itself pull out of the JCPOA and begin limitless enrichment of uranium. Following this, the tensions rose in the middle east, and the US deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln Strike Group citing possible threat to US assets and interests in the region. 

Any infringement would be met with ‘unrelenting force' was the American stance. Later Trump made a statement saying the US didn't want a regime change in Iran and said he did not share his NSA John Bolton's views.

What does it mean?

While the US has been extremely ambiguous in its policy towards Iran, the sanctions nonetheless have been adding pressure on Iran, putting it in a not so comfortable position. Looking for an ally in Russia seems to be its best bet right now.

Having been a victim of US sanctions since its Crimean annexation, Russia has been making its moves for increasing its global footprint through various agreements with countries like Turkey, China, North Korea whom all are facing brunt from the US. 
There is a growing anti-US sentiment in the air around the world and Russia has been riding the wave, taking advantage of every opportunity it could to oppose the global superpower, but Putin in May had said that Russia is not a ‘fire brigade' which ‘rescues everything' regarding the US pull-out from JCPOA. 

An intervention into Iran, while appealing for Iran may not be pragmatic from Moscow as it might further escalate tensions in the region that is already under threat of instability with four failed states and three ongoing wars where Iran is involved indirectly. 
 

What happened?

On 6 June 2019, African Union’s Peace and Security Council has suspended Sudan’s membership until it witnesses the political transition to civilians from the military, which had triggered the tensions in the capital that has seen masses killed. It also warned to impose disciplinary measures on individuals hindering the establishment of a civil-led transitional authority.

What is the background?

The revolt against the government in Sudan can be dated back to December 2018 when President Omar Bashir imposed strict measures to prevent the country from economic collapse. Abrupt hike in the bread and fuel prices triggered demonstrations in the east and rages spread across Khartoum, which led to demand from the pro-democracy protestors for the removal of Bashir and his government who had been ruling for several decades, who eventually was expelled by the army a few days later. But the protestors continued to stage their anger and demanded civilian rule. On June 3 security forces barged into the protest killing more than hundreds of people which further escalated the crisis leading to a nationwide campaign of civil disobedience.
What does it mean?

In an era where multilateral organizations fail to consider human rights and uphold their policy, AU’s response to the mass killings is a welcome change. This crisis also projects Africa as a continent which takes responsibility for its actions and fulfills the democratic aspirations of the people, while UN security council fails to censure the violence as China backed by Russia blocked the move which is a calculated approach as it doesn’t want itself to interfere, which it considers an internal dispute. It will lead to havoc if the military gets a stronghold of Sudan’s soil while negotiations act as the only sensible option to establish a civilian rule. Even though the African union’s decision is welcomed in the international arena, will it succeed in curbing the African problems? 

What happened?

Narendra Modi took part in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, held at Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan during 13-14 June 2019. 

On 14 June, PM Modi attended the India-Kyrgyz Business Forum, emphasizing growth in economic status and advancement in technology in India as the prominent reasons for global development. He was also expected to engage in bilateral talks with Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. 

In the summit, India, along with the other members, the SCO condemned all forms of terrorism and manifestations. The Bishkek Declaration of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation's Heads of State Council, the member states stressed the need for the international community to promote cooperation in combating this issue. The members urged the global community to work towards a consensus on adopting. 

What is the background?

The SCO is a China-led 8-member economic and security bloc with India and Pakistan were admitted to the grouping in 2017. Other members of the grouping are China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.  This summit is Eurasian political, economic, and security alliance, the creation of which was announced on 15 June 2001 in Shanghai, China.  

For India, the summit came at a crucial juncture, as Modi starts his second tenure as India's PM. Just before the summit, he had a fruitful visit to Sri Lanka and the Maldives, two crucial countries in Indian neighbourhood.  The on-going trade war between the US and China has also provided a background for the meeting between Modi and Jinping in the sideline of this summit.

What does it mean?

The SCO summit has provided a platform for India to maintain and reset the relationship with China, Russia, and Iran.  It was expected that this summit would give India three opportunities: first, the meeting for PM Modi with his Chinese and Russian counterparts. Meeting with Xi Jinping was important to India given the forthcoming visit of the Chinese President in October 2019. 

Second, the leaders of India and Iran were expected to address the energy issue, as the oil import from Iran has been stopped. One is not clear, whether Modi made was successful in this regard; there are no reports yet in the public domain on this.

Third, the Central Asia meetings are likely to be useful for India. With questions on energy imports from Iran looming large, Central Asia could become another source. Also crucial for India is the growing Chinese footprints in Central Asia.

Finally, contrary to the expectations, there was no substantial meeting between Modi and Imran Khan. Though the latter has been insisting on resuming bilateral dialogue, Modi seems to be reluctant. If Indo-Pak dialogue is likely to remain a non-starter, so would be India-Central Asia energy relations.

What happened?
Amid rising tensions in the Gulf, two oil tankers were allegedly attacked on 13 June 2019 in the Gulf of Oman, off the Iranian coast. The US navy's fifth fleet responded to distress calls from the two tankers over a reported attack. The ships belonged to a shipping firm in Japan and a Norwegian company operated another. The exact source of the fire remains unknown. However, reports and operators have suggested that a torpedo could have hit the ships.

The attacks immediately stirred up tensions in the region with a response coming in from many countries. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo went on to blamed Iran for the attacks stating that the US had evidence based on intelligence about the type of weapons used, the of expertise required to execute the operation and other similar assessments. The US military also released a video in which it shows Iran's Revolutionary Guard removing an unexploded mine from the side of an oil tanker damaged in an attack in the Gulf of Oman. 

The Iranian were quick to respond, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the US making baseless allegations without any factual or circumstantial evidence. The rest of the world has also reacted to this incident. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also issued a statement where he said that the world could not afford a major confrontation in the Gulf region and he condemned the attacks. UK's foreign secretary said it would conduct its investigation to the attacks; however, the starting point for them is the claims of the US.  The EU called for what they termed as maximum restraint while Russia went out to state that no-one should jump to conclusions or use this incident to put pressure on Iran. 

What is the background?

Tensions have been high ever since the US pulled out of the nuclear deal in 2015, which aimed at restricting Iran's nuclear activities and the tightened of US sanctions on Iran mainly targeting its oil sector in May. 

In recent months the US has strengthened its forces in the Gulf region, stating that there was a danger of Iranian attacks. This attack is the second incident since the heightened regional tensions following attacks on four ships off the coast of the United Arab Emirates in May near Fujairah, just outside the Strait of Hormuz.

What does it mean?

An escalation of tensions in this region is highly dangerous and worrying to both players in the regions as well outside. These attacks not only cause a further rise in tension, but it could have a ripple effect and cause several other problems. With waters becoming more unsafe, the supply of oil to the entire world could be at risk as 30% of the world's crude oil is transported through this region. 

Although both the US and Iran have stated that they have no interest in a large-scale war, these frequent clashed could have an impact on this statement. However, adequate measures would need to be taken to avoid a full-blown war situation and an agreement targeted to deescalate the issue needs to be done.   

What happened?

Amidst escalating diplomatic pressures from the US and African countries, on 14 June, Sudan’s military admitted to ordering the brutal crackdown on Khartoum sit-in protestors. According to the TMC it “regrets that some mistakes happened”. 

What is the background?

Protestors had staged in Khartoum, a weeks-long sit-in which eventually led to the military overthrow of the long-time ruler, Omar al-Bashir in April. However, protests continued in hopes of a civilian-led government. Following the collapse of talks between Sudan’s military and the protest leaders, on June 3, military personnel orchestrated a deadly clampdown on the sit-in protest camp in Khartoum, leaving over 120 people dead. While the health ministry estimated the death toll at 61, over 40 bodies floated in the Nile River.

What does it mean?

Pro-democracy protesters are determined, and Sudan’s truly grassroots-protest is not going to be silenced. The struggle for a civilian-led transitional government is ongoing. TMC’s attempts to dwindle the protests have only called for international attention and has so far worked against them. The nation-wide civil disobedience movement demanding civilian rule has flamed political, geostrategic and humanitarian sentiments across the globe. 

Meanwhile, the economic picture is worsening, Sudan’s toppled Bashir has been charged with charges of corruption, social media across the world is turning blue in solidarity with the protestors and Sudan’s dream of democracy lingers.
 

What happened?

The protests in Hong Kong was sudden, bet well attended. The anger is towards the plans of the government to allow extradition to mainland China. It all began with the gruesome murder of a teenager in Taiwan. Hence, the legislation was proposed to give China to enter into one-time agreements with places like Taiwan to transfer criminal suspects, such as the man from Hong Kong who escaped prosecution in the ‘Valentine’s Day Murder’ case by returning home. 

The decision to include China, whose justice system is separate from Hong Kong, led hundreds of thousands to protest and attempt to stop the bill’s passage. 

What is the background?

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam's government, in February, proposes legal changes that aim to ease the transfer of criminal suspects between jurisdictions. These regions lack formal extradition agreements, among themselves including mainland China. This move triggered concerns among activists, lawyers and the business community. Many began to warn that, exposing Hong Kong residents to China's legal system could put the city's autonomy and status as a financial hub at risk.

Mid- March, US lawmakers meet pro-democracy lawmakers. This included co-chairmen of the US-China Working Group- Illinois Republican Darin LaHood and Washington Democrat Rick Larsen, where it was announced that the Bill could have ‘some impact’ on Hong Kong’s special trading status. By the end of the month, the authorities in Hong Kong scaled back the proposal. Here they removed nine categories of financial crimes, including bankruptcy, securities and futures, and intellectual property. These concessions did very less to silence the outcry. 

In May, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke against the Bill, saying its passage would threaten Hong Kong’s rule of law. He also met with the pro-democracy advocates from Hong Kong for discussions on its autonomy and Beijing’s efforts to extend its reach. There were further amendments to the bill on 31 May 2019, where they chose to raise the proposed extradition limit to crimes that carry a maximum sentence of crime from the proposed law, this included criminal intimidation, giving firearms to unlicensed persons and some sex crimes. Ten days later, on 9 June 2019, hundreds of thousands of people march through central Hong Kong in opposition to the Bill. 

What does it mean?

The demonstrators surrounded Hong Kong’s legislature; the numbers ranged between 240,000 and 750,000 differing from official reports and those from the people protesting. The second hearing on the amendments which was initially scheduled for 20 June, was forced to be postponed indefinitely, owing to the pressure of the protests. What stands out is the international support, including strong opinions from world leaders, and government backing from Taiwan to the opposition of the Bill. Many countries across the world have extradition bills among themselves and something as harmless as this Bill is being projected as a threat to strategic autonomy. 

What happened?
From 12-14 June 2019, Shinzo Abe marked his visit to Iran becoming the first Japanese Prime Minister to the Islamic nation since the 1979 revolution. Japan and Iran are in the 90th year of their diplomatic relationship this year. It is also significant to note that the visit came shortly after US President Donald Trump made a state visit to Japan. Abe’s trip is a result of significant support and encouragement from the US and its Middle Eastern allies to ease the ongoing tensions between Tehran and Washington and, subsequently bringing peace to the region. 

What is the background?
US relations with Iran has taken a toll since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal over Iran's Nuclear Programme and imposing harsh economic sanctions. There has been a further escalation in tensions when the Trump administration sent an aircraft carrier to the region and moved to send additional troops indicating the possibilities of a military confrontation. While both the nations are still working on different pages, recently, the friction took a paradoxical shift when Trump announced his openness to holding diplomatic talks with Iran. 

What does it mean?
For the Japanese leadership, the bilateral meeting at Iran comes as an opportunity. In a multipolar world order, Abe’s interference into a possible war-like situation has become an honest effort to lift Japan’s influence on the global stage. Besides, this comes with strong support from Washington. While the continuation of conflict has hit hard on the Japanese economy. Japan has stopped oil imports from Iran under American pressure. Any further escalation in the region would primarily affect its energy trade in the region. 
On the other hand, Abe’s visit might not certainly create wonders as far as easing of tensions is concerned. While Japan continues to be a good friend of Iran, its close alliance with the US might make the process of peacemaking and arbitration more biased. After a long stint of little reaction, not to forget that Japanese efforts have also come in pretty late. This will undoubtedly make Tehran wary of Tokyo’s involvement in the conflict. 

The rhetoric behind Modi’s visit to the Maldives, Sri Lanka

What happened? 

After a landslide victory in the parliamentary elections, Narendra Modi reiterated the importance of India’s Neighbourhood First approach by completing his visit to two crucial Indian Ocean countries the Maldives and Sri Lanka on 8-9 June 2019. Continuing with India’s First Neighbourhood policy, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar simultaneously completed his visit to Bhutan.  

During the visit to the Maldives, Modi addressed the Majlis (Maldivian Parliament) and became the second Indian Prime Minister to do so. Agreements reached during the summit are: first to assist the Maldives in its development, second MoUs were signed for projects like water supply and sewerage, high impact community development projects, customs and white shipping, third, to consolidate people-to-people relations through cricket diplomacy and last, to enhance connectivity India planned to start a ferry service from Kochi to the Maldives.  

In his visit to Sri Lanka, Modi showed solidarity with Colombo on the recent attacks on Easter Sunday and held discussions with the Prime Minister, President, Leader of Opposition and the Tamil leaders.

What is the background? 

Modi’s visit to the two island countries is a continuation of India’s neighbourhood policy. Ties with South Asian neighbours has always remained a priority for India with the earlier message being the invitation extended to all SAARC leaders to attend Modi’s first swearing-in ceremony in 2014. However, the selection of the Maldives and Sri Lanka over any other South Asian countries could be understood to indicate the transformation that India-Maldives and India-Sri Lanka bilateral relations have undergone in the five years.   

Former Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen pursued a rigorous pro-China stance in his foreign policy, and the result has been for Modi to wait till the domestic politics took its course and with the election of President Ibrahim Solih, Modi could visit the Maldives again in November 2018 briefly. Even then, Solih has undertaken a policy to balance old friends and a new friend - to balance India and China. However, Maldives relation with China underwent a shift after the Maldivian Finance Ministry took count of the $935m direct loans owed to Beijing over the four-lane China-Maldives Friendship Bridge. Now, as Modi visited the Maldives, Male is more receptive of India. Similar has been the case with Sri Lanka. The debt-weary has led Colombo to sign a deal with India and Japan to now jointly build a deep-sea container terminal at the Colombo port after China took it on a 99-year lease. 

What does it mean? 

In this background, Modi’s visit is full of rhetoric from the past and messages to the future. The visit indicates the cementing of the south and eastward tilt that India’s First neighbourhood policy has taken. To start with, this year’s swearing-in saw the invitation extended to the BIMSTEC countries who are also members of the SAARC. This was in line with the deteriorating relationship with Pakistan after the Pulwama and Balakot incidents. As against this, India’s cooperation with Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Myanmar has been relatively on track. As a result, consolidating relation with the BIMSTEC countries was not a surprise. This received its end with Modi’s visit to the Maldives and Sri Lanka when Indian leadership indicated a second message directed to China. The visit to the two countries came amid the deep inroads made by China. With the second visit in hand being the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in Bishkek, on the one hand, Jaishankar by visiting Bhutan took stock of the current thinking in Thimphu about Chinese overtures, Modi looked at the Indian Ocean neighbours.

The visit also demonstrated how India is now looking to invest more in short and impact-driven projects without hesitating to collaborate with other partners like Japan. This is in sharp contrast to China’s focus on infrastructure development and India extending ample financial assistance in the line of Credit basis and focus on people-centric welfare measures. Thus, when Modi said that India’s financial assistance to the nation would not push the future generations of Maldivians into ‘debilitating debt’, the veiled reference to China was evident.

The timing of visiting Sri Lanka was also prudent. The rhetoric of terrorism bore well with both the countries. Sri Lanka became the victim of serial bombing by National Thowheed Jama’ath on the Easter Sunday. Similarly, Maldives has faced the problem of radicalisation in youth. 

What happened?

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif received his German counterpart Heiko Maas in the capital Tehran on June 10, 2019, for talks on the future of the nuclear deal. Maas said that it was in Iran's "political and strategic interest" to stay in the 2015 nuclear deal. He also went on to say that the deal which has been challenged since the United States unilaterally withdrew from it last year was "extraordinarily important" for Europe and that they cannot work miracles, but they will try to prevent a failure of the nuclear deal. The talks were serious and honest where both sides spoke out their views clearly. Zarif had a different opinion, he reiterated that what the Europeans have done so far has not satisfied their interests. He expects them to act on their commitments but have failed to live up to it. Iran has given Europe, China, and Russia until July to make their commitments operational after which they have said that they would stop complying to the commitments of the nuclear deal.

What is the background?

Iran signed the nuclear deal with China, Russia, Germany, Britain, France, and the United States which allowed for sanctions to be lifted off in exchange for Tehran limiting its nuclear program. However, when President Donald Trump imposed harsh sanctions on Iran and withdrawing from the deal formally tensions began to rise. Iran reacted by stating that they no longer considered the restrictions that we placed by the deal to the limits of stocks of heavy water and enriched.

Since then all the other signatories of the deal have tried to deescalate the situation with Iran. They set up a special trade mechanism called INSTEX that would allow for legitimate trade with Iran to continue without interfering with the US sanctions and went on to promise that they would put an end to strains and struggles in the region and allow the Iranian people to benefit from this economically.

What does it mean?

The other signatories of the deal face the difficulty of implementing their agenda of economic befits promised by the deal because of the US stance. Although Maas’s visit is a positive move on the part of the signatories, it has failed to deliver any potential solution for the issue. This failure by the Europeans has dismayed the Iranian’s hope to stay in the deal. The US sanctions have left Iran’s economy in a devastating position and this pushes them further to pull out of the deal. The mechanism put in place has been highly criticized by the Iranian officials for not resulting in any change.

The situation in the region is highly volatile and any reaction is possible, the increasing rise in tensions could possibly lead to a military escalation which the region does not require this, the signatories of the deal along with Iran thus need to work together to bring a solution to this issue.

What happened?
India hosted the leaders of BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) countries for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's swearing-in ceremony on 30 May 2019. 

What is the background?
BIMSTEC is a sub-regional cooperative organisation comprising seven member states including five South Asian countries India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and two South East Asian countries Myanmar and Thailand. Although BIMSTEC was founded in 1997, India started utilising the organisation only after the failure of SAARC.

What does it mean? 
Narendra Modi’s foreign policy 2.0 as the previous one insists on the neighbourhood first policy. Interlinking South-South cooperation and Act East Policy of India is the major agenda behind India’s BIMSTEC ambitions. With the participation of two ASEAN states, Thailand and Myanmar India could significantly expand relations with South East Asian and followingly East Asian countries. Thailand holding the chair of ASEAN this year and being a member of BIMSTEC, India’s South East ambitions would expectedly fruition. 

Named after the Bay of Bengal sea, BIMSTEC also has a regional maritime centric construct which has significant similarities with Indo-Pacific strategy. Using the common security space, the organisation in future could engage with the larger Pacific on security and diplomatic ties. The BIMSTEC nations are in good trade relations with China. China invests heavily in BRI projects across BIMSTEC countries. India’s lead role in the area can counter Chinese influence.

Five years back, in 2014 India had hosted the leaders of SAARC countries for Modi’s first term swearing in. Due to India- Pakistan tensions India stays reluctant to go ahead with SAARC initiatives. Compared to SAARC which has a South Asian objective, BIMSTEC is a sector-oriented cooperative organisation with South Asian goals as well as linking India to the South East. All the member states of the SAARC except Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Maldives are members of BIMSTEC.  India would go on with BIMSTEC oriented initiatives in the future as it is an influential cooperative organisation to fulfil India’s Act East Policy.

What happened?
China conducted its first orbital sea launch on 5 June 2019, with a Long March 11 rocket lifting off from a floating platform in the Yellow Sea off the eastern province of Shandong. The launch was a four-stage solid-fuelled rocket which carried seven satellites into orbit, five commercial satellites, along with two experimental satellites to improve weather forecasting. The launch was named ‘LM-11 WEY’ after a strategic partnership between WEY, a premium SUV marque of Great Wall Motor China Space Foundation and China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) who together founded a joint technology innovation hub on April 24, 2019, this is said to help the SUV maker achieve a number of newer innovations in R&D and manufacturing areas.

What is the background?
China has joined the US and Russia who also have the capability to launch rockets from the sea. It was the 306th flight for the China National Space Administration's line of Long March carrier rockets, but the first time one has taken off away from solid ground, making this a significant milestone for China’s ambitious space programme. 

This launch also followed the historic mission of the China National Space Administration land of a probe on the far side of the Moon in January 2019 a mission that had never been achieved before.

What does it mean?
There are a number of reasons why the ability to launch rockets from the sea rather than land is more advantageous. It allows for boosters which can lift off from closer to the equator, which in turn will give greater speed and in turn greater payload capacity. Therefore, it requires less energy to reach space which means fuel savings, while the dangers posed by falling debris are also less than otherwise be.
China is also building up its naval capacity through launches like this. They have also entered into a probable space war with the US and Russia in it.  

What happened?
On 5 May 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived for a three days state visit to Moscow.  Xi attended the 23rd St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) with Russia on the theme “Creating a Sustainable Developing Agenda” and also visited Moscow Zoo for a ceremony of welcoming a pair of Chinese giant pandas, male RuYi and female Ding Ding on Wednesday.

 On 6 June 2019, both the country attended the ceremony at which Xi’s was presented with an honorary degree from St. Petersburg State University at St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF).
On 7 June 2019, both the countries attended the Russia- China energy business forum.

Both the country used St. Petersburg as a platform not only to discuss the relationship but also about the future globally.

What is the background?
The former communal rivals are seen to be drawing closer in recent years. The Second Belt and Road Initiative Summit held in Beijing on 25 - 27 April 2019 has been a driving force to the economic development in the two countries because Russia role in the BRI is considered as important by the Chinese officials.

A three days state visit to Moscow, Xi Jinping called Russian President Vladimir Putin as his “close friend” as they had met nearly 30 times over the last six years.  With both countries facing mounting tensions with the US. Russia emphasized that both countries are at the same position when it comes to global issues like North Korea nuclear progress, the crisis in Venezuela and Iran’s nuclear deal with the US, where both oppose the world power. 

What does it mean?
The deteriorating relationships of both the countries with the world power made the countries to move closer together. Beijing is engaged with escalating trade conflicts with the US and this led to in search of a new trading partner leading China to turn to Russia as a new trading partner. Russia's trade with China reached the US $180 billion in 2018. And now, they made several business deals which includes the launching of a Chinese car factory in the South of Moscow and allow the controversial Chinese tech giant Huawei to develop a 5G network in Moscow by the Russian telecoms company MTS. Xi’s three days state visit was not all about defence and trade talks but also includes China’s panda diplomacy .

Moscow is the tenth largest trading partner for China. For Russia, Beijing is the top trading partner. Bilaterally, both countries need each other for political and economic development. Russia is far more ahead in technology which China is purchasing it. Also, Russia needs Chinese money. The Belt and Road Initiative will be the connecting factor for both the countries, they agreed to promote the implementation of major strategic projects and engage in more activities like in education, culture, sports, tourism, media and youth areas will be launched to bring people together.  Thus, both countries are ready to work together to make a high level and better cooperation in the future.  

The frequent visit of both the countries will build a stronger bond but this built in the moments of crisis is to overcome the challenges that both have been facing with the US. For Russia, this will be a great opportunity to compete with the two great powers the China and the US. China sees Russia as the second best, but their priority is mainly focused on the US.

What happened?
On 6 June 2019, the Acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan wrote to his Turkish counterpart, Hulusi Akar serving Ankara an ultimatum demanding its withdrawal from a defence deal with Russia for the acquisition of S-400 ‘Triumf’ anti-aircraft weapon system.
According to the letter from Shanahan. Turkey is also under the threat of facing sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017(CAATSA) with any country engaging with Russia’s defence sector.

The Turkish response was that it was too late to pull out of the deal with Russia.

What is the background?

S-400 Triumf is an anti-aircraft defence system with a range of up to 380Km, described by The Economist in 2017 as "one of the best air-defence systems currently made".

US and Turkey have been having a row over the S-400 deal for some months. The repeated US warnings did not stop Turkey from proceeding steadily. The American-made F-35 fighter jets are only the beginning of the threats as there is a strong bipartisan determination in the Congress to impose sanctions. In March, Curtis Scaparrotti a US Army general and NATO Commander had warned of cancelling the F-35 program. 

The US fears the S-400 systems in Turkey might provide Russia with intelligence regarding the F-35, 100 of which Ankara just purchased. The concern is a little excessive as there are F35s already in operation near China. 

From the Cold War era to US support to Kurds, the countries have not had a harmonious past.

Turkey has been leaning towards Russia and heading away from democracy following the current president Recep Tayyip Erdogan amassed control of the state’s military and budget. The demand for the S-400 comes from the need to protect the President from stray pilots attempting to depose Erdogan, the lack of which is a weakness.
Turkey surprised everyone by declining the US offer to buy ‘Patriot’ systems and going with Moscow.

What does it mean?

Shanahan has made it explicit that the pilot training program will end on July 31 by when few but not all trainees would be able to finish the course. This seems to have made no effect on the deal as Turkey is seemingly in need of defending rather than attacking currently.

A Moscow-Ankara bridge is on the rise. Heads of the state have met each other in person seven times in 2018 and spoke 18 times on the phone. America is worried about the endearment but intends to choke Ankara since 937 parts of F35 are manufactured by Turkish companies contributing around $12 billion to the economy.

Turkey seems unrelenting and the US is vying for the upper hand. 
The US is concerned about Russia improving ties with several nations and has made similar threats and actions against other countries dealing with the Russian defence including India, Iran and North Korea. Turkey is adopting an increasingly independent defence strategy and distancing from the US seems to be an important step.
 

What happened?
On Sunday 9 June 2019, Hong Kong saw its biggest protest in five years as millions of people in Hong Kong took the streets to protest against proposed amendments to the extradition laws to mainland China. The proposed amendments are debated on this week again.

What is the background?
The United Kingdom controlled Hong Kong until it gave the territory back to China in the year 1997. However, the United Kingdom gave Hong Kong back with the expectation that Hong Kong would act as a mostly independent actor for at least fifty years. So, until 2047, Hong Kong and mainland China function as "One country, two systems" policy.

With the introduction of the new amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters ordinance, some people argue that the new rules will bring Hong Kong's self- government to an end before 2047. Currently, Hong Kong does not have extradition agreements with China, Taiwan or Macau, which the Hong Kong Bar Association says was a "deliberate decision" because of the "fundamentally different criminal justice system operating in the mainland's track record on the protection of fundamental rights".  

However, the whole reason these amendments were proposed because of a specific case. A local Hong Kong man named Chan Tong- Kai is suspected of murdering his pregnant girlfriend while the two were vacationing in Taiwan. Because Hong Kong has no pre-existing extradition agreement with Taiwan, he cannot be sent to face the trail of murder there and since Hong Kong courts have no jurisdiction over crimes committed in Taiwan, Chan Tong - Kai can't be tried for murder there either. If the new amendments were to be passed, it would make it to Hong Kong could extradite suspected criminals to places where there is no formal extradition treaty in place that includes Taiwan and China. The Chief executive officer who is not elected but chosen by election committee accountable to China would approve these extraditions of high crime on a case by case basis. While the courts in Hong Kong will get to review the chief executive's decisions, some argued that this amendment would allow mainland China to have some control over the criminal system in Hong Kong.

What is China's position in Hong Kong?
The status of Hong Kong in China is the "One country, two systems policy".

China claimed that a lot of dissidents and criminals take refuge in Hong Kong, to escape persecution in mainland China. So, with the extradition bill convicts can be extradited on vague national security charge and can be tried in the courts of mainland China. If the bill is passed, then any pro-democratic, anti - China, anti-authoritarian voices can be interpreted as a security threat. 

The extradition bill is an attempt by China to interfere and control Hong Kong law and order, with an action plan to sabotage and thwart any anti- China or separation movements.

China is bullying Hong Kong and extending its authoritarian influence over the relatively free administration of Hong Kong.  More protest is going on as lawmakers debated the potential amendments to the Extradition Bill. A final vote could come as soon as mid- July.
 

What happened?
The US has repeated its threat of sanctions in S-400 Truimf deal with Russia. Washington has made it clear that India should not assume it will get a waiver from the US sanctions if it goes ahead with its purchase of the S-400 Truimf missile shield from Russia.

What’s the background?
S-400 Triumf is one of the world’s most innovative air defence systems that can instantaneously track several incoming objects — all kinds of aircraft, missiles and UAVs — in a radius of a few hundred kilometres and launch suitable missiles to neutralize them. The sale of Russian S-400 systems has resulted in issues, as Turkey and China have come under criticism and restrictions from the US. Russia had also refused to sell its S-400 defence system to Iran amid the Mideast tensions. 

Among the countries under pressure from the US not to buy this weapon is India. It had committed last October to purchase a Russian S-400 Triumf long-range missile defence shield for about $5 billion. The deal has run the risk of attracting sanctions from the US under a 2017 law- the countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) on countries buying Russian military equipment. The sanctions were part of actions to penalize Moscow for its efforts in Ukraine in 2014.

What does it mean?
India has been diversifying its weapon supply over the years. 60-70% of its hardware is of Russian origin, where S-400 plays the gap in the air defence against China. Washington is in a tricky position with India which wants to bolster ties with the Asian giant to counter China's assertiveness, but India buying Russian S-400 will have severe implications for defence ties with the US.

Firstly, the S-400 will strengthen Russia-India ties. Arms sales are usually foreign policy tools, where countries like the United States utilize to establish strong relationships. Since the US is attempting to deviate India from being partners with Russia, the S-400 is one of the top obstacles to the US plan. In a very short time, India has all chances to emerge as a staunch Russian ally, which the US considers as an arch enemy since the involvement of Russian hackers to manipulate presidential elections.

Once India acquires and deploys the S-400 system along the India- Pakistan Border, the balance of power equation in South Asia will change. It also implies, India daring the US and displaying strategic autonomy, by betraying its cold war standard non-alignment movement mindset. Despite the sanctions, if India gets waivers, it signifies how strategically important India is for the US. But if it happens the other way there will be a shift in the geopolitical scales in favour of Russia.

Also, by buying big-ticket purchases, India hopes to thwart Russia from selling any advanced weapons to Pakistan. On the broader perspective, it is a question of where are India’s military relations headed? And with whom it is going to share the highest technology and that operating environment. India should be cautious as certain choices preclude other choices.

What happened?
On June 3, 2019, Sudanese forces attacked a protest camp in Khartoum killing over 60 people. The worst violence since April 11 overthrow of Omar-al-Bashir has drawn global condemnation. Amidst accusations against Sudanese military of committing brutal assaults, hospital attacks and rapes, the protestors have called it “a massacre”, while the ruling Transitional Military Council (TMC) has denied and limited the attack to “unruly” groups.

What is the background?
Following the floating of bread prices in December 2018, a large-scale grassroots protest engulfed Sudan ending the decades-long rule of Bashir. In the immediate aftermath, TMC came to power to oversee a transitional period of a maximum of two years. Questioning their credibility, protest leaders called for complete paralysis of public life through total civil disobedience to arm-twist Sudan’s military into ceding power immediately to a civilian-led government.

What does it mean?
TMC’s decision to hold elections within nine months was rejected by the Opposition a day after the deadly crackdown. As internal strife erupts, brutalities have started again. Amidst calls from HRW for a UN inquiry regarding 'egregious rights abuses' in Khartoum, the Britain-Germany led initiative to issue an immediate halt of violence in Sudan has been blocked by Russia and China in the UNSC. Meanwhile, Sudan has warned the Middle East against a more significant regional interference as a playing out of the Arabian cold war would only further misconstrue Sudan’s dynamics and ground realities.

With continuously deepening discords and the spurned transition plan, the Sudan crisis will continue to boil soon. The bodies that floated in the Nile river are proof that the escalated conflict is now becoming a protractive one.

What happened?
All nine Sri Lankan ministers along with the two Muslim provincial governors resigned in early June to protest the “threat to the community” and backlash spurred by the Easter bombing that killed over 250 people. The Muslim ministers have given one month to the government to expedite all inquiries and end “hate culture”.

What is the background
The resignations were in direct response to a four-day hunger strike by Athuraliye Rathana, an influential Buddhist monk, a member of Parliament and an adviser to Sri Lankan President, Maithripala Sirisena. Rathana wanted the removal of the two provincial governors and a minister whom he accused of having ties with the suicide bombers. Demonstrations in Colombo and Kandy supported his strike. His assertions also saw support from firebrand monk Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero. All Muslim ministers, along with their deputies quit from their portfolios in the act of solidarity with the accused. 

What does it mean?
The fragile Sirisena government is crumbling amidst the communal discords and fear psychosis. The ballot swayed in favour of Sirisena owing to the support from ethnic minority Tamils and Muslim voters. As ministers succumb to demands by communal entities, Sri Lanka’s political stability threatens to be eroded. Vague accusations by Buddhist hardliners against Muslim ministers and even doctors alleged to have “an organized plan” to reduce Sinhalese majority have fueled hate and rifts. This is just the beginning. 

As harmony dwindles, democracy is failing and the fear of a blood bath is looming large. 
 

What happened?
US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump have begun their three-day state visit to the UK. The tour entails a number or official engagement mainly with the British royal family and will also attend the 75th D-Day anniversary of the World War II allies. Day one consists of meeting with the British royal family, meeting Queen Elizabeth II, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall as they attend and carry out other ceremonial duties. Day two involves meeting Theresa May at 10 Downing Street, where they will hold bilateral talks and have a press conference. Day 3 encompasses honouring the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings, Trump along with members of the Royal family, will attend this event.

What is the background?
The visit comes a year after Trump’s visit to the UK last year. There were several mishaps during that visit, with him breaking certain protocol and resistance from the public. This state visit, however, occurs amid newer challenges that the UK and US have to address.

What does it mean?
The implication of this visit is numerous. In no order of importance, the Huawei controversy with China will be one of the topics that would be discussed. Other issues such as the Middle East peace plan by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law “deal of the century” will be spoken off, though the UK would probably warn that plan needs more importance on political rights for Palestinians. The Trump team are also looking for the UK’s support on the US economic sanctions to force Tehran to reopen the nuclear deal. The US has hopes that a Boris Johnson premiership might back Trump’s approach.
However, Trump faces some resistance due to his extreme views on climate change and migration, and this has caused criticism to develop both internally and externally. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has refused to attend Trump's state banquet, condemning the president of using “racist and misogynist rhetoric". However, there are other maintain that the US is a vital ally of the UK and that Trump should be welcomed accordingly.

What happened?
On May 30, 2019 Israel’s parliament voted by 74-45 to dissolve itself and hold fresh elections as Israeli PM Netanyahu failed to form a ruling coalition before the midnight deadline. The new elections are expected to take place in September.

What is the background?
Despite likely indictment in three corruption cases, on April 9, 2019, Netanyahu, became prime minister for a fifth term when Likud Party won 35 of the 120 Parliaments seats. However, he failed to overcome rifts between religious and secular allies. The chief obstruction being a disparity over a military conscription draft law.

What does it mean?
The upcoming election evades Israeli President Reuven Rivlin choosing another candidate to form a government but plunges Israel into another billion-dollar acrimonious campaign which will see fresh US funding and backing for Netanyahu as the upcoming Bahrain Summit and looming Trump-Jared “deal of the century” requires Netanyahu to remain in power. 

Bibi’s hope that September elections will break the impasse will face hitches. First, he will have to appeal to the same politicians for the coalition. Second, the pool of plausible coalition members is dwindling. Third, his manipulation of Israeli laws may boomerang. Fourth, the military draft may remain a discordant issue. All this while the corruption indictment is underway.

Meanwhile, opposition, unhappy with the move, has accused Netanyahu of being "legally incapacitated" by impending indictments. Maybe he is buying time. 

What happened?
On 29 May 2019, special counsel Robert Mueller declined to clear President Trump from his obstruction of justice.  During a short press conference, he is noted to have said that “If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” 

This was Mueller’s first public statement on the two-year investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and probably his last as he is reportedly set to resign the office.

What is the background?
On 18 April 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller had released a 448-page report that established no conspiracy over the Russian interference in Trump’s 2016 election campaign. Also, the report had identified and stated around 10 instances of probable obstructions of justice by Trump. 

Further, in what could be the latest clatter with the Congress, on 08 May 2019, the White House formally asserted its executive authority over Robert Mueller’s report. Thus, terminating the debate over what materials legislators would be allowed to view from the report submitted by Mueller.

What does it mean?
Mueller’s report in many ways felt out of the way with the present political moment as it comes more than a month after Attorney General William Barr released the report. It was a straightforward statement, quite the opposite to Barr who had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice. While reflecting his obligation to investigate potential obstruction, he added that charging the president with a crime was impossible from the beginning due to guidelines from the Department of Justice that barred prosecutors from indicting a sitting president. This might further give a little more fodder to the Democrats who supported impeachment than before.

Mueller has stated what he wanted to say without openly involving in the political face-off and clarified that he had nothing more to add than what’s already in the report. Now, the ball is much more firmly grounded into the Congress’ court as it is certainly up to them to figure out what to do with his findings.

What happened?
Known for their close relationship President Donald Trump and President Shinzo Abe met this week in Tokyo ahead of the G20 summit scheduled to be held in Tokyo. This is in the background of their intentions to defuse tensions with Iran and North Korea.  This trip, unlike the several others, stood out with its golf round, sumo tournament appearance, the new ‘Reiwa Era’ and selfies. The highlights were Trump’s meeting with the families of Japanese citizens who were abducted by North Korea, where he promised to do what it takes to bring them back home. 

Trump made two statements one on North Korean missile tests and the other on the war with Iran. He said that the missile tests of North Korea do not violate the UNSC provisions and said there would be no war with Iran; both of these contradict the stance taken by his national security advisor and his administration. What was interesting to note is that there was no mention of China or the trade dispute and the Abe-Trump summit did not produce a joint statement.

What is the background?
Abe is seen as one of the few world leaders in whom the ‘unpredictable’ Trump holds personal trust since taking office in 2017. This one did not see Trump making any drastic statements, a surprise considering his record in the past months.  They did disagree on the Trump spoke for several minutes, possibly out of a prepared document in the news conference. His tweet after the visit was a simple, “Thank you Japan” and a 46-seconds video of everything he did while in Japan. The US delayed the trade issues and talks with Japan, Mexico and Canada until probably a deal with China was made. It looks like Trump wants to maintain at least a facade of a unified stance. 

What does it mean?
Many experts were quick to conclude that Japan was the only country that gained from this visit. By the looks of it, Trump administration needs Japan on their side, considering the situation with China, their allies in Europe, Venezuela, Iran and North Korea. Japan has shown an intention to mediate in the trade disputes. Trump, on the other hand, has shown active support for the July elections in Japan and spoke about having to do something about the trade gap. One cannot call the visit only ceremonial because it shows, on the outset, despite drastic changes in the strategic environment, there are countries that Trump is capable of retaining good relations with!

What happened? 
The elections to the EU Parliament held between 23-26  May 2019 have thrown up new trends that would come to dominate European politics. Voters from across the European Union voted for the parties they want to represent them in the European Parliament, the only one whose members are directly elected by the EU citizens. 

The message from the election has been three. First, the voters have indicated a need for change by neither voting the centre-left and the centre-right to power for the first time since 1979. Second, support has instead been to the EU Green parties (“Greens”) and liberals.  And third, far-right populist and nationalist parties led by the likes of Italy’s Matteo Salvini and France’s Marine Le Pen have consolidated their position in the European Parliament.

What is the background? 
Voters directly elect the European Parliament in the European Union. The Parliament, along with the Council of Ministers from the member states, is tasked to make laws and approve budgets. It is responsible for maintaining EU’s external relation with the other countries, including approving the joining of new members. Its members represent the interests of different countries and different regions within the EU. Every five years, EU countries go to the polls to elect members of the European Parliament. Each country is allocated a set number of seats, roughly depending on the size of its population. The smallest, Malta, has six members while the largest, Germany has 96. 

What does it mean?  
The following trends could be identified from the election results. 
First, the centre-right European People’s Party and the centre-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats have mostly ruled the European Parliament since 1979. However, this election has effectively ended their 40-year majority. The reason could be seen as an anti-incumbency sentiment sending a strong signal that an institutional change is needed in the establishment. 

The need for change that dictated the outcome of the result also highlights the fact that the current election was less about EU and more about the national narratives playing out at the international level. The votes from the 28 countries reflected what each country’s voter wants in their respective national political debates that have amplified on a continental scale. 

Secondly, the ‘Green wave’ shouldn't have come as a surprise. The alternative narrative was slowly gaining ground as the centrist parties were losing their popularity. The Greens came in second place in Germany with a whopping 20 per cent of the vote, beating the traditional centre-left Social Democratic Party. The Greens had their best-ever results in Finland, picking up more than 16 per cent of the vote. In France, the Greens came in a third place, with 13 per cent of the vote. In the UK, the pro-EU Greens snagged about 12 per cent of the vote, gaining approximately seven seats and coming in fourth place, in front of the governing Conservative Party. In total, the Greens will take about 70 seats in the 751-member European Parliament, up from 51 in the last election, in 2014. Leaving aside the overriding concern of environment and climate change, what the Greens have managed to do is convey their vision of sustainable socio-economic equality and immigration issues in the aftermath of the Euro crisis. 

However, a more significant trend is yet to be understood as to what is unifying the Greens across the continent into a mainstream political force?  

Thirdly, the number of votes to the far right has increased by five, and they will hold about 25 per cent of seats in the European Parliament. However, it is not an all-European trend because they have performed better in some EU countries compared to others. However, these parties are here to stay. 

Lastly, the maximum impact could be felt in the UK. The UK wasn’t supposed to be participating in the European parliamentary elections; had the Brexit plan worked it would have been out of the EU by now. As a result of the European parliamentary elections, the votes have turned into a referendum on the Brexit debate that’s dividing the country. Nigel Farage, the former head of the UK Independence Party, and his newly formed Brexit Party was placed first in the elections, winning more than 31 per cent of the vote and 29 of the UK’s seats in the European Parliament.

What happened?

In the past week, a significant rise in anti-Semitic instances in Germany and France stimulated a government official to urge Jews not to wear kippahs in public. The series of attacks has alarmed politicians and provoked pleas for action against the new form of anti-Semitism. But anti-Semitic attacks continue to remain common in Europe though it is home to lakhs of Jews, where they united to condemn anti-Semitic acts with one common slogan: "Enough!"

What is the background?

The storm of anti-Semitic violence spread by Nazi Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945 not only got an alarming intensity in Germany itself but also inspired anti-Jewish movements elsewhere. Until recently, there was a national consensus on how to deal with the memory of the Holocaust and the fight against anti-Semitism. In Germany, one of the reasons behind the current anti-Semitic acts is the rising popularity of the far-right AFD party. Since the 2015 migration crisis, Germany has seen the revival of far-right sentiment stained with anti-Semitism. The far-right's political strategy has been to blame migrants, which comes primarily from Muslim countries, for the resurgence of anti-Jewish hatred in Germany to an extent.

What does it mean?

Anti-Semitism is diffusing like poison, which leaves a question unanswered -Why are some groups (such as homeless people)  neglected in a relatively steady stream of scorn, while other groups (such as Jewish people) are subjected to sudden waves of virulent attacks? In the wake of Germany’s defeat in World War I and the later economic crisis, Jewish people were cast as powerful, manipulative agents of disaster, so because of its positive element it can become a dangerous weapon of discrimination and destruction. They are also labelled as competent but cold. Elements of hate and racism had to be connected to a perception that the Jew was a possible political, economic, and social threat. It is also a form of prejudice deep-rooted in a conspiracy. Although anti-Semitism has been an issue for almost all of documented history, it is now "coming out". It is an epidemic that endangers everyone.

What happened?      

On 27 May 2019, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Sergeyevich Peskov, press secretary for the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, rejected a call from the Hamburg- based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to release the 24 Ukrainian sailors and three naval ships. In 2018, the Russian Navy had captured them in the Kerch Strait which links the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

What is the background?

In November 2018, Russia ships stopped and fired on the Ukrainian ships and captured 24 sailors and 3 naval ships in the Kerch Strait, as they attempted to pass through the road bridge (built by Russia) illegally into the Sea of Azov, which lies between Russia and Ukraine, where both countries shares the sea by a bilateral treaty. Federal Security Service said that they had been forced to fire because the ships had illegally entered the country's territorial waters and ignored their warnings. They also said that three Ukrainian ships had been heading for the Kerch Strait without having Russian permission where they had temporarily closed the area for shipping.

Ukrainian Navy said that they had informed in advance to the Russian’s of their ships sailing from Odessa to Mariupol, a Ukrainian port city on the Sea of Azov and claimed that its ships had done nothing wrong and blamed Russia of their military aggression towards them. The Ukrainian Navy also said that when the three ships had attempted to draw back towards Odessa, their ships were fired upon by the Russian border guards which left six of its sailors injured but Russia stated that three of Ukrainian were wounded.

In March 2014 Russia occupied Ukraine Crimea Peninsula where neither Ukraine nor the European Union and the United Nations and other international court or tribunal never considered that Crimea had been legally occupied by Russian’s. Russia had constructed the Kerch Strait which connects between Crimea and the Taman Peninsula. Ukraine and other countries criticised the bridge construction as illegal.

In 1954, the Soviet Union issued an order of transferring the Crimea Peninsula from the Russia Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Crimea matters to Russia because Crimea has a strong historical and cultural ties with Russia and one of the pretexts for Russia’s military invasion is to defend its citizens and interest in Ukraine, especially in Crimea. Russia wanted Crimea back because of oil and gas, which can be found in maritime zones around Crimea and to control over Sevastopol, which is strategically important for military reasons.

What does it mean?

The increased tensions between Russia and Ukraine is because Russia occupied Crimea Peninsula in March 2014. Russia considers it as a part of its territory and claims the strait too. For Russia, it doesn’t fall into the category of international water. Hence, for Moscow, the UN Convention of the Law of Sea does not come into the act in the Kerch Strait issue between Russia and Ukraine. 

Since there is a confusion of jurisdiction, there is a problem in arbitration and conflict resolution. 

What happened?

Recently, the US deployed warships and bombers to the Middle East amid rising tensions with Iran. Donald Trump, contradicting the stance of the United States’ preparations to fight a war with Iran if necessary, announced that the US was not looking for a regime change in Iran. Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton was all in favour of removing the Ayatollahs from power. The US had issued warnings against travelling to Iran two weeks back. The tensions rose to levels where the US withdrew its non-essential staff from its embassy in Iran. Thus, Trump’s tweet has left the world confused about the US’s game plan in the Middle East.

What is the background?

One year after the US pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, the tension in the Middle East is rising. The US designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a ‘foreign terrorist organisation’ and announced that it would end waivers for countries wishing to purchase Iranian oil. The US deployed warships and bombers, and the subsequent response from Iran was that Tehran itself would partially withdraw from the deal. Iran gave a window of 60 days for the other countries party to the JCPOA to save the deal, failing which Iran would start enriching the uranium stockpile.

What does it mean?

Donald Trump has, from the initial days of his campaign, showed himself to be an unusual politician. Once in the Oval Office, his policy seemed to have been to go against the doings of the Obama administration. From healthcare to foreign policy, Trump seemed to take a different track. About Iran, Trump was on the offensive in the beginning. After pulling out of JCPOA, he made threats and tried to push Iran to approach the US for a renegotiated deal through Twitter. With his NSA John Bolton, who is infamous for his pro-war stances, the US doesn’t seem to have a solid, unwavering policy towards Iran.

Trump and Bolton could be playing the good cop-bad cop with their counterparts, especially in negotiating deals. The international community was not in favour of US’s pro-war stance, and Trump is not on terms with the decisions of Bolton. While big powers of the world would always play by the rules, the US’s policy shift is unexpected. The tension in Iran must have taken an undesirable pathway than what was planned from the US’s perspective, and Trump’s statement must be to de-escalate it. While a fallout within the White House is suspected with the latest development where Trump reneged on Bolton’s stance in other issues as well, the international community is watching closely the direction of USA’s policies.

What happened?

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, Europe’s youngest leader, was removed from power by a parliamentary session on the 27 of May 2019, making his tenure the shortest since World War II.

Kurz who heads Austria’s centre-right People’s Party received a no-confidence vote in Parliament after the release of a secret video of the head of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party who was a part of the Kurz’s coalition rule, engaging with a supposed Russian national.

The scandal caused an uprising in Austria where thousands took to the streets protesting calling for the resignation of several ministers. This led to Kurz calling for new elections to be held in September, until which Austria will be under a caretaker government.

What is the background?

Kurz is an immigration hardliner; he has been seen as the fresh new face of Europe’s conservative future since his rise to power in 2017. However, this was short lived. On May 17, when the German media released a video showing Hanz-Christian Strache, the head of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party making a deal with a woman who claimed to be the niece of a Russian oligarch which was filmed in 2017 in Ibiza shows Strache and a party colleague talking to the woman for six hours about how she could use her money to influence Austrian politics. However, information was released that this was a setup, it is still not clear as to who was behind this, but the plan to expose the corruption in Austrian politics was successful.

When Kurz won most of the seats in the 2017 elections, he needed a few more numbers to form the government; he chose Strache’s Freedom Party who came third to become the junior member of Austria’s coalition government, making Strache the vice chancellor. There was disapproval from the left-wing critics who were unhappy with his decision to side with such a radical party. Kirz hoped that the coalition with them would help push his agenda of immigration and economic populism forward; however, this did not materialize, and once the Ibiza video came out, things began to go wrong for Kruz. Strache resigned in 24 hours as vice chancellor and as head of his party. Kurz, withdrew his party from the governing coalition, leading to a collapse in Austria’s leadership.

The centre-left Social Democratic Party, Kurz’s main political rival saw this as an opportunity to remove him from power. They swiftly organized a no-confidence campaign to oust him from power, stating that his decision to rule with the Freedom Party and his rejection to take any responsibility for the government’s fall meant he should not lead anymore.

What does it mean?

Few believe Kurz will lose his post as head of Austria’s centre-right party, which goes to mean that he will likely contend for chancellor again. Based on the popularity of his party, he does have a good chance of reclaiming his former job. Whether the centre-left can take advantage of this opportunity is less likely. What remains next for Austrian politics remains highly unclear which leave the people worried about what might happen. 

What happened?

On 26 May 2019, President Arif Alvi of Pakistan conferred Nishan-e-Pakistan on Chinese vice-president Wang Qishan during an investiture ceremony held at Aiwan-e-Sadar in Islamabad. The award was given to the Chinese dignitary to honour his role in the advancement of bilateral ties between Pakistan and China. The ceremony also initiated the launch of a Huawei Technical Support Centre in Pakistan as part of the larger investment projects in Pakistan.

What is the background?

This event has taken place amid the growing bilateral relations between China and Pakistan, the frequency of high-level visits by both heads of state has increased since the Prime Minister Imran Khan’s visit to China in November last year and his participation in the second Belt and Road Forum in Beijing in April this year. Thus, leading to a more strengthened and cooperative relationship. CPEC, the mega project initiated under the BRI by the Chinese in Pakistan is the foundation of the deep-rooted friendship between the two countries. Both China and Pakistan stand to gain from this as well.

What does it mean?

By honouring the Chinese Vice President with this award, it goes to show how the time-tested and all-weather relationship between Pakistan and China who call themselves as an iron friend has only been strengthening over time. It also reiterates the well-established bilateral ties between the two where the incentive of both is to develop and increase the multidimensional areas of cooperation that they focus on. It also confirms the deepened levels of exchange at high levels which express the growing mutual trust between the two countries who are willing to cooperate for the development of CPEC and other bilateral engagements.

What happened?

On 21 May, civil unrest started in different parts of Jakarta; this has led to several injured and casualty of six people. The unrest was a fallout of a peaceful protest which was an outcome of the election commission confirmed that President Joko Widodo won last month's election, defeating his opponent General Prabowo Subianto.

The peaceful protestors raised their voice for General Prabowo, who disagreed with the election results and claimed discrepancy. However, the protest soon turned violent, as the police in riot gear fired tear gas to disperse the crowd near the election supervisory agency, the protestors retaliated by hurling fireworks and rocks at police during a stand-off. Similar clashes also started in the other part of the city. According to the news agencies, a small number of them had even attempted to storm a nearby police station.

Surprisingly, although the chief of national police has denied the use of live ammunition the primary investigation has indicated six people who died have gunshot wounds and others "blunt force wounds" as reported by the hospitals. The unrest restarted again on 22 May in several parts of Jakarta. Around 30,000 troops have been deployed, and social media has been restricted.

What is the background?

The General Election Commission (KPU) on 21 May declared the results for the Indonesian elections 2019, confirming unofficial counts by private pollsters in the April 17 election, which gave President Joko Widodo a 55.5% share of votes against 44.5% for former General Prabowo Subianto.

Prabowo Subianto had claimed his win while complaining of "widespread cheating" even after the preliminary result was declared on 17 April 2019. Also, immediately after the April declaration, the hardline Alumni 212 movement, who are supporters of Subianto, had threatened unrest. Hence, although, a small protest was anticipated as it was clear that General Subianto will not peacefully accept his failure, nevertheless, the sheer level of the violence was unanticipated.

The history seems to repeat itself in Indonesia, as 2014 General Election appears to be replicated in 2019 with the same opponents and same election result. However, this post-election violence is new and could be the outcome of General Subianto’s desperation to come to power and his failure for the second term.

What does it mean?

Although violent, it is expected that the unrest will be fizzled out soon. However, this seems to be the priority of the newly appointed president, Widodo. It could also be termed as a bad start for him. However, with him as re-elected President, there is expected to have a good start for the Indonesian economy and infrastructure development as his previous term has witnessed economic and infrastructural development. No wonder his 2019 campaign focused on his progress in poverty reduction and improving Indonesia’s inadequate infrastructure. The work in these sectors is expected boom, under his new tenure. His term will also ensure the strengthening of the countries equation with China, especially its role in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is essential for Indonesian infrastructural development.  However, addressing the rise in abuses of human and minority rights, as well as rising extremism and prevention of alienating hardliners should also be his focus for this term as these issues were his major criticism from his last name

What happened?

On 24 May 2019, students from over 1600 cities walked out of school to protest Climate Change and demonstrate the need for urgent action.  What started in Europe in February, has evolved into a massive student movement, these students, many of them who were too young to vote, took to the streets this week across the European Union to demand more stringent action against global warming as the 28-nation bloc elects a new parliament.

Aside from Europe, students from various parts of the world, from over 110 countries, starting from Australia, New Zealand, with Asian nations, Afghanistan, Thailand, Japan and India, joined the action calling on politicians and businesses to take urgent action to slow global warming. The protesting students have vowed to continue boycotting classes on Fridays until their country adheres to the Paris Climate Agreement. The movement has gained traction and has become a massive social media phenomenon.

What is the background?

It started with Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg, who protested in front of the Swedish parliament in 2018 and refused to get back to classes till the politicians took action.  With a sign 'school strikes' against climate change, she was 15 years old then. In February 2019, taking from her solo protests, various movements across Europe, the US and Australia were observed, known as Fridays for Future or School Strike for Climate. The last coordinated international protest took place on 15 March, with an estimated 1.6 million students from 125 countries walking out of school.

In 2018, global carbon emissions hit a record high, and a UN-backed panel on climate change warned that to stabilise the climate, emissions will have to be slashed over the next 12 years, in October. Earlier this May, a UN report warned that one million animal and plant species were now threatened with extinction. Hence, these protestors intend to encourage governments to take more responsible actions; for example, students blocked the central bank in Norway telling them to stop investing in companies that burn coal. They also demand that the government reform the national curriculum to include more material on climate change and climate awareness.

What does it mean?

This massive movement shows the possibilities of successful coordination. Australia has already begun debating the need for coal companies in their economy. Few countries in Europe have declared “National Climate Emergency.” These indicate that the student protests are being taken very seriously.

An open letter was published in Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung on the eve of Friday's strike, Ms Thunberg and prominent German climate activist Luisa Neubauer, 22, called on older generations to join the action in September. 

"This is a task for all humanity. We young people can contribute to a bigger fight, and that can make a big difference. However, that only works if our action is understood as a call," they wrote. "This is our invitation. On Friday, 20 September, we will start an action week for the climate with a worldwide strike. We ask you to join us... Join in the day with your neighbours, colleagues, friends and families to hear our voices and make this a turning point in history” it says. It would be interesting to observe the enthusiasm and the seriousness of the youngsters in taking the future on a path that they want

What happened?

Over concerns of the army’s human rights abuses in pursuit of armed groups, Columbian President Iván Duque on May 24 announced the appointment of an independent commission to examine the army’s commands and orders.

What is the background?

Despite the 2016 peace deal, at least 3000 rebels have rearmed as numerous promises were forgotten. Development of rural sectors has been undermined and ignored by the government. The primary selling point – the guarantee of safety and stability has crumbled. Since October 2016, over 500 activists have lost their lives, and over 210,000 have been displaced. The new PM, Ivan Duque’s desire to revise the accords and his government’s pursuit of the rebels had further fueled rebel sentiments. Under him, army revised orders aimed at doubling results against paramilitary, guerrilla and criminal organizations, thus escalating civilian casualties. Colombia’s military is notoriously famous for “false-positive killings” which increases combat body counts, thus ensuring a rise in ranks.

What does it mean?

The current human rights concerns become a pressing issue in the Colombian peace affair as it catalyzes the rearming by militants. Duque government’s promotion of unrepentant commanders and coming down heavily on the rebels through orders supposedly “misinterpreted by officers” and permitting actions despite doubts regarding targets’ criminality shakes the foundation of the hard-won peace. “60-70 per cent (exactitude)” is not enough when it’s a question of lives.

The continuing rural deprivation is also working against peace. Essential services and amenities remain dreams in countrysides where much of the war was fought. Consequently, new armed groups are filling FARC’s void. Before 2017, the majority of FARC’s funding had come from the drug trade. For the poor, coca remains the most favoured as the crop-substitution program hasn’t materialized. Today, the government’s core issue is money. During the peace deal, $45 billion was estimated to fulfil assurances over a period of 15 years. Then, however, the treasury enjoyed $100 per barrel of oil, today the values are a third lower.

As these economic, political and structural problems unfold, the complex Colombian peace achieved after five decades of conflict may deteriorate or stand the test of time.

What happened?

After a long controversy over the Brexit, the British Prime Minister Theresa May has announced her resignation as leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party in a tearful statement after failing to gather the required majority to deliver her Brexit plan.  She will officially stand down as the party leader on 7 June. This has kick-started a contest for the filling the PM’s seat among the Tories and bifurcated the Conservatives further. 

What is the background?

Brexit has splintered both the Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party into warring factions since the referendum that narrowly approved the departure from EU on 23 June 2016. After the referendum, for three years May has put her Brexit deal to the House of Commons but was defeated three times, by the most significant majority against a government in history, as Eurosceptics, Remainers and Labour united against her plan. As a result, Britain’s departure from the EU has been delayed twice since the initially scheduled date of 29 March.

On 12 April, the European Union (EU) has agreed to give the UK until 31 October to ratify the withdrawal deal. The MPs have then rejected three times in a row the withdrawal agreement that Theresa May reached with other European leaders last year, and they have voted against leaving the EU without a deal. Post the fourth rejection, May had met with opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to negotiate the terms of the agreement for three days in a row in an attempt to break the current Brexit deadlock. This talk with Corbyn was particularly crucial for May to get her deal passed, mainly when her party members were divided into the methods of ‘Brexiting.’ It is essential to understand that to get the agreement passed, May needs a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons.

Among the leaders worried about May’s resignation is Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar who has warned that the election of a new prime minister in Britain may lead to a new phase in Brexit negotiations that could be ‘very dangerous’ for Ireland.

What does it mean?

What happens to the British politics and in notably the Brexit plan after May’s resignation? Firstly, within hours of May announcing her exit from the PM’s post, Boris Johnson and other Tory leadership were seen jostling to succeed to the vacant position that needs to be duly filled by the end of July. The job of the new Prime Minister will be to get the UK departed adequately from the EU. Most of the Conservatives feel that Boris Johnson would make the right candidate with the hope that he could indeed win the support of the Eurosceptic base and also unite the party by winning back the moderate Conservatives who have defected owing to the hard Brexit plan. However, the final choice of the new Tory leader will be made by about 100,000 Conservative Party members, most of whom are strongly Eurosceptic. Some 75 per cent of members supports a no-deal Brexit.

Secondly, the future of the ‘Brexiting’ looks at a hard Brexit. If this happens and the UK fails to renegotiate a Brexit deal with Brussels then that could lead to many trade deals, citizen’s rights and the question of the Northern Ireland border left unresolved. In the shorter term, the UK could still be heading for one more extension to the formal Article 50 exit procedure, which would delay Brexit beyond the currently scheduled date of October 31.

Theresa May tried to follow the route of renegotiating the political declaration, but only belatedly. A new leader with a fresh mandate might stand a better chance of selling such a strategy to MPs.

Lastly, the European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker has spoken of EU losing its patience with the UK waiting for the next extension after extension. The Brexit has taken much time of the EU and has kept the bloc muddled with internal crisis instead of looking collectively at external security problems. This had frustrated a lot of European countries French President Emmanuel Macron rejected any extension into 2020, saying Brexit cast an unacceptable shadow over the entire European project, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the UK should be given every chance not to crash out without an agreement

What happened?

As tensions continue to rise, President Donald Trump has announced that the Pentagon would send around 1,500 troops to the Middle East in the coming weeks. The deployments would include a squadron of 12 fighter jets, manned and unmanned surveillance aircraft, and several military engineers. According to statements, these troops would reportedly have a primarily protective role as a part of the build-up to counter what the US calls is an “escalating campaign by Iran to plan attacks against the US and its interests in the region.” Besides, the Pentagon had also taken the opportunity to blame Iran and its strategy of using proxies for attacks over oil vessels near UAE.

What is the background?

Tensions between Iran and the US has reached a high ever since the Trump administration abruptly deployed US bombers and an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf earlier this month over threats that have not been specified. Strife between the two increased a year ago following Washington’s decision to pull out of the internationally-accepted Iran nuclear deal. Subsequently, the withdrawal had further led to the re-imposition of sanctions over oil trade and more.

What does it mean?

While alternating between diplomatic talks and sending a strong message has led to uncertainty, the move has further put the Congress in deep concern over the possibility of the US moving towards open conflict. Though Trump has been popular for his ambiguous decision making, the present scenario has come to stand as a polar opposite to USA’s focus on de-escalation and diplomacy first as a broad strategy for the region. Adding more personnel and systems seems unwise without a well- set out strategy and would only further escalate tensions with Iran

What happened?

On 9 May two short-range ballistic missiles were launched by North Korea, confirmed the United States and South Korea official sources. The missile launched is identical to the one that North Korea had launched on 4 May which appeared to be a solid-fuel missile modelled after Russia’s Iskander short-range ballistic missile system that Moscow has often deployed in Syria and has been trying to sell. In addition, South Korea’s military said the Friday’s two missiles were launched from the town of Kusong in North Pyongan province, where North Korea conducted its first successful flight tests of its Hwasong-12 intermediate-range missile and Hwasong-14 intercontinental ballistic missile, both in 2017. At the time of the second launch, the US for the first time seized a North Korean shipping vessel carrying coal on the ground that it was violating American law and international sanctions. This move is certain to escalate tensions already on the brink.

What is the background?

The recent launch by North Korea marks the second time the country fired off a short-range missile in just under a week with the first launch breaking a moratorium agreed after the Hanoi summit in February. These latest launches came after two important meetings. Firstly, the US Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun visit to the South Korea and second North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s visit to Moscow in the last week of April. With the similarity with Russian short-range missile, the current launch by Kim cannot ignore the help from Moscow. 

The launches are seen as a possible North Korean warning toward Washington over the deadlocked nuclear negotiations as the two sides continue to disagree on the terms of sanction reliefs and disarmament. The launch assumes significance in the backdrop of the meeting in February when Trump and Kim met in Hanoi trying to make a deal on dismantling North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Even though the summit ended early after both sides made demands the other side couldn’t accept, North Korea had maintained a long month of no test with frequent news on reconstructing of nuclear sites. This missile tests could now result in more sanctions keeping in mind that North Korea’s so far unsuccessful push for large-scale sanctions relief is at the heart of the current diplomatic impasse with Washington.

What does it mean? 

North Korea has historically used weapons tests for two purposes: firstly, to gain military strength and second to use this acquired military strength for sending tactical message to the US and its allies like South Korea and Japan in the Korean peninsula. The current test is no exception to this strategy adopted by Kim. However, the reactions from the targeted countries have been varied. While the US and South Korea has downplayed the tests, Japan had been strong in its criticisms. Trump has stated that these short-range tests don’t essentially mean “a breach of trust at all," But this also means no one including the institutions in Washington is happy about the test. After the second test, Trump at the White House said, “I don’t think they’re ready to negotiate.” More than a message to the US, the tests were a consorted signal to South Korea highlighting Moon’s failure in securing the sanctions, moving out of the US umbrella and still proceeding with the joint economic projects that the inter-Korean summit had agreed on. The short-range missiles directly threaten South Korea but not the U.S. mainland or it's Pacific territories. This indicated Kim’s dual intention of signalling Moon and also testing how far Washington will tolerate its bellicosity without actually hampering the nuclear negotiations in the letter. Japan’s Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Kotaro Nogami on 10 May has said that the tests were in violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions which bar North Korea from testing any ballistic missiles.

Neither of the recent tests jeopardises the country’s self-imposed moratorium on testing longer-range weapons that could target the continental US but it does warn that the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s patience with nuclear diplomacy and lifting of sanctions is slowly wearing thin.

What happened?

For what has been months of careful negotiations between China and the United States, the ‘trade talks’ seem to have ended with no deals or outcome on 11 May 2019. During this week there was a lot of commotion when Trump threatened to raise tariffs by 10 May, this because the US accuses China of backtracking on the previously agreed commitments. This came when the Chinese delegation was preparing itself to visit the US for negotiations, they chose to go nevertheless. The Chinese delegation, including Vice Premier Liu He, was greeted by US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The optimism remained during the negotiations, and despite the absence of a deal, there seems to be an agreement that the two parties would meet again in Beijing soon.

What is the background?

Since last year, the two sides have imposed tariffs on more than $360 billion in two-way trade. The visible impacts have been on US agricultural exports to China and have been weighing on both countries' manufacturing sectors. In April, Trump bragged that the US and China were on the verge of an “epic” deal. On 9 May, The International Monetary Fund repeated its warning that the trade battle between the world's top economies was a "threat" to global growth, and called for a rapid resolution. However, an additional 25 per cent of tariffs have been imposed on 250 billion dollars’ worth of China’s goods on 10 May 2019.

What does it mean?

Trump’s additional tariffs will raise prices for consumers and may hurt manufacturers and others in the US who rely on parts made in China. Apple was the first to report an impact on its manufacturing and announced their loses. China’s retaliatory tariffs have already squeezed US exporters and Beijing will introduce countermeasures. Domestic politics will play a major role now, especially for Trump because he seems to want to use US-China Trade Dispute as his successes, Xi Jinping’s letter to Trump has eased the markets for now. Negotiations may resume in the forthcoming months, but there is no clarity from both the parties

What happened?

Gaza’s civil society is trickling back to normalcy after a cease-fire agreement brokered by Egypt and the United Nations was achieved between Gaza and Israel and came into effect on May 7. No Israeli air raids have been reported since the cease-fire on Palestinian territory. However, Israeli fire killed a Gazan in the Friday protests on 10 May.

What is the background?

The three-day escalation, the deadliest fighting between Israel and Palestinian factions since 2014 commenced on the May 4. The besieged enclave saw at least four Israelis and 25 Palestinians killed during the escalation. The escalation began when Gaza’s armed factions, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, fired hundreds of rockets at southern Israel’s settlements and civilian population following two separate incidents on May 3 that killed four Palestinians. Israel retaliated by pounding Gaza Strip with gunboat shooting, artillery-shelling, about 150 air raids and by targeting 200 civilian landmarks.

The Friday protests aka the weekly Great March of Return protests, which began on 30 March 2018, with the demand of right to return of Palestinian refugees to pre-1948 homes and full lifting of the 12-year Israeli blockade of Gaza had increased the tensions since it commences.

What does it mean?

As per officials, the truce agreement has to do with the easing of the Israeli blockade of Gaza Strip that has been under a deteriorating Egyptian-Israeli siege since 2008. Extending of fishing zone to 12 nautical miles off the Gaza coast, and improvements in the region’s energy, fuel and electricity situation have also said to be part of the cease-fire agreement.

However, the fragile truce was tested by the Friday protests on 11 May which resulted in the death of a Gazan. Israel’s arm-twisting is proof that Israel wants a cease-fire or peace deal on its own terms of peace or ‘calm’, and not with provisions for the Palestinians or on Gaza’s terms.

There is a call for a massive march on May 15 to mark the 71^st anniversary of Nakba or “catastrophe”, the day in 1948, when Palestinians were forced to flee their homes in hundreds of thousands for the purpose of establishing the state of Israel. This in the current volatile situation may completely rupture the already fragile cease-fire between Palestinian factions and Israel.

Nevertheless, the absence of the United States from this cease-fire agreement is noteworthy. Is the US going to shelf Trump’s Middle East plan or is Washington giving up its mediator role? Time will tell

What happened?

This week, the Sri Lankan authorities released the names and photos of the nine suicide bombers involved in the attack on Easter Sunday. The names include Mohammed Azam Mohammed Mubarak, attacked the Kingsbury Hotel; Alawudeen Ahmed Muwath, denoted the bomb at St. Anthony’s Shrine in Colombo; and St. Sebastian’s Church in Negombo was attacked by Achchi Mohamadhu Mohamadhu Hasthun. The other names include Inshaf and Ilham Ibrahim, the brothers who attacked the Cinnamon Grand Hotel and Shangri-La Hotel, respectively. The previously mentioned, Shangri-La Hotel, was attacked by another suicide bomber also, Zahran Hashim, who is said to be the mastermind of these attacks.  Fatima, Ilham Ibrahim's wife is the seventh attacker who denoted a bomb in their family home when police were conducting a raid, killing three police officers and her children. The eighth bomber is Mohamed Nazar Mohamed Azad and the ninth was Abdul Latheef Jameel Mohammed, who intended to attack Taj Hotel, according to the Sri Lankan authorities, but his bomb detonated outside a small hotel in Colombo, killing two more people.

What is the background?

Some of these names were recognised and published immediately after the attack on 21 April 2019, Easter Sunday attack, but some of them were unknown previously.  In fact, on the basis of the above information, Ibrahim family home was raided in the 21 April afternoon, that led Fatima, Ilham Ibrahim’s wife to detonate a bomb. As mentioned above, Mohammed Zaharan Hasim, who was also immediately recognized through the CCTV camera at Shangri La Hotel, was a radical religious preacher and also headed the organisation called National Thowheeth Jama’ath. He is also the one who was present in the video released by the ISIS, as evidence of their involvement in the attack. But Sri Lanka authorities are yet to establish the extent of ISIS involvement and also the duration of alliance with Zaharan Hasim.  The 26 April blast, which happened due to a raid at Hasim's hideout at Sainthamaruthu, killed his father, brothers and other relatives. A video discovered during the raid is the evidence that most of the family was involved in the planning of the attacks. 

Initial recognition of the bombers had made it evident that many of them are foreign educated and belong to rich families. But the second set of names by authorities also pointed out that most of the bombers were from Kattankudy. Hashim’s family also belong to this town in the east of Sri Lanka, a majority population of which are Tamil Muslims and this town is surrounded by towns with majority Tamil Hindu population. This indicates that the segregation of Tamil Muslims in the 1990s by the LTTE could be a trigger for the rise of extremist in this small town.

What does it mean?

These attacks have a larger consequence than visible as of now. Domestically, apart from taking innocent lives and hampering the tourism, it has steered fear of similar attacks and also deepened the existing fault lines in between the ethnic and religious communities. The recent ban of veil covering faces have restricted the movement of many Muslim girls, some have left going to school and Madrassa. This has also impacted the present Sri Lankan government, due to the intel failure.

The recently reported fact that Zaharan Hasim has travelled to several Southern Indian cities and Kashmir have led to the question of assistance of any Indian terrorist groups also. Sri Lankan attack has compelled one to rethink about ISIS reach into other South Asian countries especially India and Myanmar.

What happened?

In the last week of April, news leaked that the UK would ignore the warnings of the US and go ahead with deploying Huawei equipment within its 5G network. This could be seen as a choice to favour national economics over security. But supporters of the UK’s move argue that Huawei has been excluded from the core parts of the UK network and has not secured a full ‘green light’ to operate. China responded to US’ claims and warned the UK to not discriminate and resist pressures from ‘other’ countries.

After this, Gavin Williamson, the defence minister was fired by Theresa May on 1 May 2019, for the newspaper report that said Britain would allow Huawei equipment to be used in 5G mobile data network.

What is the background?

Williamson was once in charge of party discipline for May's Conservatives and was an important ally for the prime minister as she struggled to steer Britain through Brexit without a majority in parliament or consensus on how to leave the European Union.

May defended her decision to sack him following a brief investigation by the government's most senior civil servant, Mark Sedwill, who is also the NSC's secretary. "The importance of this was not about the information that was leaked, it was where it was leaked from. This was about the NSC and trust in the NSC," she is said to have told Sky News on 4 May 2019, before the police said there was no criminal case to answer.

What does it mean?

This case can have three implications. Firstly, the UK could become the centre of the technological cold war between China and the US. Second, Britain’s position on its need to retain trade partners, like China.

And the most interesting one, (something that happened with Trump as well,) was the problems that emerge from trusted Defence Ministers- does it imply anything?

What happened?

On 30 April the Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó in a video called the removal of Nicolás Maduro from power leading to the start of a military uprising. He reiterated that this attempt was not a coup but was a "peaceful rebellion" to remove Maduro who had lost the support of the military. He termed this as ‘Operation Freedom.’ Maduro was to fly to Cuba along with other agreement that was signed in a 15-point document.

The protest began on 29 April a day earlier; however, while few civilians took to the streets, many remained far from the scene because of the paramilitary forces of Maduro that might have been present in these areas. Many Venezuelan army defectors were also asked to back down to which they were disappointed with.

The Trump administration, who has been a keen supporter of Guaidó, went on to restate the 15-point document that was signed. However, Maduro’s plan had not taken off as claimed by US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo because of Russian orders, a claim that the Russian leadership has denied. By Tuesday evening Maduro displayed his power and strength to the world by his appearance with a group of soldiers along with defence minister Padrino and one of the supposed defectors.

What is the background?

In January 2019, Juan Guaidó went on to declare himself as the acting president of Venezuela, stating that Nicolás Maduro the selected heir of Hugo Chavez came to power through an illegitimate re-election. Since then there has been a rise of tensions in the country. This has also gone on to bring the big players into the crisis, with the United States backing Guaidó and Russia and China backing Maduro.

The US has imposed a number of harsh sanctions and has proposed the use of military action to remove Maduro. Russia, on the other hand, has backed Maduro for its own interest, the Russians have a number of investments in Venezuela and their aim is to protect that irrespective of who is in power. The recent tensions and claims that have been thrown around between the two countries have created some amount of confusion, however, after a long conversation with Vladimir Putin President Donald Trump stated that his Russian counterpart and he had a positive outlook on Venezuela.

What does it mean?

This uprising highlights a number of implications. To a certain extent, the failed coup attempt is seen as a victory for Maduro, who now believes that he has the upper hand. There was no sense of panic or resistance that was seen from him when the uprising had begun and he only went on to address the public later on.

Guaidó has internal support in the form of popular support, through this uprising Guaidó proves himself to be a legitimate leader who would take Venezuela through the transition even though all his actions have not materialized. However, what he lacks is the support of the military, without which it will be difficult for Venezuela to see any change.

A key factor to be understood is that the military in Venezuela is not an organized institution, thus it owes no allegiance to the constitution and it only follows the orders of the President. Thus, there is an uncertainty of which side the army will lean towards.

Military intervention by the US is currently unlikely, even though Trump has gone on to state the use of military intervention, the Pentagon has declined this request. However, it is too early to determine whether there would be a change of opinion based on this.

The US-Russia and China squaring off in Venezuela had caused a rise in tensions. However, with the current engagement with these external players, this issue seems to be put aside, thus proving that factors that are determining the Venezuelan crisis are internal

What happened?

China on 1 May reversed its earlier stance on Masood Azhar and listed the head of the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) as a global terrorist. China has previously withheld the ban on the JeM chief on technical grounds but “once the relevant countries revised the application form of Masood’s listing and submitted it to the 1267 Committee, the Chinese side carefully studied and the revised its stand,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang. 

How did China change its stance on Azhar? China had initially wanted to delay the terror designation of Maulana Masood Azhar after May 23 citing the national elections in India but was forced to revise the date upon pressure from the United States. France Russia and UK had separately brokered an understanding with China in which Beijing got the date extended from 23 April but couldn’t go beyond 1 May.

What is the background?

The starting point of this effort in getting the international community to list the JeM chief as a global terrorist started with the UN statement condemning the Pulwama attack on 14 February. This statement was the first time that the UN had condemned a terror attack in Kashmir and that too on security personnel. Following the statement, countries like the US, UK and France had stepped up the process of getting the leader indicted as a terrorist by adopting the resolution of the 1267 Committee of the UNSC. However, the process was stalled once China vetoed in March against the UNSC resolution on technical grounds.

The current change in stance by China followed a long process of diplomatic meetings between India and China, China and Pakistan besides UNSC members themselves. During the recent visit of Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale to Beijing on April 22, the secretary was believed to have held talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and shared the technical evidence of JeM’s involvement in the Pulwama terror attack. But it was only after the meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan at the sidelines of the 2nd Belt and Road Forum (BRF) held from April 25-27 that China took its stance on the issue. This was evident from Geng’s speech that, “Pakistan has made tremendous contributions to the fight against terrorism, which should be fully recognised by the international community.”

What does it mean?

Following China’s decision to lift the ban several questions could be raised: Why did the UN statement (while banning Azhar) not mention the Pulwama attack and what does China’s stance mean for India?

This could be answered while understanding Beijing’s policy of ‘dual engagement’ with India and Pakistan in South Asia. Apart from the US pressure, the reasons why China found it fit to change its stance now are two-fold. Firstly, the resolution in the 1267 Committee was moved by France, US and UK and not by India or Pakistan (who are not members of the UNSC). This raised the stakes for risking a cost for China especially when Beijing has invested a lot in realigning its image as a negotiator. Lastly, India is not the only one complaining against terrorist acts on its soil by Pakistan based terrorist groups. Afghanistan and Iran have simultaneously complained. In addition, the international trend in the rise of terrorism and the need to condemn and act against it has increased in the light of the events of NZ and Sri Lanka attacks. It has made it difficult for China to resist the move anymore.

However, China didn’t take the decision without taking its interest in Pakistan and India in mind. At this stage, China reached a bargain with Pakistan with a slight change in language (i,e keep Pulwama out of it) and two things were achieved by it. First, the pressure on China could be averted. The US had threatened to bypass the sanctions committee and take the measure to the full Security Council which would compel China to place its objections on the record. This fear of isolation may have worked on China. Second, the listing of Masood has actually helped Islamabad avoid being “blacklisted” by the Financial Action Task Force later this month. This could have led to not only economic isolation but also freeze most of the foreign assets which would increase the currency crunch inside the country.

For India, the decision was deemed as a diplomatic success. This could be seen in two lights. First, the UNSC statement was a culmination of its long demand to get the terrorist listed. Leaving Pulwama attack while recognising JeM’s acts of terror in the short term might come across a diplomatic facade, but then again India needs to know that while Pulwama was symbolic means, getting Azhar designated was the long end. This India got. Secondly, India should see China’s decision as a gesture to balance two rival countries in South Asia. India should remember that this gesture is not only meant to keep its interest in Pakistan grounded but was also to open a channel of negotiation between them with an eye for the leader’s summit pending after the election. China has already shown a similar gesture at the BRI summit when for the first time Beijing got the map of entire Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh