Nelson Mandela Day 2025: History, Significance And 10 Quotes That Inspire Change
Nelson Mandela International Day honours the remarkable legacy of the South African leader. Mandela, who led a peaceful and resilient protest against the oppressive apartheid regime, was a picture of South Africa's brave movement against colour bias and injustice.
He became South Africa's first democratically elected president from 1994 to 1999 . Mandela's courageous 27-year jail struggle and journey of upholding human rights, standing up for social justice and equality continue to inspire the world.
Nelson Mandela International Day: History
In 2009, the United Nations decided to mark July 18 as the Nelson Mandela International Day to celebrate the 67 years of Mandela's public service and unwavering commitment towards establishing freedom, justice and human rights in the rainbow nation that had a history of inhuman racial discrimination against the black Africans.
Mandela, who led a peaceful and resilient protest against the inhumane white narcissistic regime, was a great activist and became South Africa's first democratically elected president.
Nelson Mandela International Day 2025: A Message Of Peace
The Nelson Mandela International Day is used as a means to spread the message of peace, reconciliation and equality across the globe.
On 27 April 2009, the 46664 concerts and the Nelson Mandela Foundation invited the global community to join hands in officially establishing a Mandela Day to honour the great politician.
It is not meant as a public holiday in South Africa or anywhere in the world, but a day to remember Mandela and imbibe his qualities through contributions in noble causes for community service, echoing the message: one man can make a difference.
Nelson Mandela International Day 2025: Quotes
'Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."
'It always seems impossible until it's done."
'Do not judge me by my success, judge me by how many times I fell down and got back up again."
'A winner is a dreamer who never gives up."
'I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it."
'What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others."
'To be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others."
'Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies."
'Everyone can rise above their circumstances and achieve success if they are dedicated to and passionate about what they do."
'Man's goodness is a flame that can be hidden but never extinguished."
About the Author
First Published:
July 18, 2025, 07:20 IST
Latest News
Priyanka Chopra Turns 43: Her Net Worth And 5 Heartwarming Moments With Nick Jonas
Movies
Tech
iPhone 17 Pro Series Colours Leaked: Ready For Some Bright Surprises?
Bollywood
Watched Urmila's 'Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya'? This Woman's Love Is Scarier: 'Will Make Sushi Outta Ur...'
Politics
PM Modi To Hold Rally, Unveil Over Rs 5000 Cr Worth Of Infra Projects In Bengal Today | Updates
Cricket
Smriti Mandhana Birthday: Why Indian Women's Cricketer Wears Jersey No. 18
latest news
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
France to recognise Palestinian state at UN in September, says Macron
France intends to recognise a Palestinian state in September at the United Nations General Assembly, President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday in hopes of bringing peace to the region, but the plan drew angry rebukes from Israel and the United States. Macron, who unveiled the decision on X, published a letter sent to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas confirming France's intention to press ahead with Palestinian recognition and work to convincing other partners to follow suit. "True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the state of Palestine," Macron said. Home to Europe's largest Jewish and Muslim communities, France will become the first major Western country to recognise a Palestinian state, potentially fuelling a movement so far dominated by smaller nations generally more critical of Israel. The news sparked anger in Jerusalem and Washington. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the decision by one of Israel's closest allies and a G7 member, saying such a move "rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy." In a post on X, he added, "A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel' not to live in peace beside it. "Let's be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel." Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz described the move as "a disgrace and a surrender to terrorism," adding that Israel would not allow the establishment of a "Palestinian entity that would harm our security, endanger our existence." In response, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States "strongly rejects (Macron's) plan to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN general assembly." In a post on X, he said, "This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace. It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th." Earlier, Canada also pressed Israel to seek peace, with Prime Minister Mark Carney condemning its "failure to prevent the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian disaster in Gaza" and reiterating support for a two-state solution. Carney also accused Israel of violating international law over the blocking of Canadian-funded aid to civilians in the war-torn Palestinian enclave. "Canada calls on all sides to negotiate an immediate ceasefire in good faith," he added. "We reiterate our calls for Hamas to immediately release all the hostages, and for the Israeli government to respect the territorial integrity of the West Bank and Gaza." In a diplomatic cable in June, the United States said it opposed steps to unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state, even saying it could go against US foreign policy interests and draw consequences. In June, Washington's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, said he did not think an independent Palestinian state remained a US foreign policy goal. Macron had been leaning towards recognising a Palestinian state for months as part of a bid to keep the idea of a two-state solution alive, despite the pressure not to do so. French officials initially weighed up the move ahead of a United Nations conference, which France and Saudi Arabia had planned to co-host in June to lay out parameters for a roadmap to a Palestinian state, while ensuring Israel's security. The conference was postponed under US pressure and after the 12-day Israel-Iran air war began, during which the closure of regional airspace made it hard for representatives of some Arab states to attend. It was rescheduled and downgraded to a ministerial event on July 28 and July 29, with a second event taking place with heads of state and government on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in September. Creating Momentum The decision to make the announcement ahead of next week's conference aimed to give the French team at the United Nations a framework to work with other countries that are also considering recognising a Palestinian state or have misgivings in doing so. Diplomats say Macron has faced resistance from allies such as Britain and Canada over his push for the recognition of a Palestinian state. About 40 foreign ministers will be in New York next week. Israeli officials have spent months lobbying to prevent what some have called "a nuclear bomb" for bilateral ties. Sources familiar with the matter say Israel's warnings to France have ranged from scaling back intelligence sharing to complicating Paris' regional initiatives - even hinting at possible annexation of parts of the West Bank. Israel has been waging a devastating war in Gaza since the Palestinian militant group Hamas' deadly attack on Israel in October 2023 and says recognising a Palestinian state now would be equivalent to rewarding Hamas. Thanking France, the Palestinian Authority's Vice President Hussein Al Sheikh said on X that Macron's decision reflected "France's commitment to international law and its support for the Palestinian people's rights to self-determination and the establishment of our independent state." (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Marco Rubio slams France's plans to recognize Palestinian state, calls it a 'reckless decision'
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday that Washington rejected French President Emmanuel Macron's plan to recognize a Palestinian state, with the top American diplomat calling it a "reckless decision." Macron said on Thursday that France intends to recognise a Palestinian state in September at the United Nations General Assembly, adding that he hoped it would help bring peace to the Middle East. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Operations Management others Design Thinking Digital Marketing Public Policy Management Data Science Healthcare PGDM Project Management Product Management MCA Technology Data Analytics Others Leadership MBA Degree Data Science Cybersecurity CXO Finance healthcare Skills you'll gain: Quality Management & Lean Six Sigma Analytical Tools Supply Chain Management & Strategies Service Operations Management Duration: 10 Months IIM Lucknow IIML Executive Programme in Strategic Operations Management & Supply Chain Analytics Starts on Jan 27, 2024 Get Details "This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace," Rubio said in a post on X. Washington's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, said in June he did not think an independent Palestinian state remained a U.S. foreign policy goal.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Why ICJ ruling on climate change is significant
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a landmark ruling on Wednesday that can breathe new life into the climate movement, and potentially open the floodgates for litigation seeking greater accountability from countries on climate action. The Hague-based court, which is the main judicial branch of the United Nations, has held that countries are under a legal obligation to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and could be held liable to pay compensation if they failed to do so. The ruling has come in the form of an advisory opinion of the court, and does not on its own impact any country immediately. It can nonetheless have significant implications for the global fight against climate change. By making it clear that climate action is not just a policy imperative for countries but a legally-binding commitment under international law, the ruling strengthens the position of developing countries and everyone else advocating enhanced climate action from the rich and industrialised world. The ruling was delivered in a case resulting from a resolution passed by the UN General Assembly in March 2022, seeking the advisory opinion of the court on climate change. The UNGA wanted the ICJ to address two very specific questions: (i) what are the obligations of countries under international law to protect the climate system and, (ii) what are the legal consequences for countries that do not fulfil their obligations. The court examined the provisions of the three climate treaties — the 1994 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement — and several other environment-related international laws that have a bearing on the climate system. These include the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 1987 Montreal Protocol for protecting ozone, the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity and the 1994 Convention to Combat Desertification. The court concluded that climate action was not a matter of choice or preference, but a legal obligation: countries were obligated to take measures that contributed to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, rich and industrialised countries in Annexure I of the UNFCCC had an obligation to take the lead on emissions reduction, and facilitate technology and financial transfers to developing countries. It identified several other obligations of countries, and said that failure to fulfil them would constitute 'an internationally wrongful act' which could have legal consequences. These could include being held liable to provide full reparation to countries that suffer on account of climate disasters, or other impacts of climate change. Countries could be held liable even for the irresponsible actions of private businesses or corporations, if they had failed to exercise due diligence and not taken adequate regulatory or legislative measures to prevent the irresponsible behaviour of private actors, the court held. The advisory opinion of the ICJ is not international law, and it is not binding on countries. However, it is the most authoritative interpretation of international law on the subject, and it is likely to be relied upon by courts around the world in deciding matters that come before them. This ruling is expected to put the spotlight back on climate change. In recent years, progress on the global fight against climate change has been severely undermined by the lack of adequate action by countries, particularly those in the developed world. The emissions reduction targets for 2030 will almost certainly be missed. The withdrawal of the US, the world's biggest historical emitter and a major laggard nation on climate action, from the Paris Agreement has put a question mark on the future of cooperative global action on climate. The credibility of international climate negotiations is at stake, with developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable ones, very upset over their concerns being ignored. The ICJ's advisory opinion does not directly set right any of these. Several parts of the ruling could be difficult or impractical to implement, and these are likely to be hotly contested in courts. What the opinion has done though, is to reaffirm the legal sanctity of the provisions and principles mentioned in international laws on climate change, and declared that non-adherence to these could be reason to impose penalties on countries. This is important because the climate actions mandated under the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement are, barring a few, largely suggestive in nature, and there are no consequences for countries for non-compliance. For example, the US suffered no consequences for pulling out of the Paris Agreement, and the developed countries as a whole got away with not meeting their finance obligations. Most developed countries did not meet their emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol either, and some of them walked out of the treaty — again without any consequences. The ICJ has not spelt out the consequences for any of these countries. That will be for other courts to decide, if any such matter comes before them. The ICJ's opinion that countries that suffer from climate impacts — it calls them 'injured states' — are entitled not just to compensation, but full reparation, is a major development. Developed nations reluctantly acknowledge that small and vulnerable countries require assistance, financial and otherwise, to deal with climate disasters, but reject any suggestion of liability, compensation, or reparations. With this, the ICJ has strongly endorsed the concept of loss and damage in climate laws, which call upon developed countries to take the lead in raising financial and other support to help countries recover from impacts of climate change. This is likely to trigger a wave of litigation seeking compensation from the developed countries. Corporate polluters too are likely to be taken to court. The advisory opinion is likely to be contested — and not just by the developed world. For example, the ICJ has opined that merely initiating some climate actions is not sufficient compliance with the obligations of countries— the scale or magnitude of these actions is open to scrutiny. However, under the Paris Agreement, countries are free to decide their climate actions, and the only requirement is that every subsequent set of actions must be a progression on the previous ones. There is no provision to ascertain the sufficiency of a country's climate action, or the lack thereof. The actual impact of the ruling will become evident only when it begins to be cited as precedent in individual cases on climate-related disputes, and from the treatment that it receives from governments.
