Category: 2. World

NEW DELHI: India is working with a French company to develop and manufacture fighter jet engines in the country, the defence minister said on Friday.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh approved the prototype of a fifth generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) in May, calling it a “significant push towards enhancing India’s indigenous defence capabilities”.

Singh, in a speech at a conference in New Delhi, gave details about developing fighter jet aircraft engines in the country.

“We are moving forward to manufacture aircraft engines in India itself,” Singh said, in comments broadcast by Indian media. “We are collaborating with a French company to start engine production in India.”

Singh did not name the company, but Indian media widely reported the company to be Safran, which has been working in India for decades in the aviation and defence sectors.

India, one of the world’s largest arms importers, has made the modernisation of its forces a top priority and made repeated pushes to boost local arms production.

The world’s most populous nation has deepened defence cooperation with Western countries in recent years, including the Quad alliance with the United States, Japan and Australia.

India signed in April a multi-billion-dollar deal to purchase 26 Rafale fighter jets from France’s Dassault Aviation. It would join 36 Rafale fighters already acquired, and replace the Russian MiG-29K jets.

Singh has also promised at least $100 billion in fresh domestic military hardware contracts by 2033 to spur local arms production.

This decade India has opened an expansive new helicopter factory, launched its first domestically made aircraft carrier, warships and submarines, and conducted a successful long-range hypersonic missile test.

Published in Dawn, August 24th, 2025

GAZA CITY: Desperate Palestinians clutching pots and plastic buckets scrambled for rice at a charity kitchen in Gaza City on Saturday, a day after the United Nations declared a famine in the battered territory.

Footage from Gaza’s largest city, which Israel plans to seize as part of an ex­­panded military operation, showed wo­men and children among the chaotic jostle of dozens clamouring and shouting for food.

One young boy used his hands to scrape a few leftover grains from the inside of a cooking vat. A girl sat on the edge of a tent and scooped rice from a plastic bag on the ground.

“We have no home left, no food, no income… so we are forced to turn to charity kitchens, but they do not satisfy our hunger,” said Yousef Hamad, 58, who was displaced from the northern city of Beit Hanoun.

The chief of UN agency for Palestinian refugees asks Israel to ‘stop denying the famine it has created’

Further south at a charity kitchen in Deir el Balah, 34-year-old Umm Mohammad said the UN’s declaration of a famine had come “far too late”. The children are “staggering from dizziness, unable to wake up because of the lack of food and water”, she added.

The UN officially declared a famine in Gaza on Friday, blaming the “systematic obstruction” of aid by Israel during more than 22 months of conflict. The Rome-based Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Initiative (IPC) said famine was affecting 500,000 people in Gaza governorate, which covers about a fifth of the Palestinian territory, including Gaza City.

‘Moral duty’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the famine report as “an outright lie”.

On Saturday, the head of the UN agen­­cy for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) said it was “time for the government of Israel to stop denying the famine it has created in Gaza”.

“All of those who have influence must use it with determination & a sense of moral duty,” UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini posted on X.

The IPC projected that the famine would expand to Deir el Balah and Khan Yunis governorates by the end of Sept­ember, covering around two-thirds of Gaza. Israel kept up its bombardment of the Palestinian territory, with a footage sho­wing heavy smoke billowing above the Zeitoun district of Gaza City as Pales­ti­nians picked through the wreckage of buildings.

‘Feel like end is near’

The spokesman for Gaza’s civil defence agency, Mahmud Bassal, called the situation in the Sabra and Zeitoun neighbourhoods “absolutely catastrophic”, describing the “complete levelling of entire residential blocks”.

“We are trapped here, living in fear, with nowhere to go. There’s no safety anywhere in Gaza. Movement now leads to death,” said Ahmad Jundiyeh, 35, who was displaced to the northern outskirts of Zeitoun. “We constantly hear the sound of bombing… we hear fighter jets, artillery shelling and even drone explosions,” he said. “We’re extremely afraid — it feels like the end is near.”

Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz vowed on Friday that Israel would destroy Gaza City as it has other parts of the territory if Hamas did not agree to disarm, release all remaining prisoners and “end the war on Israel’s terms”.

Residents of Gaza City said the Israeli strikes targeting the area had been relentless for days. “Let them come and see what’s happening to us here on the ground in Zeitoun district. We have been ruined,” said Aymen Daloul, a 53-year-old from Gaza City whose home had been destroyed.

“We shall sleep on the streets as if we were cattle. Have mercy on us.”

Mahmud Abu Saqer, 24, said there had been a quickening exodus of residents ever since Israel announced its plans to seize Gaza City. “Just this morning, more than 500 to 600 families left, and yesterday thousands left,” he said.

Published in Dawn, August 24th, 2025

North Korean state media has said two new air defence missiles have been fired in a test overseen by the country’s leader Kim Jong Un.

The weapons had “superior combat capability” and used a “unique technology”, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said, without adding details.

The launches, carried out on Saturday, “proved that the technological features of two types of projectiles are very suitable for destroying various aerial targets” including drones and cruise missiles, KCNA said.

The test comes hours after South Korea confirmed it fired warning shots on Tuesday at North Korean soldiers who briefly crossed the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) separating the countries.

United Nations Command said about 30 North Korean troops crossed the heavily-fortified border between the north and south, Yonhap News Agency said.

Pyongyang responded by accusing Seoul of a “deliberate provocation”.

South Korea and the United States have been conducting large-scale joint military exercises in the region since Monday.

US President Donald Trump is due to meet South Korea’s President Lee Jae Myung at a summit on Monday in Washington.

The newly-elected South Korean president had campaigned on improving inter-Korean ties.

However, Kim’s sister has since rebuffed efforts towards reconciliation made by Lee’s government.

Kim also earlier this month condemned the US and South Korea’s joint military drills, describing them as “most hostile and confrontational”.

The North Korean leader vowed to speed up his aim to increase the country’s stash of nuclear weapons.

In January, North Korea claimed to fire a new intermediate-range ballistic missile tipped with a hypersonic warhead, which it said “will reliably contain any rivals in the Pacific region”.

Senior South Korean officials have raised concerns about North Korea receiving Russian missile technology in exchange for sending troops to back the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Shin Wonsik, national security adviser for former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, said last year that Seoul had found Moscow provided missiles and other equipment to help reinforce the air defense network for Pyongyang, the capital.

Whether the latest missiles fired by North Korea involved any Russian technology was unclear.

North Korea is one of the world’s most repressive totalitarian states, with Kim and his family ruling the nation for decades.

South and North Korea have been divided since the Korean War ended in 1953.

They did not sign a peace treaty and therefore have remained technically still at war ever since, although it has been years since either side shelled the other.

Britain, France, and Germany — the so-called E3 — have warned they will trigger an oft-threatened but never-used mechanism at the United Nations that could reimpose global sanctions on Iran. Their deadline: the end of August, unless Tehran makes tangible progress in nuclear talks with the United States.

The “snapback” mechanism is a special process created alongside the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Its purpose is to ensure that if Iran seriously violates the deal, the international community can swiftly restore the full set of UN sanctions that existed before the agreement without getting bogged down in great-power vetoes or endless negotiations.

Although “snapback” is a nickname rather than a term in the legal text, it has become the common shorthand for the automatic return of sanctions. The E3 have already notified the UN that they are prepared to use it, a step that could dramatically escalate tensions over Iran’s nuclear program. The mechanism itself is due to expire on October 18, giving the Europeans only a narrow window to act.

How Do UN Sanctions Snap Back?

The nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), includes a dispute process. If a participant in the deal, such as the E3 states, believes Iran is in “significant non-performance,” they can raise the issue through the JCPOA’s built-in mechanisms and ultimately refer it to the UN Security Council.

Once the issue reaches the UNSC, a 30-day clock starts. During those 30 days, the council would need to adopt a new resolution to continue sanctions relief for Iran. If that resolution does not pass in time, the old UN sanctions that were lifted under the 2015 deal automatically come back into force. No further vote is required.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has insisted for weeks that the E3’s legal authority to trigger the mechanism is “highly questionable” because they demand Iran abandon uranium enrichment — which he argues runs contrary to the JCPOA.

Their argument is that the E3 are breaking the deal, and therefore no longer parties to it.

But “there is no merit to this argument,” said Richard Nephew, who served as the lead sanctions expert for the US team that negotiated the JCPOA.

“There is no mechanism by which another JCPOA participant can kick a JCPOA participant out of the agreement,” he told RFE/RL. “The E3 never withdrew like the United States, so they maintain their rights.”

Iran has also threatened to respond, including by withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Iranian diplomats will meet their European counterparts on August 28 in a last-ditch attempt to prevent the mechanism from being triggered.

Why It’s Called ‘Snapback’

A key feature — and the reason it’s called “snapback” — is that the process cannot be blocked by a veto. Normally, one of the five permanent UNSC members could veto a resolution to impose sanctions. Here, the system is reversed: To keep sanctions relief in place, the council must pass a new resolution.

Any veto of that resolution prevents it from passing, and because the default is that sanctions return if no resolution is adopted within 30 days, a veto actually speeds the snapback rather than stopping it. In practice, once a participant triggers the process, it is very difficult to prevent the old sanctions from coming back.

Iran says it is working with China and Russia — both permanent members of the UNSC and parties to the JCPOA — to “stop” the process. That, Nephew says, is not legally possible.

He noted that the only argument Beijing and Moscow can make is that the nuclear deal no longer exists, “but, that’s really, really hard to do.”

What Sanctions Will Return?

If the snapback process is successful, the UN will restore the six Iran-related Security Council resolutions adopted between 2006 and 2010.

These include wide-ranging restrictions such as a UN conventional arms embargo, measures curbing activities related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and an array of asset freezes, travel bans, and other proliferation-related rules.

In practical terms, this means reinstating a broad, UN-backed legal framework that governments, banks, shippers, insurers, and technology providers take seriously.

Will This Affect Iran Much?

Iranian officials have been downplaying the potential impact of renewed UN sanctions, claiming the effects are exaggerated.

Even though the United States already maintains extensive unilateral sanctions that heavily constrain Iran’s economy and energy exports, renewed UN sanctions would still matter.

Nephew argued that Iran’s nuclear and missile trade would be hit hardest. “Both of those things will be illegal, along with the dual use imports that Iran will need to rebuild these programs,” he said.

Iran’s insistence that the sanctions won’t hurt much contrasts with its warnings of retaliation if they are reimposed.

“The sanctions cannot be so bad that they’d withdraw from the NPT and so meaningless as to not matter,” Nephew said.

Turkey’s first lady has urged Melania Trump to speak out for children suffering in Israel’s war in Gaza.

Emine Erdogan praised the US first lady’s support for children affected by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, asking Trump to “extend the advocacy” to Palestinians.

In a letter published by the Turkish presidency on Saturday, Mrs Erdogan said Gaza had become a ‘”children’s cemetery”, telling Mrs Trump: “We must unite our voices and strength against this injustice.”

It comes as UN- backed food security experts have assessed half a million people are suffering from famine in Gaza City – and 132,000 children’s lives are threatened by malnutrition.

“The phrase ‘unknown baby’ written on the shrouds of thousands of Gazan children opens irreparable wounds in our consciences,” Mrs Erdogan wrote.

The letter calls on Mrs Trump to “show the same sensitivity to Gaza that you have shown to Ukrainian children who have lost their lives in the war”.

Mrs Erdogan also encouraged Mrs Trump to appeal directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza”.

Earlier this month, Mrs Trump sent Russian President Vladimir Putin a letter, imploring him to consider children, but did not reference any specific children.

The Turkish first lady does not usually involve herself in politics, more often choosing to be active in environmental issues – which has earned her praise from UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

But Mrs Erdogan has written letters to the partners of world leaders in the past, in 2016 on behalf of Syrians caught up in civil war and condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza in March.

The letter was published in the wake of a damning report into the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report confirmed a famine in and around Gaza City – warning that more than 640,000 people will face “catastrophic conditions” between mid-August and the end of September.

In Friday’s report, the IPC noted the particular toll food shortages had taken on children – roughly one in three in Gaza are acutely malnourished.

It also projects that up to June 2026, malnutrition will threaten the lives of 132,000 children aged under five.

Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry has said 114 of the 281 people who have died from malnutrition are children.

Israel denies there is famine in Gaza. It also accuses IPC experts of being biased, changing its methods for assessing famine, and using data coming from Hamas. The IPC has rejected this criticism.

The report comes as Israel prepares to launch a new military offensive aimed at occupying Gaza City.

Gaza’s health ministry has reported 61 deaths in the past 24 hours after Israeli attacks. It said eight people, including two children, have died as a result of malnutrition in the same period.

In one attack on a displacement camp in the southern city of Khan Younis, 19 people were killed, according to Palestinian news agency Wafa.

Israel’s military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 62,122 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the health ministry.

Most of Gaza’s population has also been displaced multiple times; more than 90% of homes are estimated to be damaged or destroyed; and the healthcare, water, sanitation and hygiene systems have collapsed.

Taliban’s first conquest of Afghanistan came in 1996 when, as a military movement, Taliban stormed Kabul, the capital. The conquest resulted in the first Taliban rule of Afghanistan which lasted for almost 5 years from 1996-2001. After the US military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban were removed from power. They had no political role to play in Afghanistan until their return to power in August 2021. It is in this gap of almost 20 years that the world treated the Taliban only as a militant organisation and a rogue military outfit that had no role to play in Afghan politics.

Did the world miss the opportunity to engage with the Taliban? Wouldn’t the world be different if the Taliban were politically engaged during that period? Could such a world assist in transition of the Taliban from a military movement to a political force?

Ultimately, the US chose to directly engage with the Taliban movement and created the circumstances for the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. The lost opportunity of dealing with the Taliban for 20 years may be considered a big mistake. After being removed from power in 2001, the Taliban were willing to surrender, yet they were deprived of this opportunity and with it the opportunity to become part of any political process in Afghanistan. The political consequence of this mistake was that the movement returned to power in 2021, with no political experience in the last 20 years that they were left out of Afghan politics. Today, the Taliban are considered a political force, but only a force that the world is struggling to deal with, as it is considered a repressive regime that rules over 40 million Afghans in a strategically vital area of Eurasia. No wonder Russia has recognised the Taliban government, and China is engaged with both the Taliban and Pakistan to work out a trilateral engagement.

Taliban’s re-conquest of Afghanistan came at a time when Iran and Pakistan, with whom it shares a long border, were experiencing turmoil at home. Iran fought a short war of 12 days imposed by the US and its ally Israel. Pakistan, on the other hand, faced military aggression by India and fought a short war of four days. Pakistan also faced an upsurge in terrorist attacks, deepening economic troubles, rising inflation and growing dependence on IMF loans. Yet, both Pakistan and Iran enjoy a great degree of influence in Afghan politics, and play a vital role in providing access to a landlocked Afghanistan to the outside world. Iran is also facing financial pain as it bears the brunt of international sanctions.

Thus, both the big neighbours of Afghanistan have problems of their own. And if the big neighbours have problems then it is a challenging proposition for the Taliban to rebuild its image to be recognised not as a military movement but a political force. Add to this the apprehension of both Pakistan and Iran that Afghanistan may export unrest, refugees and militancy across the borders, and this makes matters of good governance by the Taliban even more challenging.

The US leads the global consensus on the diplomatic isolation of the Taliban, which raises important questions on the role of external powers in the recognition of the Taliban as a political force. Russia and China lead the external powers that are contributing to the erosion of this global consensus. When the world treats the Taliban as a militant resistance and insurgent group with a religious ideology that has created a repressive regime, it misses a point that the Taliban today enjoy political power in Afghanistan, and they have come to power after engaging in a prolonged conflict against the US-led coalition forces. Not just as a de facto ruling authority, but a movement that enjoys a good degree of support from the people of Afghanistan. If the US could treat the Taliban as a political force, engaging it in a political process that led to the Doha Agreement in 2020, then it could surely consider helping the Taliban in transitioning from a militarised insurgency to a political governing body. This will help the Taliban in reshaping the internal dynamics and rebuilding Afghanistan, and may positively influence all external stakeholders to recalibrate their geopolitical calculations about the future of Afghanistan.

Pakistan has a complex relationship with the Taliban, featuring strategic patronage and periods of engagement and disengagement. Pakistan facilitated the Doha peace process as its security, regional alliances and internal stability are all linked with a stable Afghanistan, which only a legitimate and credible political authority in Afghanistan can create. Pakistan is thus inclined to diplomatically support the Taliban’s political ascendency. Pakistan’s great diplomatic challenge is to convince the outside world to stop looking at the Taliban government as a product of radical Islamist insurgency based on religious extremism, tribal conservatism and external sponsorship, but as a political entity capable of good governance, statecraft and diplomacy. The Doha Agreement stands out as a watershed moment of this recognition and has laid the groundwork for re-determining assumptions about the political capacity of the Taliban and treating them as a political force.

Pakistan’s military establishment has historically pursued the policy of ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan. But the time for such strategic preference is over. Today, Pakistan’s policy adjustments are more in line with supporting the creation of a regional bloc headed by China, in which Afghanistan is likely to play a crucial role. In the case of Pakistan, the pursuit of strategic depth in Afghanistan can be interpreted through Prof Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism. The theory helps in understanding the security dilemma Pakistan faces and how it attempts to enhance its security by supporting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and how, in return, it has increased the internal security issues of Pakistan due to the resurgence of TTP. The realist theoretical framework helps best to understand the evolving nature of Pakistan’s Taliban policy.

The current Taliban government has assumed all state functions, and unlike their first tenure, they now face the responsibility of state-building. The major driver of Pakistan’s current relationship with the Taliban is the latter’s inaction against TTP. Pakistan resorted to cross-border airstrikes in April 2022 against the TTP sanctuaries in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s assertive posture is also indicative in the form of enhanced border control, border fortifications and implementation of its policy of return of Afghan refugees. To bring about a change in Afghan state behaviour, Pakistan needs regional support of not only China, CARs and Iran but also Russia, the first country to formally recognise the Taliban government.

In June 2014, days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi had been sworn in for the first time, one of the first high-level visitors from outside the SAARC region was Wang Yi. Mr. Wang, who was appointed the Foreign Minister of China in 2013, travelled to New Delhi as Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping to meet Mr. Modi, whom he called an “old friend of China”, referring to Mr. Modi’s visits during his tenure as Gujarat Chief Minister, and said the NDA’s return to power had “injected a new vitality into an ancient civilisation”.

Mr. Wang’s mission was clear — to secure a visit by Mr. Xi to Delhi that September, and to invite Mr. Modi to Beijing soon after. Both visits were cleared quickly. A few days after Mr. Wang’s visit on June 8-9, the government also decided to put off two other engagements: the India-U.S.-Japan trilateral (the Quad was not revived until 2017), set for June 23-24 in Delhi, was cancelled, and Mr. Modi postponed his visit to Japan that had been fixed for July 3-5, ostensibly due to an upcoming Parliament session, much to his hosts’ disappointment. Speculation in South Block was rife: did the Chinese Foreign Minister have something to do with the decisions, to clear the “optics” before the Xi visit in September 2014?

Called the ‘silver fox’ for his grey haired visage as much as for his slick manner, Wang Yi is now the unassailable Czar of Xi Jinping’s foreign policy, with more sway than other Ministers due to his seniority in the party structure.

Insiders point out that he wears several hats now — he was elevated to the elite 24-member Politburo in 2022, and is Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs. He was elevated to the Politburo after the informal retirement age of 68, another sign of his clout, and although he handed over charge as Foreign Minister to Qin Gang in December 2022, he was brought back within months.

Like Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and more recently External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, Mr. Wang is part of a breed of seasoned and professional Foreign Ministers who present and sell their leader’s political vision in diplomatic terms. In the 2010s, he was credited with China’s ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy, of abrasive and assertive public messaging that reflected China’s hard power status. However, when Chinese popularity dipped worldwide, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Wang was also credited with abandoning the policy, mending fences, and replacing ‘wolf warrior’ diplomats in embassies worldwide with more polished colleagues.

Mr. Wang’s education in state-fare began, as many in his generation’s did, when he was “sent down” as part of the ‘Xiaxiang’ movement during the Cultural Revolution to work in the icy climes of Heilongjiang province, where he was recruited by the ‘Northeast Construction Army Corps’, after finishing his schooling in 1969. He studied Japanese history and language during college thereafter in Beijing, and joined the Foreign Ministry in 1982. He served twice in the Chinese Embassy in Japan, including as Ambassador from 2004 to 2007.

Backroom talks

South Block Mandarins had an introduction to Mr. Wang’s manner, more suave but also more purposeful than his predecessors, in the early 2000s. As Vice Foreign Minister for Asian Affairs, he had conducted many of the backroom negotiations to prepare for Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to Beijing in 2003. Officials at the time remember his hard bargaining for a deal on India’s recognition of China’s control over Tibet and for China to recognise Sikkim as an Indian State. Eventually, Indian officials felt disappointed that although the joint declaration issued had an explicit paragraph saying India “recognises that the Tibet Autonomous Region is part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China and reiterates that it does not allow Tibetans to engage in anti-China political activities in India”, the paragraph on Sikkim was not a similarly unequivocal declaration, with only a designation of ‘Sikkim State’ referring to the opening of border trade at Nathu-La pass.

“He is suave and sophisticated, but also quite tenacious, and can dig his heels in during negotiations, so it is necessary to always be vigilant,” says former Ambassador to China Ashok Kantha, who was posted to Beijing in 2014-2016, and had served on the China desk in the 2000s. “Indian officials have often had to push back in talks, but found him a result-oriented interlocutor,” he added.

As a former Director of China’s ‘Taiwan affairs office’ (2008-2013), Mr. Wang has been keen for India to refer to its ‘One China’ policy recognising Beijing’s control over all of China, including Taiwan. However, New Delhi decided to stop including the phrase in its statements since 2010, in protest against Chinese policy of issuing stapled visas to Indians from Arunachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir. When pressed by Mr. Wang to reaffirm India’s adherence to the ‘One China’ policy, former External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, who had been briefed about Mr. Wang’s persuasive skills, once retorted: “If China affirms its One India policy, we will consider it”. Nonetheless, Mr. Wang has persisted, including this week in talks with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, where the Chinese side slipped a line on Taiwan into its readout. The Ministry of External Affairs had to scramble to clarify its position.

Diplomatic missions

As Foreign Minister, Mr. Wang is known for many diplomatic missions over the past decade, including bringing U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Beijing to kickstart talks for Mr. Xi’s Mar-a-Lago summit with U.S. President Donald Trump in April 2017 and brokering talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia to reopen diplomatic ties in 2023. He also helped with U.S.-North Korea talks; more recently between Cambodia and Thailand, Afghanistan and Pakistan, between Myanmar’s military junta and armed ethnic groups as well as a bid in 2023 to bring Russia and Ukraine to the table for talks.

India has often been concerned about his ‘South Asian’ groupings, including a recent one with Pakistan and Bangladesh on trade, which appear to be part of a plan to create a ‘SAARC minus India’. As Foreign Minister, but also Special Representative for border talks, Mr. Wang now deals in Delhi with both Mr. Jaishankar and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, and is known for his tough but smooth-talking engagement style during the four-year military standoff after PLA transgressions along the Line of Actual Control and the Galwan clashes, and earlier, during the Doklam standoff.

Setting up the first “inter- governmental organisation for international mediation” in Hong Kong in May this year, Mr. Wang outlined his vision. “The birth of the mediation centre will help transcend the ‘you-lose-I-win’ zero-sum mentality, promote the amicable resolution of international disputes and foster more harmonious international relations,” he said. However, for interlocutors bruised during hard-fought diplomatic negotiations with him, Mr. Wang’s version of “win-win” is more aligned to the old maxim — when Beijing says “win-win”, it means China must “win twice”.

Published – August 24, 2025 01:07 am IST

PARIS (Reuters) – France summoned the Italian ambassador after Italy’s deputy prime minister challenged the French president for suggesting that European soldiers be deployed in Ukraine in a post-war settlement, a French diplomatic source said on Saturday.

Asked earlier this week to comment on French President Emmanuel Macron’s appeals to deploy European soldiers in Ukraine after any settlement with Russia, Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini used a Milanese dialect phrase loosely translatable as “get lost”.

“You go there if you want. Put your helmet on, your jacket, your rifle and you go to Ukraine,” he told reporters, referring to Macron.

Salvini, the populist leader of the right-wing League party and also Italy’s transport minister in the nationalist, conservative government led by Giorgia Meloni, has repeatedly criticized Macron, especially over Ukraine.

The Italian ambassador was summoned on Friday, the diplomatic source said, marking the latest in a series of diplomatic clashes between Paris and Rome before and after Meloni took power in 2022.

“The ambassador was reminded that these remarks ran counter to the climate of trust and the historical relationship between our two countries, as well as to recent bilateral developments, which have highlighted strong convergences between the two countries, particularly with regard to unwavering support for Ukraine,” the source said.

Macron, a vocal supporter of Ukraine over its war with Russia, has been working with other world leaders, notably British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, to mobilise support for Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire. 

Sri Lanka’s former president was admitted to hospital on Saturday, a day after he was charged with using public funds to finance private international travel, as the government intensified its crackdown on corruption.

Ranil Wickremesinghe, 76, was remanded in custody on Friday after being accused of using taxpayers’ money to pay for a two-day visit to the UK in September 2023 to attend a ceremony at the University of Wolverhampton granting an honorary professorship to his wife.

Wickremesinghe has denied the misuse of state money, and said his wife paid her own travel expenses. The visit took place upon Wickremesinghe’s return from the G77 summit in Havana and the UN general assembly in New York.

The offences carry a maximum punishment of 20 years in jail and an estimated fine of 16.6m rupees (£41,000).

Wickremesinghe, who lost Sri Lanka’s last presidential election in September to the leftist leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, was said to be in stable condition after being brought to Colombo National hospital. The hospital’s deputy head, Rukshan Bellana, told the Agence France-Presse news agency that he had to be treated for acute dehydration. “He was a severe diabetic with high blood pressure when he was brought in,” Bellana said.

Wickremesinghe became president in July 2022 after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s resignation following months of protests driven by the country’s worst economic downturn since independence. Before assuming the presidency, Wickremesinghe, unpopular with protesters as he was seen as an ally of the Rajapaksa clan, had been prime minister six times since entering politics in 1977, though he never completed a term.

In a significant political shift for the country last September, Wickremesinghe was replaced by Dissanayake, the head of the leftist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party. The JVP has been tarred by its past involvement in some of the worst violence in the country’s history, and Dissanayake had sought to soften some of his party’s more hardline positions while attracting voters with promises to tackle corruption and abuses of power.