Latest news with #UnitedNations-backed
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
18 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
Bangladesh's sovereignty at stake: Humanitarian corridors or geopolitical Trojan Horses?
As Bangladesh grapples with Myanmar's enduring humanitarian crisis, the recent proposal for a United Nations-backed humanitarian corridor connecting Chittagong with Myanmar's Rakhine State, while outwardly noble, poses significant risks to national sovereignty and regional stability. These corridors, historically depicted as lifelines, often bear the subtle marks of strategic intervention, geopolitical exploitation, and foreign intelligence operations. In March 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres proposed establishing a humanitarian corridor from Bangladesh's critical port city of Chittagong into Myanmar's violence-ridden Rakhine State. This corridor aims to deliver aid to over two million displaced persons suffering under famine conditions. Bangladesh's interim government, currently led by Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus, linked corridor approval directly to Rohingya refugee repatriation—a political quid pro quo potentially fraught with security risks. Yet, despite assurances, the corridor's broader implications remain troublingly unaddressed. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Geopolitical precedent consistently demonstrates the vulnerabilities inherent in such humanitarian corridors. Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan offer stark illustrations: humanitarian routes became pipelines for foreign military equipment, intelligence operations, and covert proxy support. The Chittagong corridor risks mirroring these patterns, transforming a vital economic hub and strategic port into an intelligence foothold or even a forward operating base for foreign powers. Already, credible intelligence indicates that external powers are manoeuvring along the Bangladesh-Myanmar border region. Reports allege U.S. intentions to leverage humanitarian channels in support of anti-junta groups such as the Arakan Army (AA), including drone operations based near Cox's Bazar. Such actions align closely with Washington's broader Indo-Pacific strategy, which aims to counter Chinese regional influence. Conversely, China's recent joint military exercises with Bangladesh, dubbed 'Golden Friendship-2024', similarly hint at strategic positioning disguised as regional cooperation. These manoeuvres risk drawing Bangladesh into unwanted great-power rivalries, further destabilising an already volatile region. Compounding these threats is the alarming influence of non-state actors. The AA now exerts significant control over a 271-kilometre stretch of Bangladesh's border with Rakhine. Local reports from Bandarban reveal frequent armed AA movements, sometimes seemingly with tacit official tolerance. Should a humanitarian corridor materialise without stringent oversight, there's a genuine risk it would be hijacked to facilitate arms trafficking and insurgent financing, intensifying cross-border conflict and inviting retaliatory actions from Myanmar's junta. Equally concerning is the role of international NGOs, some of which have previously come under suspicion. Dhaka has intensified scrutiny of NGOs after credible allegations emerged regarding espionage and anti-repatriation activism disguised as humanitarian activities. The potential exploitation of humanitarian access by NGOs for espionage purposes is a documented reality elsewhere and must not be underestimated here. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, domestically, Bangladesh's interim government faces growing criticism over its unilateral handling of border security policy. Decisions regarding the humanitarian corridor appear to be detached from military counsel, exacerbating civilian-military tensions and creating exploitable vulnerabilities. The disastrous 2025 BDR massacre exposed critical institutional weaknesses within Bangladesh's security apparatus, revealing precisely how foreign actors might exploit internal fractures. Regional reactions further complicate the scenario. India has strengthened its border surveillance with Bangladesh due to legitimate fears of insurgency spillover and refugee inflows. Yet, ASEAN's continued paralysis regarding Myanmar's crisis leaves Bangladesh increasingly isolated, forcing it into risky unilateral actions. The UN's humanitarian initiative, though well-intentioned, conspicuously lacks safeguards to prevent the corridor's misuse. Without these measures, Bangladesh risks being perceived—rightly or wrongly—as aligning with specific geopolitical agendas, further undermining its diplomatic independence and national sovereignty. Historical lessons offer grim caution. Humanitarian corridors have repeatedly been exploited as instruments of geopolitical manipulation. In Syria and Afghanistan, these corridors turned into conduits for arms trafficking, proxy warfare, and covert foreign bases. The Balkan refugee crisis vividly illustrated how corridors fractured sovereign control, fostering human trafficking and smuggling networks. Such outcomes must compel Bangladesh to reconsider the operational parameters of the corridors rigorously. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Bangladesh now stands at a crossroads. Genuine humanitarian needs in Myanmar must be addressed, but never at the cost of sovereignty or regional stability. Dhaka must demand ironclad international guarantees, including UN-monitored aid operations, binding agreements that prohibit foreign military assets or intelligence activities, and strict oversight of NGO involvement. Simultaneously, a transparent, inclusive national policy debate involving military, civilian leadership, and civil society stakeholders is essential to protect sovereignty, border integrity, and long-term stability. Humanitarian initiatives should alleviate suffering—not serve as backdoors for geopolitical interference. Bangladesh must act decisively to ensure the Chittagong-Rakhine corridor remains exactly what it claims to be: a channel for compassion and not a geopolitical Trojan horse. The writer is the Director General of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies Lt Gen Dushyant Singh (Retd) is Director General, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS). Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Straits Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
A year in, Haiti mission leader warns of shortfalls in troops, funds, gear
FILE PHOTO: People protest against gang-related violence and to demand the resignation of Haiti's transitional presidential council, in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, May 15, 2025. REUTERS/Jean Feguens Regala/File Photo FILE PHOTO: Members of a neighbourhood watch drive up a hill while patrolling a residential area after gangs torched homes, amid a surge in violence that has displaced approximately 1.3 million people in six months, according to U.N. estimates, in Furcy, Haiti June 24, 2025. REUTERS/Jean Feguens Regala/File Photo PORT-AU-PRINCE - The commander of the United Nations-backed security mission in Haiti, mandated to fight powerful armed gangs in the nation, on Thursday called on more countries to lend their support as he marked one year since the first troops deployed. The first deployment of police from Kenya, which is leading the mission, arrived last June, over a year and a half after Haiti's government had first requested urgent support. "As a new model, funded by voluntary partners, the mission faces challenges - including funding, personnel and logistics - that are being addressed to enable the mission to achieve its objectives on schedule," Godfrey Otunge, commander of the Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission, told reporters at an event in Port-au-Prince, the capital. While the U.N. aimed for the mission, which was sent to aid the Haitian National Police, to reach some 2,500 troops, well under half are currently deployed. More than 3,000 personnel were pledged in initial commitments. In a note sent to the U.N. Security Council last week, Kenyan President William Ruto said 991 troops were currently deployed, mostly Kenyans but also 150 Guatemalans, 78 Salvadorans, 23 Jamaicans, six Bahamians and two Belizeans. He said that many were on standby because existing contracts for logistical support could not provide for them. "The MSS is also operating below the required capabilities in terms of equipment and operational support necessary to execute the mission effectively," Ruto added. "The equipment levels stand at below 30% of planned capabilities." Despite the lack of resources, Otunge said on Thursday that the mission had managed to establish two key strategic bases in the Artibonite department, the area outside the capital worst-hit by the violence. Haitian leaders have repeatedly called for the voluntary mission to be converted into a formal U.N. peacekeeping mission in order to shore up resources, but efforts stalled at the Security Council after opposition from Russia and China. Gang violence in Haiti has displaced some 1.3 million people from their homes, fueling hunger and insecurity, while hospitals have shut their doors, and much of the economy, judicial system and government remain paralyzed. Some 580,000 people were displaced before the first deployment. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
The South African
3 days ago
- Politics
- The South African
Trump makes bombshell claims about Iran's nuclear programme
US President Donald Trump has maintained that his country's military obliterated Iran's nuclear programme. This, despite an earlier intelligence report claiming that the US strikes had only set the programme back by months. Trump made the remarks while speaking at a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) summit. According to him, the strikes set back Iran's nuclear development by decades. The US carried out strikes against three nuclear facilities in Iran over the weekend. They targeted Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo, which is situated below a mountain. He also claimed that the US strike on the facility had ended the war between Israel and Iran. Following the US attack, Iran launched missiles on the US base in Qatar. Trump then claimed the two countries had agreed to a ceasefire. Thereafter, Trump accused Iran and Israel of violating their agreement hours after it was announced. However, it seems that both sides are holding to the deal. The United Nations-backed nuclear watchdog urged Iran to co-operate with the international community. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi said co-operation with the agency is key to a successful agreement. Taking to X, Grossi shared: 'There is now a real possibility for diplomacy on the situation in Iran, and we must seize it.' He had also offered to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to work together. This is in an effort to determine a diplomatic solution to the long-standing 'controversy' over Iran's nuclear programme. Nato leaders have gathered in the Netherlands for a yearly summit. The event kicked off on Tuesday, 24 June. Some of the major talking points include the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Iran war. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Crypto market bounces back after President Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran
Bitcoin and the broader crypto market rebounded on Tuesday after President Donald Trump announced a pause in the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel, and despite his follow up warnings to both countries. 'It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a complete and total ceasefire,' Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social Monday evening. In another post on Tuesday morning, the president announced that the ceasefire was 'now in effect.' Following the announcement of the ceasefire agreement on Monday evening, Bitcoin jumped 2%, climbing from $104,000 to $106,000 as of Tuesday afternoon, according to Binance. Other cryptocurrencies have surged on the news as well with XRP gaining 5% over that time period, Solana gaining 3% and Ethereum gaining 6%. The crypto market as a whole has added 3% to its market cap since the announcement, growing from $3.19 trillion to $3.27 trillion since Monday evening. 'We're seeing Bitcoin surge back to $105,000 and other major currencies like Ethereum, Solana, and XRP showing strong rallies of their own,' David Siemer, CEO of crypto asset manager Wave Digital Assets, told Fortune. 'This is largely due to easing tensions in the Middle East after the U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran.' Trump went on to rebuke both nations on Tuesday morning for taking actions that he said violated the terms of the truce, but cryptocurrencies ignored any diplomatic hiccups and remained strong The latest conflict between both countries started earlier this month, when a United Nations-backed nuclear watchdog released a report claiming that Iran was not complying with nuclear safeguards. Shortly after the report's release, Israel launched a series of airstrikes on June 13 targeting nuclear sites in Iran and killing top Iranian officials. The threat of all-out war between the two nations grew in recent weeks as Iran retaliated by launching airstrikes of its own against Israel, and the two nations continued to exchange fire. However, the conflict escalated to a new level when Trump announced that the U.S. military had conducted airstrikes on multiple nuclear sites in Iran over the weekend. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three nuclear sites in Iran,' Trump said on Truth Social on Saturday. 'A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow.' News that the U.S. had become involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel sent investors fleeing volatile assets like cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin fell from $103,000 to below $100,000 on Sunday for the first time in more than a month, as investors braced for Iran's response to the attack. It remains to be seen if the ceasefire will hold, or what will happen next. But for now, cryptocurrency holders are enjoying the rebound after previous lows on Tuesday. 'There is reason to believe that markets may continue to be reactive over the next few weeks,' Siemer said. 'Institutional players in the digital asset space are closely watching developments and assessing their risk appetite.' This story was originally featured on
Japan Today
5 days ago
- Business
- Japan Today
When developing countries band together, lifesaving drugs become cheaper and easier to buy − with trade-offs
Pooling procurement of drugs could increase the availability of essential treatments around the globe. By Lucy Xiaolu Wang and Nahim Bin Zahur Procuring lifesaving drugs is a daunting challenge in many low- and middle-income countries. Essential treatments are often neither available nor affordable in these nations, even decades after the drugs entered the market. Prospective buyers from these countries face a patent thicket, where a single drug may be covered by hundreds of patents. This makes it costly and legally difficult to secure licensing rights for manufacturing. These buyers also face a complex and often fragile supply chain. Many major pharmaceutical firms have little incentive to sell their products in unprofitable markets. Quality assurance adds another layer of complexity, with substandard and counterfeit drugs widespread in many of these countries. Organizations such as the United Nations-backed Medicines Patent Pool have effectively increased the supply of generic versions of patented drugs. But the problems go beyond patents or manufacturing – how medicines are bought are also crucially important. Buyers for low- and middle-income countries are often health ministries and community organizations on tight budgets that have to negotiate with sellers that may have substantial market power and far more experience. We are economists who study how to increase access to drugs across the globe. Our research found that while pooling orders for essential medicines can help drive down costs and ensure a steady supply to low- and middle-income countries, there are trade-offs that require flexibility and early planning to address. Understanding these trade-offs can help countries better prepare for future health emergencies and treat chronic conditions. Pooled procurement reduces drug costs One strategy low-income countries are increasingly adopting to improve treatment access is 'pooled procurement.' That's when multiple buyers coordinate purchases to strengthen their collective bargaining power and reduce prices for essential medicines. For example, pooling can help buyers meet the minimum batch size requirements some suppliers impose that countries purchasing individually may not satisfy. Countries typically rely on four models for pooled drug procurement: -- One method, called decentralized procurement, involves buyers purchasing directly from manufacturers. -- Another method, called international pooled procurement, involves going through international institutions such as the Global Fund's Pooled Procurement Mechanism or the United Nations. -- Countries may also purchase prescription drugs through their own central medical stores, which are government-run or semi-autonomous agencies that procure, store and distribute medicines on behalf of national health systems. This method is called centralized domestic procurement. -- Finally, countries can also go through independent nonprofits, foundations, nongovernmental organizations and private wholesalers. We wanted to understand how different procurement methods affect the cost of and time it takes to deliver drugs for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, because those three infectious diseases account for a large share of deaths and cases worldwide. So we analyzed over 39,000 drug procurement transactions across 106 countries between 2007 and 2017 that were funded by the Global Fund, the largest multilateral funder of HIV/AIDS programs worldwide. We found that pooled procurement through international institutions reduced prices by 13% to 20% compared with directly buying from drug manufacturers. Smaller buyers and those purchasing drugs produced by only a small number of manufacturers saw the greatest savings. In comparison, purchasing through domestic pooling offered less consistent savings, with larger buyers seeing greater price advantages. The Global Fund and the United Nations were especially effective at lowering the prices of older, off-patent drugs. Trade-offs with pooled procurements Cost savings from pooled drug procurement may come with trade-offs. While the Global Fund reduced unexpected delivery delays by 28%, it required buyers to place orders much earlier. This results in longer anticipated procurement lead time between ordering and delivery – an average of 114 days more than that of direct purchases. In contrast, domestic pooled procurement shortened lead times by over a month. Our results suggest a core tension: Pooled procurement improves prices and reliability but can reduce flexibility. Organizations that facilitate pooled procurement tend to prioritize medicines that can be bought at high volume, limiting the availability of other types of drugs. Additionally, the longer lead times may not be suitable for emergency situations. With the spread of COVID-19, several large armed conflicts and tariff wars, governments have become increasingly aware of the fragility of the global supply chain. Some countries, such as Kenya, have sought to reduce their dependence on international pooling since 2005 by investing in domestic procurement. But a shift toward domestic self-sufficiency is a slow and difficult process due to challenges with quality assurance and large-scale manufacturing. It may also weaken international pooled systems, which rely on broad participation to negotiate better terms with suppliers. Interestingly, we found little evidence that international pooled procurement influences pricing for the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a major purchaser of HIV treatments for developing countries. PEPFAR-eligible products do not appear to benefit more from international pooled procurement than noneligible ones. However, domestic procurement institutions were able to secure lower prices for PEPFAR-eligible products. This suggests that the presence of a large donor such as PEPFAR can cut costs, particularly when countries manage procurement internally. USAID cuts and global drug access While international organizations such as the Medicines Patent Pool and the Global Fund can address upstream barriers such as patents and procurement in the global drug supply chain, other institutions are essential for ensuring that medicines actually reach patients. The U.S. Agency for International Development had played a significant role in delivering HIV treatment abroad through PEPFAR. The Trump administration's decision in February 2025 to cut over 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts amounted to a US$60 billion reduction in overall U.S. assistance globally. An estimated hundreds of thousands of deaths are already happening, and millions more will likely die. The World Health Organization warned that eight countries, including Haiti, Kenya, Nigeria and Ukraine, could soon run out of HIV treatments due to these aid cuts. In South Africa, HIV services have already been scaled back, with reports of mass layoffs of health workers and HIV clinic closures. These downstream cracks can undercut the gains from efforts to make procuring drugs more accessible if the drugs can't reach patients. Because HIV, tuberculosis and malaria often share the same treatment infrastructure – including drug procurement and distribution networks, laboratory systems, data collection, health workers and community-based services – disruption in the management of one disease can ripple across the others. Researchers have warned of a broader unraveling of progress across these infectious diseases, describing the fallout as a potential 'bloodbath' in the global HIV response. Research shows that supporting access to treatments around the world doesn't just save lives abroad. It also helps prevent the next global health crisis from reaching America's doorstep. Lucy Xiaolu Wang is Assistant Professor, Department of Resource Economics, UMass Amherst. Nahim Bin Zahur Assistant Professor of Economics, Queen's University, Ontario. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
