'Gaza Flag' Flies At Royal Opera House Stage In London; And Then Scuffle Breaks Out...
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov clarified that BRICS nations don't aim to replace the US dollar, but rather seek alternatives for mutual settlements to circumvent US sanctions. He stated BRICS intends to trade in national currencies, with Russia already conducting 90% of payments with partners in local denominations. This counters US President Trump's concerns and threats of tariffs on BRICS countries, who are also developing "BRICS Pay," a decentralized blockchain payment system for cross-border transactions.
42.2K views | 11 hours ago
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
‘Civil society globally did a fantastic job in supporting Gaza; but governments in West are evil'
After his two-storey house in Gaza was bombed in October 2023, allegedly by Israeli forces, Palestinian human rights lawyer Raji Sourani remains committed to returning to the war-torn strip; one of his first priorities, he says. In an exclusive interview, Mr. Sourani, who founded the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) in 1995, shares the current scenario of his and his organisation's efforts to prosecute Israel for 'genocide' at the International Court of Justice. Mr. Sournai, who is currently in Cairo, Egypt, expressed severe disappointment with Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC), adding that Mr. Khan had 'failed' the people of Gaza. It is to note that, since 2015, Sourani has led the Palestinian legal team representing victims at the ICC. In a conversation with Al-Jazeera in April 2024, it was mentioned that you and a team of lawyers from the PCHR were working on prosecuting Israel for 'genocide' at the ICJ. Where does this stand in the present-day? The ICJ, as you know, is a court for the states. Since January 2015, we have been trying our best and have invested in making a case move at the ICC. But, there was an incredible amount of political pressure from the U.S., especially from the then Donald Trump-led administration. Penalties were warned on anyone who would try to bring the U.S. or Israel to the ICC, at any political level. This lasted till March 2021, when the ICC chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, decided to open an investigation. However, when Karim Khan took over as the new chief prosecutor of the ICC, he did not move anywhere. If I may interrupt, can you elaborate on why things did not move after Karim Khan took over? We do not know, but he was talking about restructuring the court, and the investigation into Palestine and budget deficits, among others. His priorities were very confusing to us, and he refused to meet us, even in principle, for a long period of time. When the October 7, 2023, attacks took place in Israel, we tried to meet Khan on numerous occasions. He already had the decision made by Fatou Bensouda to go ahead with the investigation. All Khan had to do was to ensure the investigation went ahead, but he did not do that. He continued to refuse a meeting with us, including with his investigative team. That is when we decided to think of the ICJ, and to open the dialogue channels with Ireland and South Africa, and the latter was open to the idea. We were lucky that South Africa…took over the case at the ICJ and challenged Israel while accusing the latter of the most serious crime of genocide. Coming back to Karim Khan, there has been recent news that he was reportedly warned to be 'destroyed', along with the ICC, if the arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant were not withdrawn. As a human rights lawyer, how do you perceive this? Despite the first Trump-led administration deciding that it would sanction anyone who tried to demand accountability [from the U.S. or Israel], Bensouda was incredibly courageous to challenge that. She formed the investigative body and had a meeting with us, and the investigation was simply supposed to proceed. We have documented war crimes dating back to 2014 – including crimes against humanity and persecution. However, after Khan took over, he refused to meet. It is very strange that a prosecutor, and his team, who cannot visit the place [Gaza], had no interest in meeting the lawyers who had documentation of the situation. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine erupted. Soon after, he opened an office in Kyiv and began the investigation in Ukraine with 37 investigators. But, he did not move with respect to our file. We warned them [Khan and his team] after the October 7th attacks that there is obvious evidence of plans to carry out a genocide in Gaza. Still, they did not want to meet or listen. Only after making the case at the ICJ did Khan ask to meet us, and we were reluctant. I told Khan that he was partly responsible for the blood, pain and suffering of Gaza, after October 7th. Maybe if Khan had held any Israelis accountable, according to the files he had, then they [Israel] would not have thought of doing genocide. He promised to move forward, but only after he went to Israel and met the Israeli victims… Later, he delivered the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, but is that enough? These warrants are related to starvation and food, and not to genocide. Do you feel that Karim has failed you [and the people of Gaza]? Definitely. By waiting two years after taking over [to initiate action], he failed us… I do not want more than what he did for Ukraine. In one year, he had a warrant against Putin. I am damn sure that if Israel had been informed that they could be held accountable, they would have thought many times before doing what they are doing now… This is the most well-documented conflict in history, this is a genocide that was broadcast and live-streamed, and the world has been watching it? Speaking of war crimes, do you feel that the world and the media has turned its back on Gaza? I think the civil society, globally, did a fantastic job on [supporting] Gaza. I am very proud that the crème-de-la-crème of American universities and the generation of tomorrow stood fair, and they tried their best to voice the voiceless. They were able to speak truth to power. This includes people in London, Tokyo, Delhi and Paris, among others. It is obvious, the solidarity and support for Palestine. Our problem is not with the people…but the government's, in the U.S. and Europe, are evil. How can they support a criminal, belligerent occupation, and call a genocide a right to self-defence? I am appalled, the behaviour is selective. I also noticed that you were no longer based in Gaza, a place that you were not willing to leave at any cost. What made you leave Gaza? I did not leave Gaza willingly, my house was bombed. I have been a lawyer for the last 43 years, and one of my missions is to document these war crimes. I was checking whether the targeting against me was deliberate or not. My colleagues and I concluded that yes, this was deliberate. I was advised by my friends from across the world not to stay a minute longer in Gaza, because they believed that targeting was deliberate. They said that nobody will make use of you if you are dead. On the other hand, my wife and son refused to separate from me and leave for Egypt. At that time, it was 'mission impossible' to leave Gaza. But some friends intervened and got me out of there. For the first time, I feel that I am not in the right place [because I am away from Gaza]. You did mention that you had proper documentation of the alleged war crimes. Can you walk us through the testimonies of the victims, which you have gathered? We have had a real dilemma since the latest war broke out, because we never used to document anything partly. I can assure you that whether it's in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2017 and more, we have documented every war crime – crimes against humanity, persecution – in full. But, in this war, it was 'mission impossible' to document everything. Firstly, it was extremely dangerous, so I asked everyone in my team to stay home. We decided to do selective documentation, what that means is that we had to be selective in how many places we could cover. But wherever we covered, we did it in full. We documented attacks against shelters, UNRWA schools and hundreds of people have been killed, among many other war crimes. We have major samples on every type of crime that was committed. Do you ever plan to return to Gaza, given that there is an alleged threat to your life? Definitely, that is the first thing on my agenda. I am a deep-rooted Gazan, my family has lived in Gaza for the last seven centuries. I chose to be in Gaza, even when I was offered work in places across the world. I know that Gaza is not the most beautiful place in the world, but that is where I belong and feel my humanity. And there is a cause and case that I am working for. I have a team in Gaza, 45 of them, they continue to document starvation, bombings, killings and displacement. We have lost three of our staff members so far, and many of our staff members have also lost their family members… Not a for second will I comprise on returning to Gaza, no matter what the price will be.
India.com
27 minutes ago
- India.com
Trump Cozying Up To Pakistan – Will It Push India Closer To China?
New Delhi: A meeting in Washington last month between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Pakistan Field Marshal Asim Munir sparked concern in New Delhi. Just days earlier, a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, South Kashmir, had killed 26 innocent civilians. India blamed Pakistan after a group linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba claimed responsibility. Foreign policy watchers are now weighing a critical question: could this renewed U.S.-Pakistan engagement unsettle India's fragile equation with China? For years, Beijing has served as the strategic common threat binding India and the United States. Both nations view China as a geopolitical rival and have steadily expanded cooperation to counter its influence. But Trump's warm overtures toward China-backed Pakistan are forcing India to rethink its calculus. Diplomatic experts say India is unlikely to pivot dramatically toward China based solely on the Trump-Munir meeting. Moves to de-escalate tensions with Beijing had already been set in motion months earlier. Still, the symbolism of the meeting and its implications for India's long-term strategy are difficult to ignore. Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington D.C., said the meeting must be viewed in light of recent India-Pakistan military flare-ups during Operation Sindoor. 'It is not that India is suddenly leaning toward China because of Trump's outreach to Pakistan. But the context matters, especially given that Pakistan used Chinese weapons against India for the first time during that conflict,' he explained. He added that uncertainty around U.S.-India ties under Trump remains a major concern in New Delhi. 'There is no clear indication of how Trump plans to deal with China. At times, he talks tough, at others, he calls for cooperation. India is wary of assuming that the United States will always align with its strategic interests on China.' That ambiguity, Kugelman said, is one reason India has begun hedging its bets by stabilising ties with Beijing. A Subtle Thaw Between India and China Since October 2024, signs of a diplomatic thaw have emerged. Border troops from both sides have started withdrawing from several flashpoints along the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC). Earlier this month, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar met Chinese President Xi Jinping during the SCO foreign ministers' summit, marking his first visit to Beijing in six years. Direct commercial flights between India and China are set to resume. The long-suspended Kailash Mansarovar Yatra has reopened for Indian pilgrims. In a move with economic implications, the government think tank NITI Aayog has proposed allowing up to 24% Chinese equity in Indian companies without special clearance. Foreign policy commentator Indrani Bagchi believes India is proceeding cautiously. 'The government is trying to introduce a degree of stability into its relationship with China. We may see some Chinese investment flowing in, but it's unlikely to go much beyond that,' she said. She also warned against overreacting to Trump's overtures to Pakistan. 'This is not the first time Washington has leaned toward Islamabad. Whenever it does, the trust factor in U.S.-India ties takes a hit. If the United States resumes military aid to Pakistan, it will definitely raise red flags in New Delhi,' she added. At the same time, she noted, India has been attempting to diversify its defense partnerships, gradually reducing dependence on Russia and increasing procurement from the United States. 'If America is using Pakistan as a bridge to reach China, India will be forced to reassess,' she added. What Is Beijing's Game? Some former diplomats argue that if India extends a hand, China will likely respond with caution but openness. Achal Malhotra, a former ambassador, said New Delhi's foreign policy is guided by realism, not alignment. 'Our relations with China stand on their own merit. We are prudent but sovereign in our choices. The United States knows this. Trump's meeting with Munir likely reflects Pakistan's geographic utility in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Unless that directly threatens India, it is not an alarming development,' he said. Strategic analyst Zakir Hussain suggested it is U.S. inconsistency that might be nudging India toward China. 'The way Washington handles its ties with India is part of the reason New Delhi may explore a less confrontational path with Beijing. Economically, some of India's moves may lower tensions. But let us be clear that China will never abandon Pakistan for India,' he said.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Trump asks Supreme Court to approve cuts to health grants tied to diversity
The Trump administration urged the US Supreme Court to allow it to carry out major funding cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, arguing that current diversity-related programmes are 'undisputedly counter to the administration's priorities.'The move is the latest in President Donald Trump's ongoing push to reduce federal spending and eliminate government support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives — including those related to biomedical research and transgender Justice Department filed an emergency request to the court, seeking to lift a June order by U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston. That ruling blocked the administration's plan and ordered the government to restore access to more than $783 million in NIH grant funding. The lawsuit was brought by researchers and 16 Democratic-led states, led by Massachusetts. In its filing, the Justice Department argued that the district court's injunction forces the government to 'continue paying $783 million in federal grants that are undisputedly counter to the administration's priorities.'The NIH, considered the world's largest biomedical research funder, has come under increasing pressure since Trump's return to the presidency in January. Critics say his administration's broad effort to dismantle diversity and health equity programs is politicizing science and jeopardizing public health.'The cuts harm the health of Americans and people across the globe,' warned an open letter signed in June by dozens of NIH scientists and staff. The signatories accused the agency of turning its back on inclusive research and of being complicit in 'a political agenda that undermines evidence-based health policy.'The Trump administration has frequently turned to the Supreme Court — now dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority — to clear legal roadblocks to its sweeping policy changes. So far, the high court has largely sided with the administration on most contested issues since request in the NIH case could have long-term consequences for government-funded research programs, particularly those aimed at addressing racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ disparities in health ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI "or other vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch
