Category: 2. World

Islamabad, Pakistan – India on August 20 announced that it had successfully test-fired Agni-V, its intermediate-range ballistic missile, from a test range in Odisha on its eastern Bay of Bengal coast.

The Agni-V, meaning “fire” in Sanskrit, is 17.5 metres long, weighs 50,000kg, and can carry more than 1,000kg of nuclear or conventional payload. Capable of travelling more than 5,000km at hypersonic speeds of nearly 30,000km per hour, it is among the fastest ballistic missiles in the world.

The Agni test came exactly a week after Pakistan announced the formation of a new Army Rocket Force Command (ARFC), aimed, say experts, at plugging holes in its defensive posture exposed by India during the four-day conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours in May.

But experts say the latest Indian test might be a message less for Pakistan and more for another neighbour that New Delhi is cautiously warming up to again: China.

The Agni’s range puts most of Asia, including China’s northern regions, and parts of Europe within reach. This was the missile’s 10th test since 2012 and its first since March last year, but its timing, say analysts, was significant.

It came just ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, amid a thaw in ties – after years of tension over their disputed border – that has been accelerated by United States President Donald Trump’s tariff war against India. On Wednesday, the US tariffs on Indian goods doubled to 50 percent amid tensions over New Delhi’s oil purchases from Russia.

Yet despite that shift in ties with Beijing, India continues to view China as its primary threat in the neighbourhood, say experts, underscoring the complex relationship between the world’s two most populous nations. And it’s at China that India’s development of medium and long-range missiles is primarily aimed, they say.

India’s missile advantage over Pakistan

While India acknowledged losing an unspecified number of fighter jets during the May skirmish with Pakistan, it also inflicted significant damage on Pakistani military bases, particularly with its supersonic BrahMos cruise missiles.

The BrahMos, capable of carrying nuclear or conventional payloads of up to 300kg, has a range of about 500km. Its low altitude, terrain-hugging trajectory and blistering speed make it difficult to intercept, allowing it to penetrate Pakistani territory with relative ease.

Many experts argue that this context shows the Agni-V test is not directly linked to Pakistan’s announcement of the ARFC. Instead, they say, the test was likely a signal to China. Indian and Chinese troops were in an eyeball-to-eyeball standoff along their disputed Himalayan border for four years after a deadly clash in 2020, before Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Russia in October 2024 to begin a process of detente.

Modi’s visit to China for the SCO summit on Sunday will be his first to that country since 2018. In the past, India has often felt betrayed by overtures to China, which, it claims, have frequently been followed by aggression from Beijing along their border.

“India’s requirement for a long-range, but not intercontinental, missile is dictated by its threat perception of China,” Manpreet Sethi, a distinguished fellow at the New Delhi-based Centre for Air Power Studies, told Al Jazeera.

“Agni-V is a nuclear-capable ballistic missile of 5,000km range, which India has been developing as part of its nuclear deterrence capability against China. It has no relevance to Pakistan,” Sethi added.

Christopher Clary, assistant professor of political science at the University at Albany, agreed.

“While the Agni-V might be usable against Pakistan, its primary mission would involve strikes on China,” he told Al Jazeera. “China’s east coast, where its most economically and politically important cities are situated, is hard to reach from India and requires long-range missiles.”

Missile race across South Asia

India and Pakistan have been steadily expanding their missile arsenals in recent years, unveiling new systems with increasing reach.

Before announcing the ARFC, Pakistan showcased the Fatah-4, a cruise missile with a 750km range and the capability to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.

India, meanwhile, is working on Agni-VI, which is expected to have a range exceeding 10,000km and carry multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), a capability already present in Agni-V.

MIRV-enabled missiles can carry several nuclear warheads, each capable of striking a separate target, significantly boosting their destructive potential.

Mansoor Ahmed, an honorary lecturer at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, said India’s latest test demonstrates its growing intercontinental missile capabilities.

“With India working on different variants of Agni with multiple capabilities, this test was a technological demonstrator for India’s emerging submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) capability,” Ahmed said.

“Depending on the configuration of the warheads for India’s SLBMs, India will be able to deploy anywhere between 200-300 warheads on its SSBN force alone over the next decade,” he added. SSBNs (ship, submersible, ballistic, nuclear) are nuclear-powered submarines designed to carry SLBMs armed with nuclear warheads. India currently has two SSBNs in service, with two more under construction.

Pakistan, by contrast, does not possess long-range missiles or nuclear submarines. Its longest-range operational ballistic missile, the Shaheen-III, has a range of 2,750km.

“Pakistan also has South Asia’s first MIRV-enabled ballistic missile called Ababeel, which can strike up to 2,200km range, but it is the shortest-ranged MIRV-enabled system deployed by any nuclear-armed state,” Ahmed said.

Tughral Yamin, a former Pakistani army brigadier and nuclear policy scholar, said the countries’ missile ambitions reflect divergent priorities.

“Pakistan’s programme is entirely Indian-specific and defensive in nature, while India’s ambitions extend beyond the subcontinent. Its long-range systems are designed for global power projection, particularly vis-a-vis China, and to establish itself as a great power with credible deterrence against major states,” said Yamin, author of The Evolution of Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia.

But some experts say Pakistan’s missile development programme isn’t only about India.

Ashley J Tellis, the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), said that while “India wants to be able to range China and Pakistan,” Islamabad is building the capability to keep Israel – and even the US – in its range, in addition to India.

“The conventional missile force in both countries is designed to strike critical targets without putting manned strike aircraft at risk,” Tellis told Al Jazeera.

US concerns over Pakistan’s ambitions, quiet acceptance of India’s rise

Pakistan’s missile programme came under intense spotlight in December last year when a senior White House official warned of Islamabad’s growing ambitions.

Jon Finer, serving in the then-Biden administration, described Pakistan’s pursuit of advanced missile technology as an “emerging threat” to the United States.

“If the trend continues, Pakistan will have the capability to strike targets well beyond South Asia, including in the United States,” Finer said during an event at the CEIP.

By contrast, Tellis said India’s growing arsenal is not viewed as destabilising by Washington or its allies.

“Pakistan’s capabilities in contrast are viewed as unsettling because the early history of its nuclear programme had anti-Western overtones, sentiments that have taken on a specific anti-US colouration after 9/11 and the Abbottabad raid,” Tellis explained, referring to the US capture of Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan in 2011.

Ahmed, the Canberra-based academic, said India’s long-range missile development is openly supported by Western powers as part of the US-led Asia Pacific strategy.

“The US and European powers have viewed and encouraged India to act as a net security provider. The India-US civil nuclear deal and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver effectively gave India de facto nuclear weapons status without signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” he said.

The NPT is a Cold War-era treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and advancing the goal of nuclear disarmament. It formally recognises only the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain as nuclear weapons states.

But the 2008 waiver from the NSG – a club of 48 nations that sell nuclear material and technology – allowed India to engage in global nuclear trade despite not being an NPT signatory, a unique status that elevated its global standing.

Clary from the University of Albany, however, pointed out that unlike the Biden administration, the current Trump White House has not expressed any concerns about Pakistan’s missile programme – or about India’s Agni-V test.

“For now, so long as Pakistan keeps its missile tests limited to ranges already demonstrated by the Shaheen-III and Ababeel, I don’t expect Western governments to concern themselves overly with South Asia’s missile developments,” he said. “There are more than enough other problems to keep them busy.”

The Security Council voted Thursday for UN peacekeepers to leave Lebanon in 2027, allowing one final extension after pressure from Israel and its US ally to end the nearly 50-year-old force.

Israel hailed the termination of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and urged the Beirut government to exert its authority after an Israeli military campaign devastated Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah.

With the United States dangling a veto threat, the Security Council voted unanimously for a resolution that will extend UNIFIL’s mandate “a final time.”

France, which has a long legacy in Lebanon, had initially sought a one-year extension to the force without a firm commitment to end UNIFIL.

But faced with the US opposition, France put forward the compromise resolution that authorizes UNIFIL through December 31, 2026 and then an “orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal” within a year.

Some 10,800 peacekeepers have been acting as a buffer between Israel and Lebanon since 1978. The mandate had been due to end on Sunday.

Israel, which has been sharply critical of the United Nations over its condemnation of its relentless offensive in Gaza, hailed the UN vote.

“For a change, we have some good news coming from the UN,” said Danny Danon, Israel’s envoy to the United Nations.

“I want to remind you, 47 years ago, the Security Council decided to send the UNIFIL force to South Lebanon in order to stabilize the region. We all know they failed. Hezbollah took over the region,” he said.

“Today, the Lebanese government has the responsibility to take control of the area and to understand that they have to be there — not Hezbollah, not anyone else.”

Dorothy Shea, the US envoy at the United Nations, noted that UNIFIL was explicitly meant to be “interim” and said that the security situation in Lebanon was “radically different from just one year ago.”

She reiterated that the United States, whose historic support for Israel has only increased under President Donald Trump, would reject any further extensions.

Under a truce that ended the recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the long-fledgling Lebanese national army has been deploying in south Lebanon and dismantling the militant group’s infrastructure.

As part of the ceasefire, and under pressure from Washington, the plan is for Hezbollah’s withdrawal to be complete by the end of the year.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun last week called for the UN peacekeepers to remain, arguing that any curtailment of UNIFIL’s mandate “will negatively impact the situation in the south, which still suffers from Israeli occupation.”

But Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on Thursday welcomed the decision of the Security Council, pointing to its extension of the force.

Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister who led his country into the war in Iraq and whose eight-year tenure as a Middle East envoy got — at best — mixed reviews, raised eyebrows on Wednesday when he attended a White House summit on the future of Gaza.

The contents of the meeting have not been made public, although President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff told Fox News ahead of the gathering that it would focus on the administration’s “comprehensive plan” for Gaza after the war ends.

To the casual observer, Blair’s presence may have been a surprise. While he is a former world leader with experience in the Middle East, his official activities in the region over the past decade have been mostly limited to private business ventures and sporadic media appearances.

Husam Zomlot, the ambassador who heads the Palestinian Mission to the UK, would not comment on Blair’s attendance at the Gaza summit, but it’s clear that the former British leader inspires little confidence among Palestinians.

After leaving Downing Street in 2007, Blair served for eight years as the Middle East Envoy for the so-called Quartet, a group of world powers seeking a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

By the time Blair resigned from the post in 2015, the Quartet was largely seen as an ineffective body with no real power.

Blair’s track record as the envoy won few plaudits. While the Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs parts of the occupied West Bank, initially welcomed his appointment, their relationship soured quickly.

Blair became unpopular figure and was close to being declared a persona non grata in the West Bank city of Ramallah, because of what the PA saw as his bias towards Israel.

Shibley Telhami, a professor at the University of Maryland and non-resident senior fellow at Brookings, told CNN that while Blair’s presence at the meeting could help Trump get the attention of wealthy donors, it will hurt public opinion in the Middle East and internationally.

“(Blair’s) legacy of backing the Iraq war and his financial and political ties to rulers in the Middle East have undermined his reputation in the Middle East and elsewhere,” Telhami said.

Palestinians are already deeply distrustful of the Trump administration and its plans for the future of Gaza and Blair’s involvement in the discussions is unlikely to ease their concerns.

In the UK, the leader of the centrist Liberal Democrat party, Ed Davey, demanded Blair briefs the UK parliament on the meeting, saying that the UK must “leverage all the information at our disposal to make (Trump) do the right thing.”

Trump has previously floated the idea of a US takeover of Gaza, which would include the removal of its residents and redevelopment of the completely devastated narrow strip of land into what has been described as a “Middle Eastern Riviera.”

Earlier this year, the president went as far as sharing an AI-generated video on social media, which promoted a transformation of Gaza into a Gulf state-like resort featuring a golden statue of himself.

One of the biggest proponents of such a plan is Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Like Blair, Kushner holds no official role. And like Blair, he was also at the meeting on Wednesday.

According to reports in Israeli media, Ron Dermer, Israel’s Minister for Strategic Affairs, who has close links to both Kushner and Blair, is also in Washington this week.

As the then ambassador to the US, Dermer played a key role in negotiating the 2020 Abraham Accords that saw Israel normalize relations with several Gulf states. The Abraham Accords deal was spearheaded by Kushner and was seen as a key success of the first Trump administration.

Dermer has worked with Blair in the past, and the two are said to know each other well.

Telhami told CNN that while Dermer has been coordinating with Blair and the Trump team on Gaza, no Arab representation was present at the meeting.

“There is no heavyweight Arab representation in the room, even though Arabs will be heavily impacted by any Gaza outcome, especially Israel’s neighbors, and wealthy Arab states will be expected to foot much of the bill,” he said.

The “Riviera” suggestion, first made by Trump during a visit of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington, has been widely condemned, with the PA calling it a “serious violation of international law.” European leaders called it “unacceptable.”

But Telhami said Blair’s presence at the meeting could lend weight to Trump’s plan.

“Blair could give the appearance of broadening Trump’ group of advisers which includes Witkoff and Kushner, given Blair’s prominence and international visibility,” Telhami said.

He said that Trump’s reconstruction plan – if it were to materialize – would require “enormous amounts” and Blair’s close financial and political ties to wealthy Gulf states could be useful to Trump.

While the plan was initially seen as an off-the-cuff remark by Trump, the wheels were put into motion.

A study imagining the redevelopment of Gaza, which would include paying Palestinians to leave their land, was eventually put together and presented to the Trump administration, according to a Financial Times report.

The FT later revealed that while the project was led by Israeli businessmen and used financial models developed by Boston Consulting Group (BCG), staffers from Blair’s think tank, the Tony Blair Institute For Global Change (TBI), were involved in discussions about it.

In a submission to the UK parliament, BCG confirmed that one of its senior partners, who acted in breach of the company’s rules and direct orders, assembled a team to model and analyze post-war reconstruction scenarios for Gaza and that this team “interacted during this work” with the TBI.

The institute told CNN it speaks to many different groups and organizations with post war plans for Gaza, but stressed it was not involved in creating the plan in question.

A spokesperson for the institute would not comment on Blair’s presence in the meeting, only highlighting that the institute has “always been dedicated to building a better Gaza for Gazans.”

“Tony Blair has worked for this since leaving office,” the spokesperson said. “It has never been about relocating Gazans, which is a proposal the TBI has never authored, developed or endorsed.”

As they wait to learn more about Trump’s plan for Gaza, people in the devastated territory can only hope that Blair conveyed these positions to the men assembled in the White House as plainly as his institute has.

A second woman has come forward to an inquiry investigating sexual abuse allegations against Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court (ICC), the Guardian has learned.

The woman has alleged that while working for the prominent British lawyer earlier in his career, he behaved inappropriately, subjecting her to unwanted sexual advances, abused his authority over her, and repeatedly sought to pressure her into sexual activity.

Khan, who denies sexual misconduct “of any kind”, has temporarily stepped aside as head of the ICC’s prosecution division as he awaits the outcome of the inquiry into separate abuse allegations brought by a member of his staff at the court.

Launched last year, the inquiry by a UN watchdog received the new allegations from the second woman this summer. Its investigators are understood to have conducted several interviews in order to examine her claims, which date back to 2009.

At the time, the woman was in her 20s and working as an unpaid intern for Khan. He was a leading defence lawyer at the ICC and other war crimes tribunals in The Hague, having notably represented the former Liberian president Charles Taylor.

Speaking exclusively to the Guardian, the woman said Khan abused his power and influence over her and described his behaviour as a “constant onslaught” of advances. “He shouldn’t have been doing it,” she said. “He was my employer.”

The woman spoke on condition of anonymity as she fears reprisals and adverse consequences for her and her family if publicly identified. She came forward after reading about the more recent allegations made against Khan by the ICC staffer.

The second woman’s account of Khan’s alleged mistreatment of her contains several similarities to the staffer’s allegations, details of which have been shared by people familiar with her claims. Both women have alleged that Khan would ask them to come to work at his home. There, they each allege, he would sit beside them on a couch, touch them, kiss them and try to persuade them to lie down with him.

Lawyers for Khan did not address specific details of either woman’s allegations but said: “It is wholly untrue that he has engaged in sexual misconduct of any kind.”

They said Khan “categorically denies” having “harassed or mistreated any individual, or having misused his position or authority, or engaged in any conduct that could be interpreted as coercive, exploitative, or professionally inappropriate”.

They claimed Khan had provided detailed evidence to the inquiry that “sits squarely at odds with the allegations that have been put to him” and “in a number of material respects show those allegations to be demonstrably untrue”.

Khan, 55, was elected in 2021 to serve a nine-year term as chief prosecutor. He is in effect the public face of the ICC, a permanent court of last resort that investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of atrocities.

Since taking office, Khan has raised the court’s profile and thrust it into the crosshairs of major powers, with arrest warrants issued for suspects including Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

His tenure was thrown into turmoil last year when the allegations made by the ICC staffer became public. The woman, a lawyer in her 30s who worked directly for him, alleges the misconduct occurred over an extended period between 2023 and 2024.

Khan and his representatives have sought to cast the emergence of the allegations as part of a campaign by hostile external actors to discredit and put pressure on him in response to actions he has taken against Netanyahu and the former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant.

While the Guardian understands there have been attempts by pro-Israeli actors to brief journalists and leak information about the ICC staffer’s complaint, it has found no evidence to suggest either woman has raised the allegations as part of an elaborate plot against the prosecutor.

Once the UN watchdog’s investigation is completed, its findings will be reviewed by a panel of judicial experts who will advise the ICC’s governing body if any action should be taken against Khan.

If he is found to have committed “serious misconduct” or a serious breach of his duties, the prosecutor could face an unprecedented reckoning: a secret ballot in which the ICC’s 125 member states would vote on whether to remove him from office.

‘Confused and humiliated’

As the sexual abuse allegations shook the ICC last year, Khan issued a statement insisting that in 30 years of working in “diverse contexts” there had “never been any such complaint lodged against me by anyone”.

Patricia (not her real name) said that when she read about the allegations and saw Khan’s statement, her “heart sank”. She said that previously, as an intern at the start of her career, she had felt unable to make a formal complaint.

Patricia said that before going to work for Khan she had viewed the internship as an “exciting and meaningful” opportunity. “Karim was a well-connected, well-respected person who could make things happen, and someone who would put a good word in for you,” she said.

Quick Guide

Contact Harry Davies about this story

Show

If you have something to share about this story, you can contact Harry using one of the following methods.

Secure Messaging in the Guardian app

The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said.

If you don’t already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select ‘Secure Messaging’.

To send a message to Harry, please choose the ‘UK Investigations’ team.

Signal Messenger

You can message Harry using the Signal Messenger app. Use the ‘find by username’ option and type hfd.32

Email (not secure)

If you don’t need a high level of security or confidentiality you can email harry.davies@theguardian.com

SecureDrop and other secure methods

If you can safely use the tor network without being observed or monitored you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform.

Finally, our guide at theguardian.com/tips lists several ways to contact us securely, and discusses the pros and cons of each. 

Illustration: Guardian Design / Rich Cousins

However, she said working for Khan “came at a price it shouldn’t have come at, and the price it came at did disturb and distress me for some time afterwards”.

According to Patricia, an early experience of Khan’s alleged misconduct occurred at the court’s offices where she claimed Khan “groped” her breasts with a “prolonged” caress that was “completely unconsented”.

“It wasn’t like ‘oops, I brushed the back of my hand against you, I’m sorry’,” she said. “He was too close.”

Patricia said the incident in the office left her “confused and humiliated”, but over the following weeks she was required to work closely with Khan on preparing part of a case. During this period, she said, Khan asked her on at least six occasions to work at his home in The Hague, where they would be alone together.

She said that when working at his apartment she had to negotiate his advances while trying to get work done. “I was trying to figure out how to stay in his good graces and get the work experience while not sleeping with him and succumbing,” she said.

This was difficult, she said, “because when we were in his house it was just like a constant onslaught”. She claimed that each time she worked at the apartment “it would be another round of [Khan] sitting next to me on the couch and touching me and kissing me and trying to convince me to sleep with him”.

Patricia said she “felt trapped” at the time. She was covering the costs of the internship and felt it was vital she received a positive letter of recommendation from Khan. Complaining was not an option, she said, and the choice she faced was to “either persevere or leave”.

“It felt critical to me to get through the experience,” she said. “I remember walking to his house and feeling like I had to amp myself up, feeling like I had to fortify myself.”

She said she refused Khan’s explicit requests to have sex. “I remember coming up with all kinds of dumb excuses for why I did not want to sleep with him, just to try and not make him angry.”

She said although she was “miserable” and depressed while working for Khan, she decided to stay. After the internship had finished, she received a glowing recommendation letter from Khan. She said it “felt like a deal with the devil”.

Patricia said she remained in touch with Khan for several years as she felt a professional need to keep on good terms with him. Over time, she said, she came to realise how Khan’s behaviour had affected her.

She said Khan would send her messages from time to time long after the internship, though she eventually stopped responding. In 2019, she received what she described as a “weird message” out of the blue. Khan said he was thinking about her. He thanked her for her “good company” and for “being a very good friend to me”.

She replied: “Karim, it does not make me happy to hear from you, that is why I do not respond. I wish you wouldn’t contact me, please don’t do it any more.” She did not hear from Khan again.

ICC staffer: ‘Ceaseless’ advances

After reading about the ICC staffer’s allegations against Khan last year, Patricia contacted the Guardian. She said she was “disturbed” that something similar to her experience was alleged to have happened again so many years later.

This summer she provided formal testimony to the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the body investigating the ICC staffer’s allegations. A source familiar with the inquiry said the watchdog had reviewed material shared by Patricia and interviewed people close to her. A spokesperson for the OIOS said it did not comment on its investigation activities.

For the past nine months, investigators have been examining the ICC staffer’s allegations. As the Guardian reported last year, her claims include allegations of coercive sexual behaviour and abuse of authority. The alleged sexual misconduct is said to have occurred in hotel rooms during work trips, in Khan’s office at the ICC and at his home.

Since then, new details have emerged about the staffer’s allegations. Several ICC sources and other individuals with knowledge of the claims said there were multiple instances of alleged sexual abuse said to have occurred at Khan’s home after she was asked to go there for work reasons.

According to two sources, the staffer has alleged Khan would often bring her over to a couch in the living room where he would touch her and attempt to persuade her to engage in sexual activity. She is said to have tried to avoid his advances and attempted to make excuses to leave.

The staffer has described Khan’s advances at his home as “ceaseless”. In one record of the allegations, she said: “He would try to kiss me and I would always move my head away and move back and he would tell me to stop moving and say ‘kiss me, kiss me’.”

Khan’s position

The law firm representing Khan, Carter-Ruck, said he had an unblemished record and denied the allegations. They said he was “cooperating fully and transparently” with the ongoing inquiry but that he had “grave concerns as to whether the investigation can deliver due process”.

They claimed Khan “has been the subject of an orchestrated campaign” and said he was aware of attempts to “discredit him and destroy his personal reputation through the media, as a direct consequence of his role in issuing the arrest warrants” for Netanyahu and Gallant.

Last year the Guardian, with the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and the Hebrew-language outlet Local Call, revealed how Israel’s intelligence agencies had run a campaign against the ICC. This included a Mossad operation that attempted to intimidate and smear Khan’s predecessor Fatou Bensouda.

Against this backdrop, Khan and people acting on his behalf have sought to suggest in private and to journalists that he is the subject of a similar effort by Israeli intelligence.

In recent weeks, outlets such as Middle East Eye (MEE) and Le Monde have published reports about pressures purportedly placed on Khan. An MEE article claimed the ICC’s investigation into Israeli war crimes had been “derailed by threats, leaks and sex claims”, and raised questions about the reliability of the staffer’s allegations.

Five ICC sources familiar with Khan’s response to the claims when the allegations first surfaced told the Guardian that his team concluded it was highly unlikely the abuse claims were part of an intelligence operation. One of the sources said pro-Israeli interests “may have exploited the story but they didn’t create the story”.

The ICC staffer at the heart of the inquiry has been particularly distressed by suggestions she is part of a pro-Israeli plot, according to people who know her. They noted that she is Muslim, and was known within the prosecutor’s office to have been supportive of its investigation into senior Israeli officials’ crimes in Gaza.

BEIRUT: As more Palestinian refugee camps handed over caches of weapons to the Lebanese army this week, a Lebanese government official told The Associated Press that the disarmament effort could pave the way for granting Palestinian refugees in Lebanon more legal rights.

Ramez Dimashkieh, head of the Lebanese-Palestinian Dialogue Committee, a government body that serves as an interlocutor between Palestinian refugees and officials, said his group is working on proposed legislation that they hope to introduce by the end of the year that could improve the situation of Lebanon’s approximately 200,000 Palestinian refugees.

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are not given citizenship, ostensibly to preserve their right to go back to the homes they fled or were forced from during the 1948 creation of the state of Israel, which now bans them from returning. They are prohibited from working in many professions, have few legal protections and can’t own property.

The proposed legislation under being drafted would not confer Lebanese nationality on the refugees, Dimashkieh said, but would strengthen their labor and property rights.

“If people see a serious move forward in terms of arms delivery and they see the Palestinians here … are serious about transforming into a civil society rather than militarized camps, it will make the discourse much easier,” he said.

A first step

Last week, Palestinian factions started handing over some of the weapons held in the Burj Al-Barajneh refugee camp on the outskirts of Beirut to the Lebanese army, an initial step in implementing a plan announced by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun three months earlier for removing arms from the camps.

The step of removing weapons from the camps was widely seen as a precursor to the much more difficult step of disarming the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which last year fought a bruising war with Israel. The group has been under domestic and international pressure since then to give up its remaining arsenal, which it has so far refused to do.

Only one pickup truck loaded with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades left Burj Al-Barajneh last week, leading many to dismiss the initiative in the Palestinian camps as ineffective or purely symbolic.

Dimashkieh acknowledged that “there was a lot of cynicism about the quantity and quality of the weapons delivered,” but insisted that the government is serious about following through.

“Whatever weapons are given, they’re weapons which are now in the possession of the Lebanese Armed Forces,” he said. “So we should be happy about that.”

On Thursday, another three camps in southern Lebanon handed over weapons, including some Grad rockets as well as RPGs, machine guns and hand grenades.

A move toward civil administration

The 12 Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon aren’t under the control of Lebanese authorities, and rival Palestinian factions have clashed inside the camps in recent years, inflicting casualties and affecting nearby areas.

In the Ein el Hilweh camp near the southern port city of Sidon, rounds of fighting between members of Abbas’s Fatah movement and rival Islamist factions in 2023 killed around 30 people, wounded hundreds and displaced thousands.

The fighting also left the schools in one of two school complexes in the camp run by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees “heavily damaged to the extent that we are unable to use them,” said Dorothee Klaus, UNRWA director in Lebanon. The cash-strapped agency does “not have the resources currently to reopen the schools,” she said.

While UNRWA is not involved in the disarmament effort currently underway, Klaus said, “We very much hope that this leads to a situation of safety and security and stability with a functioning civil administration.”

Eventually, Dimashkieh said, the objective is for the camps to be patrolled by Lebanese police or internal security forces while being governed by civilian Palestinian officials, although he acknowledged that there would be “a transitional period” before that happens.

Abbas’s administration launched an overhaul of the Palestinian Authority’s leadership in Lebanon a few months ago, including the removal of the former Palestinian ambassador and many security officials and staff. Dimashkieh said that a Palestinian delegation had recently visited to pave the way for elections of new “popular committees” that serve as de facto municipal authorities in the camps.

Palestinian factions opposed to Abbas, including Hamas and its allies, have rejected the plan to hand over weapons in the camps, and even members of Abbas’ Fatah movement have sent mixed signals, with some officials saying last week that only “illegal” weapons would be handed over, not those belonging to organized factions.

However, on Thursday, Sobhi Abu Arab, the head of the Palestinian National Security Forces in

Lebanon, said, “We are doing our part as the Fatah movement and the Palestinian Liberation Organization to implement” Abbas’s decision.

Dimashkieh said his group has also had “initial talks” with Hamas and that he is “quite optimistic that we will make headway” with bringing them on board.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivers a speech during a celebration of India’s Independence Day in New Delhi, India, on August 15, 2025. Photo: VCG

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit China and attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit 2025 in Tianjin from August 31 to September 1. This will be the Indian prime minister’s first visit to China after seven years, marking a shift in China-India relations from a period of diplomatic chill toward a slow but steady cycle of recovery. India’s active participation in the SCO Tianjin Summit reflects its repositioning of the multilateral cooperation framework. In recent months, a series of developments – from soldiers along the Himalayan border exchanging sweets to the resumption of Indian pilgrims’ route to Southwest China’s Xizang Autonomous Region to the announcement that direct flights between the two countries could resume as early as possible – all signal that the two major countries are strengthening interaction on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties.

The current recovery phase of China-India relations is primarily driven by shared strategic needs. Since the Galwan Valley incident, both sides have consumed considerable resources in managing border tensions. Increasingly, both countries recognize that allocating limited resources to economic development and more pressing strategic priorities – rather than endless border disputes – is the more rational choice. This month, the two sides reached 10 points of consensus on the boundary question, and the foreign ministers’ meeting achieved 10 outcomes, maintaining communication through diplomatic and military channels and avoiding unnecessary friction. Particularly, in the context of sluggish global economic recovery, both countries need a stable surrounding environment to promote domestic reforms and economic growth. In 2024, bilateral trade reached $138.478 billion, up 1.7 percent year-on-year. Bilateral decisions to resume direct flights, streamline visa procedures, resume border trade, and other measures indicate that economic and trade cooperation is about to enter the normal trajectory.

The warming of China-India relations is also closely related to profound changes in the global geopolitical landscape. Since the beginning of 2025, international turbulence has intensified: the protracted stalemate in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, mounting crises in the Middle East, and major shifts in US domestic politics and foreign policy have all had far-reaching impacts on the global order. US foreign policy has shifted from “supporting allies” to “transactional diplomacy,” and in some cases even adopted a posture of extracting benefits at the expense of allies and partners, which has directly worsened US-India relations. In his Independence Day address, the Indian prime minister said that “Modi will stand like a wall against any policy that threatens their interests. India will never compromise when it comes to protecting the interests of our farmers.” According to Indian officials, India is also advancing a trade diversification strategy with at least 40 countries. This strategic autonomy resonates with the independent foreign policy advocated by China, and together they constitute the endogenous driving force for the improvement of relations between the two countries.

Western media are keen to hype the “warming up” of China-India relations and simplistically attribute it to US tariffs on India, speculating about a so-called “anti-US alliance.” Such narratives seriously misread the independence of foreign policies of both China and India. A CNN commentary pointed out part of the truth: “India’s recalibration of ties with China is a textbook application of its policy of strategic autonomy, which prioritizes national interests over rigid bloc allegiance.” What makes some American media outlets uneasy about the prospect of “the dragon and the elephant dancing together” is essentially a residue of Cold War mentality. When Washington criticizes India for buying Russian oil, the implication is that it wants India to “pick a side” – the same logic behind drawing India into Quad, the so-called quadrilateral partnership among the US, Japan, Australia and India. The goal is nothing more than to turn India into a pawn in Washington’s so-called “Indo-Pacific Strategy” to contain China. Facts have shown that such small political cliques do not align with New Delhi’s pursuit of full strategic autonomy.

In the current era of frequent global challenges, closer China-India ties are not only a rational choice but also a shared responsibility. Looking back at history, India was among the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. More than 70 years ago, China, India and other countries jointly advocated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which remain a basic norm of international relations. Today, as the “twin engines” of Asia’s economic growth, key representatives of the Global South, and members of the SCO, BRICS, and the G20, China and India share a mission to push the international order toward greater democracy and fairness. Their interactions and cooperation within existing mechanisms are aimed at achieving mutual benefit and win-win outcomes, which is a natural phenomenon in the process of building a multipolar world, and a legitimate aspiration of emerging powers seeking a stronger voice.

Modi’s visit to China provides a rare window of opportunity for improving China-India relations. Observers note that the two major countries are now making efforts to manage their ties as “partners rather than rivals.” While challenges remain in bilateral relations, both sides’ willingness for pragmatic cooperation introduces a positive variable into global strategic balance. On the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and India, it is hoped that New Delhi will earnestly implement the important consensus of the leaders of the two countries, write a new chapter of “the dragon and the elephant dancing together” with a more open and inclusive mindset, and make due contributions as major countries to world peace, stability and prosperity.

Israeli forces touched down at a former air-defence base in southern Syria on Wednesday during a series of airstrikes in the area – their farthermost such operation inside Syria since Bashar al-Assad was ousted last December.

The airbase, located near the city of al-Kiswah, about 6 miles (10km) south of Damascus, was previously a strategic base for Iranian militias during Assad’s rule.

Syrian state media reported that the Israeli military had carried out strikes in the same area a day earlier, killing six Syrian soldiers who had found Israeli listening and spying devices there. The soldiers were in the process of dismantling the devices when they were killed, state media said.

Israeli warplanes and drones prevented Syrian forces from entering the area until late on Wednesday night, after Israeli forces had left the site.

It was unclear what the Israeli soldiers did at the base. The Israeli defence minister, Israel Katz, posted on X that forces were “operating in all combat zones day and night for the security of Israel”, but otherwise offered no explanation.

The Syrian foreign ministry condemned the strikes, calling them a violation of international law and a breach of the country’s sovereignty.

Israel carried out dozens of strikes on weapons depots and military bases after the ousting of Assad in December last year. It also pushed into the UN-patrolled buffer zone that separated the two countries and established military bases there.

Israel has warned the new Syrian government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former leader of Islamist rebel groups, that it will not allow it to deploy forces to southern Syria.

Israeli strikes on Syria had all but stopped after the US president, Donald Trump, warned Israel to “be reasonable” in Syria, until sectarian clashes broke out in Druze-majority areas in southern Syria in June. Israel struck the ministry of defence in Damascus and bombed Syrian troops in what it said was an effort to protect Syria’s Druze population.

Wednesday’s bombings came despite the high-level security talks taking place between Syrian and Israeli officials. Officials from both countries met in Paris, alongside the US special envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, earlier this month.

The Paris talks, in addition to meetings in Azerbaijan, are aimed at establishing a security agreement between the two countries that would stop Israeli aggression in Syria and provide security assurances to Israel. Israel has also requested that the rights of the Druze in Syria be respected.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly referred to the new government in Damascus as “jihadist” and have expressed concerns that it could pose a threat to Israelis who live close to their shared border. The new government in Syria has not attacked Israel and said it wanted regional peace, including with Israel.

Syria and Israel have technically been at war since 1948 and do not have diplomatic relations. In 1974, the two countries signed a UN agreement that created a buffer zone between the two countries.

Israel said that it considered the 1974 agreement as void once Assad had been toppled, and pushed past the buffer zone. Syrian officials have said they want to use the 1974 agreement as a starting point in negotiations between the two countries.

The US, which is mediating talks between the two countries, has said it hopes that Syria could eventually normalise relations with Israel and join the Abraham accords. Syrian officials have said this is an eventual possibility, but emphasised that current talks are solely focused on security issues.

Barrack has cautioned that reaching a security agreement will take time, saying in an interview with the US new website Axios that the two countries “have mutual intent and desire but at the moment, there is still more work to do”.