Blog

  • 4 terrorists killed in operation in SW Pakistan-Xinhua

    ISLAMABAD, Sept. 19 (Xinhua) — Pakistani security forces killed four terrorists during an intelligence-based operation in the country’s southwest Balochistan province, the military said Friday.

    The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media wing of the Pakistan Army, said in a statement that the operation was carried out on Sept. 17 in Khuzdar district following reports about the presence of terrorists.

    Security forces engaged the terrorists’ hideout, killing four in an intense exchange of fire, the statement said, adding that weapons, ammunition and explosives were seized from the site.

    According to the ISPR, the slain terrorists had been involved in multiple attacks in the region.

    A clearance operation is underway in the area to hunt any remaining terrorists, the statement added, reaffirming the resolve of Pakistan’s security forces to eliminate terrorism from the country.

    Continue Reading

  • Four Indian-sponsored terrorists killed in Khuzdar operation: ISPR – Pakistan

    Four Indian-sponsored terrorists killed in Khuzdar operation: ISPR – Pakistan

    Security forces killed four terrorists linked to an Indian proxy group during an intelligence-based operation (IBO) in Balochistan’s Khuzdar District on 17 September 2025, the military’s media wing said on Wednesday.

    According to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the operation was carried out on the “reported presence of terrorists belonging to Indian proxy, Fitna al Hindustan.”

    During the raid, security forces effectively engaged the militants’ hideout, leading to a fierce exchange of fire. “After an intense fire exchange, four Indian sponsored terrorists were sent to hell,” the ISPR said in its statement.

    Weapons, ammunition, and explosives were recovered from the hideout. The ISPR added that the slain terrorists “remained actively involved in numerous terrorist activities in the area.”

    A sanitisation operation is underway to ensure clearance of the region. The ISPR reaffirmed that “security forces of Pakistan are determined to wipe out the menace of Indian sponsored terrorism from the country, and reaffirm the nation’s unwavering resolve to bring the perpetrators of terrorism to justice.”

    Continue Reading

  • Nato intercepts Russian fighter jets on ‘reckless’ violation of Estonian airspace | Estonia

    Nato intercepts Russian fighter jets on ‘reckless’ violation of Estonian airspace | Estonia

    Nato has intercepted three Russian MiG-31 fighter jets that violated Estonia’s airspace over the Baltic Sea in a 12-minute incursion, calling it proof of Moscow’s “reckless” behaviour.

    The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, a former Estonian prime minister, accused Moscow of an “extremely dangerous provocation” and said the latest Russian violation of Nato’s eastern borders “further escalates tensions in the region”.

    The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said Europe “stands with Estonia” and would “respond to every provocation with determination”.

    “As threats escalate, so will our pressure,” she said, calling on the EU’s 27 member states to swiftly approve the bloc’s 19th package of sanctions against Moscow.

    Tensions have been rising on Nato’s eastern border since Russian drones overflew Polish territory last week. A Nato spokesperson confirmed the latest incident, saying it had “responded immediately and intercepted the Russian aircraft” and describing it as yet another example of reckless Russian behaviour”.

    Late on Friday Moscow denied violating Estonian airspace. The Russian defence ministry said three MiG-31s were conducting a routine flight from Karelia, east of Finland, to an airfield in the Kaliningrad region, a Russian exclave bordering Poland and Lithuania.

    The jets flew over neutral waters of the Baltic Sea, more than 3km (1.8 miles) from Estonia’s Vaindloo island, “without violating Estonian airspace”, it said.

    The Estonian defence forces earlier said the MiG-31s were intercepted on Friday morning by Italian F-35 fighter jets based in Ämari in Estonia as part of the transatlantic defence alliance’s air policing mission over the Baltic Sea.

    The Russian fighters entered Estonian airspace near Vaindloo island in the Gulf of Finland, the Estonian military said. The jets did not have flight plans, had turned their transponders off and were not communicating with air traffic control, it said.

    Estonia’s foreign minister, Margus Tsahkna, said: “Russia has already violated Estonia’s airspace four times this year, which in itself is unacceptable. But today’s incursion … is unprecedentedly brazen.

    “Russia’s increasingly extensive testing of boundaries and growing aggressiveness must be met with a swift increase in political and economic pressure.”

    Tallinn summoned Russia’s chargé d’affaires to protest against the violation.

    EU leaders will discuss their “collective response” to Russia’s violations of European airspace at a meeting in Copenhagen on 1 October, said the European Council president, António Costa. “Today’s violation of Estonian airspace by three Russian military aircraft is another unacceptable provocation,” he wrote on X.

    Estonia’s prime minister, Kristen Michal, said on Friday evening that the country had requested Nato open consultations under article 4 of the alliance’s treaty, which states that members will consult whenever the territory, political independence or security of any is threatened.

    In a post on X, he confirmed that three Russian MiG-31 fighter jets entered Estonian airspace, and were confronted by Nato fighters, before they were “forced to flee”. “Such violation is totally unacceptable,” Michal said.

    A Nato spokesperson, Allison Hart, said that the North Atlantic Council will convene early next week to discuss the incident in more detail.

    At the White House on Friday night, Donald Trump told reporters he would soon be briefed on Russia violating Estonia’s airspace and made clear he was not pleased with the situation. “I don’t love it. I don’t like when that happens. Could be big trouble,” he said.

    The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, earlier condemned Russia’s actions as “outrageous” as he urged allies to take “strong action” against Moscow.

    skip past newsletter promotion

    “These are not accidents,” he warned in a social media post, referring to a long list of Russian violations of European airspace of Poland, Romania and Estonia and alleged interference in electoral processes in Romania and Moldova.

    “It requires a systemic response,” he said. “Strong action must be taken – both collectively and individually by each nation.”

    More than 20 Russian drones entered Polish airspace on the night of 9-10 September, prompting Nato jets to down some of them and western officials to say Russia was testing the alliance’s readiness and resolve.

    The Polish airspace violation was the most serious cross-border incursion into a Nato member country since Russia launched its all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022, although other alliance countries have reported similar incidents.

    Vaindloo island is 124 miles (200km) from the Estonian capital, Tallinn. Incursions by Russian aircraft are fairly common in the area, but do not usually last as long as Friday’s incident, experts said.

    “This could be a test by Russia to see how Nato responds to this type of challenge, but it could also be purely coincidental,” Jakub Godzimirski, a researcher in Russian security policy at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, told Reuters.

    “Still, this happens in a given context, having in mind what happened with the drone incursion in Poland a few days ago.”

    Earlier on Friday, the head of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, MI6, said there was “absolutely no evidence” that Vladimir Putin wanted to negotiate peace in Ukraine and that the Russian president was “stringing us along”.

    Putin “seeks to impose his imperial will by all means at his disposal. But he cannot succeed,” Richard Moore said. “He thought he was going to win an easy victory. But he and many others underestimated the Ukrainians.”

    Tallinn, a staunch supporter of Ukraine, said in May that Moscow had briefly sent a fighter jet into Nato airspace over the Baltic Sea during an attempt to stop a Russian-bound oil tanker thought to be part of a “shadow fleet” defying western sanctions.

    Reuters and Agence France-Presse contributed to this report

    Continue Reading

  • Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh honour Queen Elizabeth’s legacy on funeral anniversary

    Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh honour Queen Elizabeth’s legacy on funeral anniversary

    Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh honour Queen Elizabeth’s legacy on funeral anniversary 

    The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh began an official visit to Japan this week, highlighted by meetings with Emperor Naruhito and Empress Masako at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo.

    The royal couple, representing King Charles III, were also received by Crown Prince Akishino and Crown Princess Kiko. 

    Their trip underscores long-standing ties between the British and Japanese royal families.

    In a symbolic gesture of friendship, the duke and duchess joined the imperial family in the gardens of the Akasaka Residence to plant an oak sapling grown from a tree planted by the late Queen Elizabeth II during her 1975 state visit. 

    Notably, the late queen’s funeral was also held on September 19. 

    The couple also attended a traditional sumo tournament at the Ryogoku Kokugikan National Sumo Arena, where they joined spectators in applauding wrestlers in one of Japan’s most revered sporting traditions.

    Buckingham Palace said the trip reflects “shared history, mutual respect, and the enduring bonds of friendship between the two nations.”


    Continue Reading

  • Edinburgh Airport workers call off strike threat

    Edinburgh Airport workers call off strike threat

    Edinburgh Airport staff who aid passengers with reduced mobility have called off a strike after a new pay deal was agreed.

    OCS Group workers at Edinburgh Airport had threatened to walk out across the month of September after rejecting an initial offer of £12.60 per hour.

    The action was suspended at the start of the month after the company tabled a new agreement, which has now been accepted by members of the Unite union.

    A spokesperson for the union said they had secured a “significant improvement” in terms.

    OCS staff are responsible for helping passengers with mobility issues to get on and off flights.

    They also assist in the operation of ambulift vehicles, which load those in wheelchairs or other mobility aids onto aircraft.

    More than 100 passenger assistants employed by the firm backed strike action in a ballot last month.

    They described the offer made by OCS as “poverty pay” and scheduled a series of 48-hour stoppages over a month-long period.

    However, those were withdrawn after new terms – which included a 6.1% increase to the hourly rate, backdated to 1 January, 2025 – were tabled.

    The offer also included a further 5% pay increase from 1 January next year alongside improvements to the company’s sick pay scheme and overtime rate.

    Unite said that offer had now been accepted and future threats of strike action withdrawn.

    Unite industrial officer, Carrie Binnie, said: “The accepted offer represents a significant improvement to terms and conditions on where the negotiations began with OCS.

    “We are pleased to have delivered a good pay deal which provides a timely boost to our members.”

    OCS Group has been contacted for comment.

    Continue Reading

  • UN Security Council decides not to lift Iran sanctions, but still time to agree delay – Reuters

    1. UN Security Council decides not to lift Iran sanctions, but still time to agree delay  Reuters
    2. UN Security Council rejects resolution to extend Iran sanctions relief  Al Jazeera
    3. Iran says made ‘fair’ proposal to avert sanctions snapback  Dawn
    4. Europeans say Iran has not taken steps to stop ‘snapback’ sanctions  Euronews.com
    5. Talks between Iran, European nations on nuclear program said to make little progress  The Times of Israel

    Continue Reading

  • Wounded Futures: Sarajevo Film Festival, Part 2 – Notes

    Wounded Futures: Sarajevo Film Festival, Part 2 – Notes

    Continued from Part 1

    A guiding thread at the Sarajevo festival is Serbia’s fragile politics, which provide an invisible backdrop to Stefan Đorđevićs debut film, Wind, Talk to Me. A deeply personal exploration of a mother-son relationship, the film won the Heart of Sarajevo for Best Feature Film. Đorđević dedicated the award to his mother Neca, but also all the mothers who are staying up all night in Serbia worrying about their kids on the streets being beaten brutally and arrested.” Yet Đorđević chose to make not a political documentary but a poetic docudrama that traces the dreamlike flow of time.

    The film centers on Stefan, who comes home to celebrate his grandmothers birthday, the first family gathering since his mothers death. The gloomy reunion initiates a film-within-a-film: Stefan’s attempt to complete the autobiographical documentary he started with Neca. He returns to the small camper at Borsko Lake where his mother spent her last years, seeking respite from her illness in nature. In the countryside, Stefan rediscovers the rhythm of nature, allowing his memories to drift. In one scene, he lies against a tree, pressed closely to its trunk. (Remarkably, in scenes like this Đorđević managed to avoid kitsch.)

    For Neca, who spent much of her childhood climbing trees, the wind was a spiritual principle, for “life is listening to the wind.” Her voice, captured in archival footage, is replayed in the film—a spectral presence that ties past to present: The wind brings wishes to life.” The tender film was sparked by Đorđević’s own experience of grief, explored in a raw and unsentimental way. His hybrid film is both a tender tribute to his mother and a celebration of everyday life. All family members plays themselves, cowriting their dialogue and developing the script together.

    In one of the key scenes, Stefans grandmother, who is slipping into dementia, is asked why she washed her dead daughter’s dress. It’s a deeply touching moment that was unscripted, exposing how loss grips each of us in its own way. Much of the film unfolds in a single take, guided by the belief that life cannot be repeated,” as Đorđević put it after the Sarajevo premiere. The wind itself becomes a character in its own right, at times a subtle background sound, at others a metaphysical force. The film has an escapist feel, as if retreating from harsh political realities into fantasy, capturing the fragmented and asynchronous nature of grief.

    After the screening, the entire family gathered on stage, even the dog Lija, who acted in the film after being trained for months. In the Q&A, Đorđević recalled his first visit to the Sarajevo Film Festival, when he appeared as a skating teenager in Nikola Ležaić’s cult coming-of-age film Tilva Roš (2010), which has shaped a whole generation of post-Yugoslav cinema. In Tilva Roš, set in Bor (a town once defined by its vast copper mine, now just the largest hole in Europe), Đorđević played himself, spending his time skating, hanging out with friends, and making Jackass-like video clips.

    Wind, Talk to Me nods to Tilva Roš with a skating scene, yet follows a different path. It marks a turning point in the director’s journey, from youthful rebellion to introspection. With Wind, Talk to Me, Đorđević offers something fragile, a story that is drawn from personal life yet is universal. As the jury noted, Đorđević “takes a formally bold and inquisitive approach to his very personal subject,” coming up with “a film of beguiling melancholy and delicate beauty.” In the end, the film belongs to the wind, which whispers that dreams can come to life.

    Another compelling Serbian film came from Marta Popivoda. Her experimental short Slet 1988, about Yugoslavia’s last great mass performance, had its regional premiere in Sarajevo. After Landscape of Resistance, about a female anti-fascist partisan, Popivoda has returned with a new portrait film. Focusing on seventy-four-year-old dancer Sonja Vukićević, Slet 1988 intertwines an intimate exploration of the female body with a reflection on how the socialist past continues to inscribe itself into flesh and minds.

    As we learn at the start of the film, “slet” is a Slavic word for the gathering of birds in a flock, evoking both protection and sacrifice: Birds flock to protect themselves from predators and travel together to a better place. Individuals often pay the toll. The flock survives.” In socialist Yugoslavia, a slet was a mass performance celebrating the communist revolution and socialism, as the final event of Youth Day. The last slet took place on May 25, 1988, not long before the countrys bloody dissolution.

    The film interweaves three audio-visual layers: a teenage schoolgirls diary, archival footage of the last slet, and shots of Vukićević moving through a brutalist gym. These fragments clash and overlap, each reflecting on socialist modernity, its collective rituals, and the fragile bodies that enact them. Inhabiting the architecture around her, Vukićević’s body is a living archive of Yugoslavia. We see her massaging stiff joints back to life, her muscles still remembering old rhythms. The camera rests on her hands, skin, and breath, her gestures fusing collective choreographies with individual expression.

    Popivoda sharply cuts to footage of the 1988 performance: the young Vukićević in a white dress, whirling with disturbing intensity, almost obsessed, curls flying, as hundreds of youth frantically encircle her with torches: “We dedicate this performance to all messengers of good news. We dedicate it to the theater and to our spiritual parents, Meyerhold, Kandinsky, Malevich, Chagall, Mayakovsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Stenheim, Toller, Horváth, and all the great artists who believed in the new. We dedicate it to birth, life, love, and home.” It’s a strange mix of hope and foreboding, as if anticipating the collapse of a whole symbolic order.

    The voice-over, reading from a teenage girls diary, describes the slet matter-of-factly:

    Its usually boring; nobody watches it. This country is in a terrible state, there are no jobs, and theres Milošević, who is gross. Hes sucking up to Kosovo Serbs and pretending to be a hero. The situation is bad, and theyre saying it cant go on like this anymore. The slet was totally weird. I didn’t understand a thing. Some sort of dark performance. I was thinking, man, everythings changing.

    The film shifts back from the monumental footage of the performance to the lone dancer in a bleak studio, disenchanted and turned inward. In Popivodas tableau of the working-class neighborhood of New Belgrade, the camera wanders from Vukićević’s gym to children playing football in the shadow of socialist-era prefab blocks. Today, a new collective body is taking shape, once again rallied by nationalism, threatening the fragile stability of a country in a state of emergency.

    By 1988, the slet was hollowed out by depoliticization and rising nationalism. Youth from Montenegro, Slovenia, and Kosovo refused to participate. The performance no longer rallied Yugoslavia in unity and brotherhood but masked inevitable disintegration. Popivoda captures this feeling through jarring tonal shifts: the ecstatic rhythm of Ravels Bolero against Vukićević’s body drenched in sweat and anguish, breathing heavily. Just a few years later, Yugoslavia erupted into war, claiming countless lives, displacing millions, and subjecting women to sexual violence, especially in Bosnia. As Popivoda put it: a future forever wounded.”

    The wounds of Yugoslavias wars are still raw in a city commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. In July 1995, the Army of the Republika Srpska, under the command of General Ratko Mladić, captured Srebrenica and massacred thousands of Bosniak men. Mladić and other convicted war criminals are still celebrated as heroes among some Serbs. In Sarajevo, the scars of genocide and siege remain visible. Its war cemeteries and bullet-riddled walls along Sniper Alley stand as a warning of what is unfolding today before the worlds eyes, just as Srebrenica was broadcast into living rooms as it happened.

    Tarik Hodžić’s Bosnian Knight had its open-air premiere at the festival. It follows a man named Sead Delić, who escaped to the free territory of Srebrenica, where he served as a soldier and survived the 1995 genocide. After the war, he moved to the United States, where he fulfilled his childhood dream and became a truck driver. The traumas of the Bosnian war and the loss of his family continue to haunt him. Traveling through Bosnia, he immerses himself in medieval cosplay, exploring castles, fortresses, and medieval stećak tombstones, while riding his horse through green hills, shield in hand.

    Reimagining himself as a Bosnian knight, with constant flashbacks to the 1990s, Delić finds new meaning in his life. Leaving his own time, he enters the golden age of medieval Bosnia, meeting King Tvrtko I, Bosnia’s first ruler in the fourteenth century, and Catherine of Bosnia, who is “my queen.” Hodžić blends footage of Delić with interviews and music, immersing the viewer in the complex history of Bosnia. As the film progresses, what feels touching and authentic gradually slips into what looks like a travel-agency backdrop, with aerial shots and trite music.

    Sarajevo’s Gallery 11/07/95, a multimedia exhibition space, preserves the memory of the Srebrenica massacre through photographs, videos, and interactive documentary material. The exhibits reflect on not only what happened that day in Eastern Bosnia, but also on how the events have been represented and mediated, making Srebrenica a symbol of war and genocide worldwide. The Wall of Death is a sixteen-meter memorial inscribed with the names and ages of 8,372 people killed in Srebrenica, alongside walls displaying over six hundred photographs compiled by the mothers of the killed men.

    The shocking photos by Tarik Samarah, the founder of the gallery, document fragments of the still-unresolved trauma, capturing scattered objects, bodies, landscapes, and ruins in black and white. For Sontag, war photography has a “deeper bite” than moving images: a photo is a shot, a single image, a shocking “memory freeze-frame.” The camera, she wrote, is “the eye of history.” Samarahs images make us witnesses but also spectators; photos make things more real and less real at the same time.

    A photograph can say: “This is what war does. And that, that is what it does, too. War tears, rends. War rips open, eviscerates. War scorches. War dismembers. War ruins.” Yet Sontag insists that photos do not tell us everything, and “it seems normal for people to fend off thinking about the ordeals of others.” She cites a woman from Sarajevo who, before the siege, saw footage of the destruction of Vukovar on TV and “I thought to myself, ‘Oh, how horrible,’ and switched the channel.” Compassion without action is an unstable feeling.

    Gallery 11/07/95 also has on display a series of posters, titled Greetings from Sarajevo 1993,” by Trio Design Sarajevo, a collective founded by former students of the Academy of Fine Arts. They created a series of dark postcards during the war, using American pop art to send a message from the besieged city. In the exhibition catalogue, Aleksandar Hemon writes: But people inside didn’t just suffer and die. They also lived, thought, loved, played music, and strived to restore the city into its righteous place in the world, the world that abandoned it so frivolously.” The postcards were designed to show that Sarajevo never left the world but that “it was the world that left Sarajevo.” The world has come back to Sarajevo, bearing witness to wounded presents, pasts, and futures.

    Continue Reading

  • How to Deal with Trump at UNGA 80 • Stimson Center

    How to Deal with Trump at UNGA 80 • Stimson Center

    The presence of Donald Trump at the kickoff of the 80th anniversary High-Level Week at the UN General Assembly will reveal shifting attitudes to global power and how it is wielded, in addition to some inklings on the future of the international order that was authored primarily by the United States in the aftermath of WWII. The U.S. president’s appearance will also likely result in some uncomfortable moments — if not outright confrontations. In the minds of many, the festivities will no doubt be an example of the feebleness and irrelevance of the UN, but the atmosphere and determination on display will also illustrate how the organization can still be a focal point and advocate for the highest aspirations of the international community.

    Avoiding a train wreck may be the priority concern for those most worried about the future of the UN, but Trump’s visit to Turtle Bay may also serve to galvanize and focus on needed reforms. Trump’s antipathy toward the international liberal order and its multilateral manifestations is well known and fully baked into his approach to the UN. The fear of what he may do — and how to ameliorate the negative consequences — may enable the organization to revert to a focus on core competencies and inherent comparative advantages.

    There is no doubt that the Trump approach to the UN and the multilateral system has been sharp, direct, and chaotic. A first-day executive order withdrew the U.S. from the WHO, and two weeks later, another one ended U.S. participation in the UN Human Rights Council, questioned the value of UNESCO and UNRWA, and called for a six-month internal review of U.S. membership in hundreds of intergovernmental organizations to determine whether and how they aligned with American priorities as defined by the new administration. This was followed by a replacement of the nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the UN, minimal budget requests to fund the UN, and freezes of existing funding already in the pipeline. This broad-based hostility toward the UN —and the multilateral system in general — is further illustrated by the fact that Trump and UN Secretary-General AntónioGuterres (with whom he enjoyed at least a serviceable working relationship during his first term) have apparently not spoken directly this year on any topic of substance. Moreover, that the UN has been fully sidelined by the White House in Trump’s whirlwind of personalized diplomatic activity is also an indicator of what little regard Washington now has for the role and functions of the world body.

    US Funding: A Critical Indicator

    Trump’s hostility toward the UN has taken its most concrete form in financial payments to the UN budget. The U.S. is assessed for funding 22% of the UN’s regular budget and a slightly higher share of its sizeable peacekeeping budget (due to U.S. status as a permanent member of the Security Council). The timeliness of full U.S. payments to the UN have fluctuated for many decades under administrations of both parties. The Trump administration’s first budget recission package, which targeted unspent international assistance resources approved for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 and cut $1 billion for three core UN-related accounts, was signed into law in early August; the second “pocket recission” released August 29 clawed back an additional $1.36 billion from three accounts used to fund UN activities. Both of these came a couple months after the detailed release of the president’s budget request for fiscal year 2026, which sought to eliminate all amounts in two accounts customarily used to pay assessed funding to the UN, and drastically reduced levels in a third. In the place of those funds, the president requested the creation of an “America First Opportunity Fund,” which could be used in part, at the president’s discretion, to fund UN activities, but at reduced levels and in competition with other administration priorities. Early indications are that Congress seems generally inclined to follow the president’s lead and zero out most U.S. funding for UN organizations and programs.

    Yet to come are decisions on whether the U.S. should retain its membership in hundreds of international organizations. A comprehensive review promised in the February executive order should yield, likely after the UNGA festivities, a decision framework to determine whether to stay or to go. The review is expected to consider everything from the efficiency to the “wokeness” of the international organization and will analyze the return on investment the organization can offer in relation to a narrow list of U.S. interests.

    He is Not Entirely Wrong

    While despair and hand-wringing over the results of this budgetary drought and possible large-scale organizational withdrawal predominates, there are voices both inside and outside of the UN that suggest that Trump might have a point. Perhaps the UN and its many agencies have lost their way and become distant from global political realities, pushed themselves into issues and areas for which they had little comparative advantage, managed to waste money on futile gestures, and face impossible, overlapping, and contradictory demands. Clearly, the argument goes, some sort of reckoning was overdue, and it takes an American-driven budget crisis (as has often been the case in the past) to prompt it. The organization needs a shake-up — a healthy dose of “animal spirits” to animate and guide a return to its founding priorities. These voices know that this significant and fundamental challenge to the UN’s operational goals and methods will be the only way to reposition its work to be more consonant with and focused on the current and most important challenges facing the international community. While this disruptive scenario contains some plausibility, U.S. disengagement and distraction render Washington unlikely to want to lead — or even provide much input into — the reform process, so it will take the active involvement of UN institutions and other Member States to step up and decide how to direct next steps. 

    UN Response

    There are indications that this is happening. In the shadow of this sharp shift of direction and tone in Washington, the UN has taken some smart and strategic defensive steps to seize the initiative while shifting groups of UN Member States have either been content in the U.S. slipstream or have sought tools, resources, and mechanisms to counter it. UN Secretary-General Guterres released his UN80 Initiative in March, which while falling short of the root and branch reform some had been seeking, does appear to be a serious attempt to deal with the bureaucratic malaise and incoherent chaos of roles that seem to have gripped the UN in recent years. Several rounds of UN General Assembly discussion and debate have demonstrated widespread backing among Member States. In acknowledgment, the U.S. is taking some credit for spurring the effort and getting the organization back to basics. In late July, the General Assembly approved a Russian-drafted resolution on the Secretary-General’s initiative that welcomed “efforts of the Secretary-General to strengthen the United Nations in order to keep pace with a changing world and to make it fit for the present and future challenges.”

    The reaction among other Member States has been more mixed. Trump’s belligerence toward the UN and some of its landmark initiatives has caused some Member States, such as the Group of 77 developing countries, to highlight “the need for stronger coordination and inclusive processes to ensure the Group speaks with one voice on key issues.” The European Union has stepped up its coordination role among its Member States in an effort to demonstrate abiding support for high-profile UN initiatives. Other Member States, however, have viewed Trump’s approach as permission to exhibit their own skepticism about the value of UN initiatives and programs. Argentina, for example, recently decided to follow Trump’s lead, refraining from being a candidate for the UN Human Rights Council and withdrawing from the WHO. Although greater visibility may be beneficial, the risk is that there will be increasing polarization surrounding a number of UN projects and programs.

    What’s Next?

    While the UN80 Initiative is clearly necessary, it is not sufficient. The 80th UNGA will also mark the first anniversary of last year’s UN Summit of the Future, which was a strategic yet least- common-denominator effort to categorize new and revised thinking about where the UN could make a difference, even as it shied away from tackling some of the toughest organizational and financial questions the UN faces. Trump’s return to the international stage has forced those questions to the fore with a renewed urgency, triggering acceptance of an existential re-examination of where the UN needs to operate and why. 

    A realistic scenario at the end of this reform process could see the UN back in the center of international diplomacy as a trusted arbiter of conflicts and manager of limited humanitarian and development programs after some meaningful measures of rightsizing and reform. It will necessarily have to include a tighter focus on where the UN has a comparative advantage — peace and security, humanitarian relief, and global social and economic challenges. But this process will also necessitate a visible pullback from areas, such as many of the sustainable development goals, where the UN has recently ventured and which still maintain a significant number of engaged stakeholders among Member States, civil society, and the private sector. Will it be enough for Washington? Maybe.

    The U.S. push to shift the financial burden of the UN onto the backs of other countries may create some awkward dilemmas. Some see it as an opportunity to loosen what they perceive as excessive U.S. control and influence over the operations of key UN agencies. One particular and vivid example of other countries rallying to the UN’s defense could come from China. A few years ago, China tried to chip away at U.S. leadership in the UN through a combination of “wolf- warrior” diplomacy, which involved steady and pointed criticism of U.S. behavior at the UN, notably on its laggardly financial commitments. China also made a concerted effort to insert its nationals into key UN agencies, with the high point in 2020 when four Chinese citizens were in charge of major UN agencies. Additionally, Beijing sought to shift language across a range of UN decisions, mandates, and policies to bolster its own international initiatives, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, and to move away from traditional UN concerns such as human rights. In the past few years, Beijing has dialed these efforts back, but the UN’s new vulnerability at the hands of Washington may prompt a resurgence as China augments its efforts to diminish and constrain U.S. global leadership.

    Learning Curve

    It is also not unreasonable to speculate that an “America First” White House may come to see how a reformed and focused UN could be marginally useful in advancing U.S. national interests, as long as it remains fully subordinate to national governments. While Trump feels that multilateral diplomacy and settings enable countries to “gang up” together against the U.S., some of its advantages to U.S. national interests may also become apparent to him. Multilateral settings often give national leaders and diplomats a unique chance to better assess and anticipate other countries’ positions on key issues. UN Security Council debates, for example, are opportunities for countries to detail their visible positions on high-profile peace and security issues, identifying possible opportunities for common ground. Multilateral “convenings,” such as September’s High-Level Week, often provide unparalleled global attention for U.S. policies and personalities. President Trump relished the global attention paid to him during his appearances at the UN General Assembly during his first term. Presenting U.S. policies and positions at the UN can significantly shape international action, further legitimizing a U.S. priority or concern. Managing an international governance framework for artificial intelligence, for example, was something the Biden administration pursued through a UN General Assembly resolution; Trump may find the UN platform useful in promoting his very different set of priorities and gaining some degree of global acquiescence. In addition, multilateral institutions can often provide a formula and mechanism for burden sharing (and opportunities for burden shifting) on important U.S. foreign policy goals, such as peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. These often have a direct fiscal benefit for the U.S. economy through products and services procured from the United States. Domestic economic headwinds from a softening U.S. economy and energized lobbying from affected U.S. stakeholders, such as farmers and exporters, may prompt some White House reversals on funding cuts. 

    Trump is instinctively distrustful of multilateralism — its institutions and practices. It complicates dealmaking and diminishes, in his view, comparative U.S. strengths. Bilateral negotiations, he feels, give the U.S. an advantage across the negotiating table. However, while he has some recent success in bending global partners to a more direct bilateral approach on trade, many issues must still be addressed within a multilateral framework. Trump and other global leaders will want to find a way to work together in those multilateral frameworks to tackle those problems. A key factor will be how fast and far major world leaders, including Trump, can adapt to make that a real possibility. 

    One result of that adaptation could be a UN that today is more reflective of the needs and agenda of its members, but this will also necessarily have to be a UN with reduced ambition and capacity to tackle the world’s most urgent needs. Is that a tradeoff UN Member States are willing to make?  Addressing the crisis directly is no doubt preferable to a steady decline in capabilities that mirrors a reduced relevance. Such a step might also provide an opening for the U.S. to find its way back to some form of global leadership, even if on the narrower terms of U.S. interests and their continual advancement.

    Continue Reading

  • Hall leads heptathlon at half-way stage in Tokyo | News | Tokyo 25

    Hall leads heptathlon at half-way stage in Tokyo | News | Tokyo 25

    The first day of the heptathlon at the World Athletics Championships Tokyo 25 ended with Anna Hall holding a comfortable lead over Olympic champion Nafi Thiam and defending world champion Katarina Johnson-Thompson.

    The expected battle between the three stars of the event has so far lived up to expectations, though there’s also a chance that Ireland’s Kate O’Connor could keep one of the big three off the podium.

    All three of the pre-event favourites started the session by running season’s bests in the 100m hurdles, Hall speeding to 13.05, Johnson-Thompson clocking 13.44 and Thiam running 13.61. USA’s Taliyah Brooks was the only athlete to dip under 13 seconds, clocking 12.93.

    Hall moved into the overall lead after the high jump, where she cleared 1.89m. Thiam matched her at that height while Johnson-Thompson ended with a best of 1.86m.

    Hall, who joined the 7000-point club in Gotzis earlier this year, extended her lead with a 15.80m heave in the shot put, increasing her margin over Thiam (14.85m) and Johnson-Thompson (13.37m).

    The US all-rounder ended her day with a 23.50 run in the 200m, giving her a day-one score of 4154, just seven points shy of her tally en route to her world-leading 7032 earlier this year. Thiam, who clocked 25.52 in the 200m, currently sits in sixth with 3818 and Johnson-Thompson third, her 23.51 run bringing her tally to 3893.

    Ireland’s Kate O’Connor has also enjoyed a strong first day. She matched Johnson-Thompson’s marks in the 100m hurdles and high jump, then followed it with 14.37m in the shot and 24.07 in the 200m, putting her second overall with 3906.

    The heptathlon continues on Saturday (20) with the long jump, javelin and 800m.

    More to follow…

    Continue Reading

  • Kate References Diana During Trump Dinner After Reports the President Saw the Late Princess as the ‘Ultimate Trophy Wife’

    Kate References Diana During Trump Dinner After Reports the President Saw the Late Princess as the ‘Ultimate Trophy Wife’

    There were several storylines during the state banquet thrown by King Charles and Queen Camilla to welcome US President Donald Trump to the UK. There were the President’s words of praise towards King Charles and Prince William, and what some interpreted as a dig at Prince Harry. And then there was Kate Middleton, who was given a place of honor near the President.

    Middleton, who wore a bespoke long-sleeve gold gown by Phillipa Lepley, paid tribute to her late mother-in-law, Princess Diana, during the banquet. She did so by wearing the Lover’s Knot tiara, which was one of Princess Diana’s favorites. “Commissioned by Queen Mary in 1913 and modelled on a tiara owned by her grandmother, Princess Augusta of Hesse, it is instantly identifiable for its diamond arches topped with swinging pearls,” Nilesh Rakholia, jewellery expert and founder of fine jewellers Abelini, told WWD about the tiara. Middleton also wore earrings that used to belong to Queen Elizabeth II.

    More from StyleCaster

    Related: Here are the celebrities who support Donald Trump

    “Crafted by Garrard & Co., the diamonds and lustrous pearls catch the light in a way that feels both timeless and cinematic. The piece later became one of Princess Diana’s most iconic jewels, giving it an emotional weight that will always resonate with the public,” Rakholia said. “For the Princess of Wales, wearing it carries multiple layers of meaning. The Lover’s Knot has become her signature tiara, blending continuity with a subtle tribute to Diana while signalling her own growing role as the future queen. Pearls, central to its design, have long symbolised wisdom and enduring love — qualities that sit comfortably with Catherine’s public image. On a high-profile occasion like last night’s state banquet, wearing the tiara subtly signals her confidence in carrying royal history forward, while shaping her own public identity.”

    The decision comes after resurfaced comments from President Trump reveal his particular interest in the late Princess Diana. Former BBC presenter Selina Scott revealed that Trump tried to date Princess Diana after her divorce from Prince Charles in 1996, and referred to her as “the ultimate trophy wife.” However, Scott wrote in The Sunday Times that Princess Diana said Trump gave her “the creeps” and was put off by the fact that he sent flowers to her apartment.

    The President himself referred to Princess Diana in his second book, The Art of the Comeback, writing that his only “regret in the women department” was that he never had an opportunity with Lady Diana Spencer. He referred to her as a “a dream lady” and said she “lit up the room.”

    Then, in a 1997 interview, after Princess Diana’s death, Trump told Howard Stern that he could have slept with her. However, recently, in 2016, President Trump said there was no romantic interest there, and he just thought she was “lovely”.

    We might never fully know how Princess Diana felt about Donald Trump, but the subtle but continuous tributes by various members of the British royal family prove that her legacy is alive and well, even after all these years.

    Best of StyleCaster

    Sign up for Stylecaster’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

    Continue Reading