- UN Security Council Calls for End of Siege in Sudan
- Ukraine Seeks Support at Swiss Summit
- China ‘Enabling’ Russia’s War on Ukraine
- Germany: Fallout of EU Parliament Elections
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Sudan Catastrophe
The UN Security Council has called for the paramilitary group Rapid Support Forces (RSF) to halt their offensive on al-Fashir, the last major city in the Darfur region held by the regular Sudanese army (CFR/Council on Foreign Relations, June 14).
14 countries supported the resolution, while Russia abstained.
The United Kingdom (UK) tabled the resolution for a local ceasefire “to create wider conditions to support the de-escalation across the country,” British ambassador to the United Nations Barbara Woodward said.
As the civil war grinds on its second year, UN agencies issued a preliminary projection that 750,000 people in Sudan could face catastrophic food shortage by September, Reuters reported, while nearly 18 million are battling food security.
Several attempts at peace talks have so far failed to end the civil war, which broke out last April.
More than 130,000 people fled al-Fashir between April and May as the RSF assault on the city moved forward, the United Nations said.
Woodward told the UN Security Council that an estimated 1.5 million people are still sheltering in al-Fashir.
UN experts warn that the region is approaching genocide; the RSF denies involvement in what it calls Darfur’s “tribal conflict”!
International mechanisms dysfunctional
“Sudan’s suffering is simply more proof that the international mechanisms designed to address threats to peace and security are dysfunctional, that basic norms around humanitarian access and civilian protection have eroded to near oblivion, and that the shame and notoriety that should accompany support for
“ It makes plain that none of the world’s major powers have an appetite for stopping stae collapse or genocide – and some, like Russia with its pursuit of a Red Sea port, seek to gain from it,” CFR-expert Michelle Gavin writes for the Africa in Transition blog.
“The prospects of controlling illegal flow of drugs, weapons, migrants, fighters across unstable regions in Africa, you can kiss all of that goodbye if Sudan collapses,” Cameron Hudson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) tells Foreign Policy:
“There are huge consequences to us ignoring Sudan or getting it wrong, which many people aren’t fully attuned to.”
Ukraine Summit
Last weekend, a secluded Swiss resort above Lake Lucerne was transformed as dozens of world leaders and thousands of soldiers and police descended on Buergenstock.
The Swiss hope that the Ukraine summit might produce the first tentative sketch marks for a peace process, some 28 months after Russia invaded its neighbour.
It was the biggest gathering for Ukraine since the full-scale invasion.
But with key players like China staying away, and Russian President Vladimir Putin – not invited – issuing a new ultimatum – demanding Ukraine’s capitulation and calling that a peace proposal – expectations of significant progress are low (BBC/Sarah Rainsford).
But for Ukraine, the mere fact this meeting took place is positive.
Politicians in Kyiv hailed every confirmed participant as a gesture of support. For them, the giant summit demonstrated to Moscow that the world stands on the side of Ukraine – and of international law.
But the meeting came at a tough time.
There has been a new Russian offensive in the northeast, near Kharkiv, and missiles are slamming into homes and power plants across Ukraine with renewed intensity.
So size matters when it comes to the summit. But so does the substance.
“It’s important to establish a political and legal framework for future peace. To show that peace can only be achieved in the framework of Zelensky’s 10 points.” Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Merezhko sets out the case from Kyiv. “That includes territorial integrity of Ukraine and its sovereignty” (BBC).
Merezhko was referring to a peace formula put forward in late 2022 by Ukraine’s president that insists on compelling Russia to vacate all the occupied land.
Ukraine now wants to rally as many countries as possible behind the “Zelensky formula”, putting “psychological pressure” on Russia to accept such terms, should it come to that stage.
However, right now, that looks unlikely.
In fact, this summit was first proposed when the situation on the battlefield looked more promising for Kyiv – a prime time to try to shape the terms of any future peace deal.
Since then the dynamic has shifted.
Ukraine was forced to an extreme defensive position because of the failure of the Biden administration to supply relevant and necessary amount of arms and ammunition on time – largely because of the crude opposition of the Republicans.
“I think the constituency that believes this may not be a war that’s winnable for Ukraine is growing,” argues Sam Greene of the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).
He points to a “significant chunk” of the US foreign policy establishment who believe Ukraine should “cut its losses.” As well as the rise in support in Europe for right-wing parties more sympathetic to Moscow.
“I Think one thing this event is meant to do, is to galvanise support behind Ukraine’s vision of an acceptable outcome.” Professor Greene says.
Joe Biden did not come in person [although he was not far away at the G-7 conclave in Italy], a decision that naturally upset Zelensky. And the attempts to get key countries from the “Global South” – not instinctive allies of Ukraine – to sign up, were only partially successful.
Russian officials had been lining up to dismiss the event as insignificant. It was “worthless” and a “dead end”, according to Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. But Moscow had been pushing its allies to boycott the summit nonetheless.
“That is a minus,” Oleksandr Merezhko admitted. “It seems China decided to support its strategic partner without limits, Russia, not the peace process, the aggressor, not the peace.”
Putin’s misguided scheme
On the eve of the event, Vladimir Putin tried to drop another spanner in the works by outlining his own conditions for a supposed peace: the very man who invaded Ukraine, unprovoked, now wants Kyiv to capitulate – unconditionally!
Amongst other things, Putin demanded Ukraine hand over all four regions that Russia claims to have annexed, including areas in those regions that still remain under Kyiv’s control.
Kyiv immediately dismissed that rightly as “ludicrous”.
Before the summit, Sam Greene said of Kyiv’s allies: “I think from the Ukrainian perspective, looking at what’s going on the frontlines, what they really need is not a commitment to peace, certainly not at any cost.”
“They need a commitment to winning the war.”
China’s Support for Russia
China’s support for Russia is “enabling” its war in Ukraine, leaders of the G-7, the Western world’s most advanced economies warned Friday in a hardening of tone against Beijing, while threatening further sanctions against actors that materially support Moscow’s war machine [among others: China, Iran, North Korea].
The stark warning, issued at the end of the annual Group of Seven (G-7) summit in Italy, comes…illegal war in Ukraine and has significant and broad-based security implications,” the G-7 leaders said in the communique Friday (CNN/Nectar Gan, June 14).
“We call on China to cease the transfer of dual-use materials, including weapons components and equipment, that are inputs for Russia’s defence sector.”
The leaders also threatened further actions, including sanctions, to punish Chinese entities that they say are helping Russia circumvent Western embargoes.
Beijing has refuted the allegation, saying it has not provided weapons to either side and maintains tight export controls on dual use goods.
The G-7 is also taking a tougher stance on China’s economic policies, especially on the issue of industrial overcapacity, vowing to take actions against “unfair practices” to “level the playing field and remedy ongoing harm.”
The G-7 also voiced strong opposition to what it says are China’s unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion in the East and South China Seas.
EU Parliament Vote: Dismal Showing by Governing Coalition
Germany’s centre-left three-way coalition government [popularly called the traffic lights coalition because of the colours representing the governing parties: red/yellow/green] is reeling from the thrashing it received by voters two weeks back in EU parliament elections.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) won only a miserable 13.9 % percent of the vote – down from 15.9 % percent in the previous EU election in 2019 and down from 25.7 % percent in the general election in 2021 – an appalling fall from grace. It was the party’s worst-ever showing in a national poll (DW/Deutsche Welle, June 11).
The leftward drift of the SPD is perhaps one of the reasons for SPD’s dismal showing, and, of course, the functioning of the coalition itself was nothing to write home about. Then there is the rightward moving tendencies in Europe itself [with the exception of the UK which does not consider itself part of the continent!].
The neo-liberal Free Democrats (FDP) came in at only 5.2 % percent (5.4 % percent in 2019; 11.4 % percent in 2021).
The FDP is acting as a brake in the progressive policies of the coalition.
The SPD’s other coalition partners, the environmentalist Greens dropped to 11.9 % percent from their record result of 20.5 % percent in 2019 and 14.9 % percent in 2021.
The Greens have not been able to push through their core-interest policies, although their foreign minister has been a
The coalition parties’ individual weaknesses have been bloated out of proportion collectively resulting in poor results and being punished by the electorate.
Although the opposition centre-right bloc of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU) of Bavaria do not have the right answers to the burning questions of Germany and Europe, they profited from the rightward trend on the continent.
The most damaging for Germany’s international image was the fact that the far-right Alternative fuer Deutschland (AvD) came in second nationwide at 15.9 % percent (11 % percent in 2019, 10.4 % percent in 2021).
The rise of the extreme right in the eastern part of the country can be traced to the era of re-unification when the political and corporate establishment in the West looked down on the people of Eastern Germany ( or the DDR). It was as if the Germans in the West & East were separated by the same language!
Unfortunately, the people in the eastern parts of the country look upon the AfD – very mistakenly – as a source of succor or even retribution.
If the rot is to be stopped, the political establishment has to think of ways and means to foster civic sense, starting with young women and men.
One possible way would be to re-introduce compulsory military service (one year) or mandatory social service (18 months) for both young women and men.
The teaching of civics would be part of the curriculum, and service to the community part of the duties. This would definitely inculcate a sense of patriotism and strengthen the centre/middle.
It is also astounding that a new party, the populist Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht, managed 6 % nationwide (more than the FDP) right off, and double-digit results in the east of the country – a clear danger for centrist forces.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.
Login to add a comment