UN chief slams US-backed Gaza aid plan
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Friday that a US-backed aid operation in Gaza is "inherently unsafe," giving a blunt assessment: "It is killing people".
Israel and the United States want the UN to work through the controversial new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, but the UN has refused, questioning its neutrality and accusing the distribution model of militarizing aid and forcing displacement.
Guterres said UN-led humanitarian efforts are being "strangled", aid workers themselves are starving and Israel — as the occupying power — is required to agree to and facilitate aid deliveries into and throughout the Palestinian enclave.
"People are being killed simply trying to feed themselves and their families. The search for food must never be a death sentence," Guterres told reporters. "It is time to find the political courage for a ceasefire in Gaza."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Ceasefire opportunity
After 22 months of relentless bloodshed in Gaza, Hamas has accepted a ceasefire proposal put forward by Egypt and Qatar, opening what may be the first real window in months for an end to the carnage. The deal, which promises a 60-day truce and the release of hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, among other things, carries the seeds of both respite and a potential path toward a lasting peace. The responsibility now lies squarely on Israel to accept it. Yet, if history is any guide, skepticism is warranted. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made no secret of his refusal to end the war until Hamas is "defeated and disarmed." His insistence on indefinite military control over Gaza and thinly-veiled plans for the "voluntary emigration" of Palestinians — widely seen as forcible displacement — undermine any hope that Israel is prepared to negotiate in good faith. Ceasefires, in Israel's playbook, have too often been treated as tactical pauses rather than steps toward peace. Humanitarian aid is allowed in only after international pressure mounts. Prisoner exchanges are used as bargaining chips rather than reconciliatory gestures. And promises of de-escalation give way to renewed offensives the moment political expediency demands it. It is not surprising, then, that the global community views Israel's potential acceptance of this deal with deep suspicion. This is where the global community must step in. If this cycle is to end, the world must make it clear that continued intransigence will carry serious consequences. The ceasefire proposal is not perfect, nor is it likely to resolve the deep wounds of decades-long conflict. But it represents a lifeline in a war that has cost the Palestinians dearly. To spurn it would be to send a global message that Israel values military dominance over genuine peace. Israel must be pressed to act.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US and India — strategic autonomy or alliance partnership
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam This piece attempts to deconstruct the imperatives of Sino-India bilateralism in the backdrop of US-China competition. In my piece, "War of Humiliation" in the South Asia magazine (November 2020), discussing the Sino-Indian escalation in Ladakh, I had concluded that expecting India to stand up to China as a bulwark, that the US continues to prop it, is too far-fetched. That China and India would never — willingly or unwillingly — walk into a full-blown war, that is in nobody's interest. If anyone expects India to stand upto to China — doing the US bidding — in a resurrected Great Game 2.0; then it is not knowing India of Chanakya Kautilya (375-283 BC). The wizard, also called Vishnugupta or the Indian Machiavelli, said: "Do not reveal what you have thought of doing... keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution." Fast forward to 2025, there is a lot of debate nudging India to be in a 'partnership alliance' with the US to counter China; as most analysts in the US/European camp, think India cannot do it alone. Some emphasise that 'strengthening Quad' (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising Australia, India, Japan and America) would be a good starting point for New Delhi. Realising that India is a 'hedging' middle power, eager to play both if not all sides, the US think-tanks deduce that transfer of more sophisticated and advanced technology to India would depend upon India's overt anti-Beijing credentials. The basic premise of such thinking is that a shooting Sino-Indian war is inevitable, and that militarily embroiling China through India is cost effective and makes strategic sense. This is a faulty presumption, just like encouraging Ukraine, a militarily weaker side, to go on the offensive against a militarily stronger Russia that was on the defensive, in the much-touted Ukrainian counter offensive in 2023, that failed. The recent chasm in the US-India relations emanate from India profiting from the Russian oil imports, debunking sanctions; Indian protectionism in trade against US agricultural products; Modi's refusal to acknowledge President Trump's role in the May 2025 Pakistan-India ceasefire; and the less than expected tenacity by India in the cited conflict. However, these are transient factors originating from the 'Trump Factor', who is in his last presidential term. There are compelling reasons for Washington to keep India in its orbit and repair the damaged relations, even if New Delhi is not very forthcoming. First, in the US strategic construct China, Iran, North Korea and Russia make a substantial 'authoritative scale (mass of alliance power)' presenting a unified challenge, needing a unified response. Moreover, China under President Xi has moved away from its confrontational 'wolf warrior' diplomacy, with emerging profile in the Global South, Africa in particular. Its BRI networks 126 countries through highways, railways, pipelines, power plants, grids, IT, social welfare and poverty-alleviation projects. BRI's staggering investment of over $1.3 trillion will ultimately cover 60% of the world population and 40% of its GDP, providing a viable economic alternative, catapulting the present US-led predatory economic system. Second, America's inability to compete with both China and Russia, requires 'strategic diplomacy', some US analysts emphasise. Its core purpose being 'cultivating favourable balances of power in critical regions' to project power far beyond material means. Strategic diplomacy aims to limit rival's options, without seeking to remove the sources of conflict. The US is moving past the age of 'globalized utopia', of being the single-most powerful hegemon, enjoying comprehensive security enabled by techno-military capabilities. It gravitates towards alliance partnerships and strategic diplomacy. And under its 'pivot to Asia' strategy, building the largest anti-China coalition, India stands out to bridge the gap between Washington's rhetoric and capabilities. US analysts feel Biden Administration was unable to properly cultivate New Delhi against Beijing. They feel Trump should nudge India closer 'as an ally on the level of Japan or NATO partners'. Will India do the US bidding willingly, under coercion or under inducements? The straight answer is no, under any conditions. Way back in a meeting with the US officials, when asked to analyse the US-India potential relationship, my answer was to 'go ahead and find out'. However, much that India will drag its feet on becoming involved in bloc politics, alliance partnership with the US, and ignore its 'strategic autonomy', Washington will persistently deploy the pressure-inducement combo to rope in New Delhi against China. Even if that means making India, as some suggest, a regional policeman and hegemon in South Asia, deferring to its advice and actions concerning other countries like Pakistan. The other touted US 'deputy sheriffs' to include Australia in Pacific Islands, Vietnam in continental Southeast Asia and Nigeria in Africa. Expecting India to go against one of its largest trading partners (despite an otherwise obscure border conflict), is not understanding geo-economics and history. First, Sino-India annual trade is over $100 for the third consecutive year. It was $124 billion for FY2024. Second, India has historically conceded against formidable adversaries, from Afghans to Moghuls to Portuguese to the British. That historic constant has not changed, Modi or no Modi. Third, militarily, Indian discussions concede China's conventional and nuclear advantage. India responds to this "conventional asymmetry" through infrastructural build-up, force modernisation and new raisings, compared to Beijing's better military infrastructure, capabilities, and logistics. The Indian security establishment remains concerned about greater survivability of Indian forces on the battlefield, in an environment of uncontrolled escalation, instead of investing in new weapon platforms especially the nuclear ones. However, paradoxically, the cited asymmetry also serves as a strong catalyst for peaceful co-existence. It is, therefore, no surprise that India gravitates towards better relations with Beijing under its 'Look East Policy', burnished by the recent chasm with Washington. When China's Foreign Minister, Wang Yi on August 18, 2025, during his two-day visit to New Delhi emphasised both nations to view each other as 'partners' and not 'adversaries or threats'; his Indian counterpart Jaishankar acknowledged the Chinese overtures, saying both countries were seeking to 'move ahead from a difficult period in our relations'. Wang met Premier Modi on Tuesday, reaffirming 'positive trend' in the bilateral ties. In sum, India it too smart to fall for the US trap.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US sanctions four ICC judges, prosecutors over war crimes investigations
The International Criminal Court building is seen in The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: Reuters/ File US President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday imposed sanctions on two judges and two prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, as Washington ramped up its pressure on the war tribunal over its targeting of Israeli leaders and a past decision to investigate US officials. In a statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the court "a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare" against the United States and Israel. The move drew ire from France and the United Nations. Paris urged Washington to withdraw the sanctions, while the ICC said it deplored the designations, calling them "a flagrant attack" against the independence of an impartial judicial institution. Washington designated Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji, Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal, and Kimberly Prost of Canada, according to the US Treasury and State Department. All officials have been involved in cases linked to Israel and the United States. Also Read: Pakistan, China, Afghanistan forge deeper alliance with CPEC extension "United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC's politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach," Rubio said. "I urge countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to resist the claims of this bankrupt institution." The second round of sanctions comes less than three months after the administration took the unprecedented step of slapping sanctions on four separate ICC judges. The escalation will likely impede the functioning of the court and the prosecutor's office as they deal with major cases, including war crime allegations against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defense chief Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. In March 2020, prosecutors opened an investigation in Afghanistan that included looking into possible crimes by US troops, but since 2021, it has deprioritized the role of the US and focused on alleged crimes committed by the Afghan government and the Taliban forces. Read: India test-fires nuclear-capable Agni-5 missile amid US tariff tensions The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states or if a situation is referred by the UN Security Council. Although the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in its 125 member countries, some nations, including the US, China, Russia, and Israel, do not recognise its authority. It has high-profile war crimes investigations under way into the Israel-Hamas conflict, as well as in Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Venezuela. Undermining international justice Both France and the United Nations said the judges' work is crucial for international justice. "Their role is essential in the fight against impunity," a statement from the French Foreign Ministry said. The US sanctions undermine the foundation of international justice, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said, adding: "The (US) decision imposes severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor." Netanyahu's office issued a statement welcoming the US sanctions. The designations freeze any US assets the individuals may have and essentially cut them off from the US financial system. Guillou is an ICC judge who presided over a pre-trial panel that issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Khan and Niang are the court's two deputy prosecutors. Canadian Judge Kimberly Prost served on an ICC appeals chamber that, in March 2020, unanimously authorized the ICC prosecutor to investigate alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan since 2003, including examining the role of US service members. Also Read: Trump rules out US troops for Ukraine The Trump administration's dislike of the court goes back to his first term. In 2020, Washington imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court's work on Afghanistan. Countering Rubio's call to other countries to oppose the ICC, the court urged member states to stand in solidarity. "The Court calls upon States Parties and all those who share the values of humanity and the rule of law to provide firm and consistent support to the Court and its work carried out in the sole interest of victims of international crimes," it said.
