No single power should control the world
Russia, China, and India working together can make multipolarity a reality, Min Aung Hlaing has said
The world should not be controlled by a single power, Myanmar Prime Minister Min Aung Hlaing has said in an exclusive interview with RT. A multipolar system is the best approach to avoid conflict, he believes.
In the interview aired on Saturday, the prime minister stressed that developing countries such as Myanmar have especially suffered "under a unipolar system."
"That is why transitioning to a multipolar world works best for us. It is better to share global resources, to act fairly, to distribute things more evenly. Conflicts arise from inequality, so if we want to avoid conflicts, I believe a multipolar system is the best approach," he said.
"The US and Western bloc controlled the world through unipolarity. Then it became bipolar, and from bipolarity it returned to unipolarity. This made the West stronger," Hlaing said.
However, "in this era, Russia, China and India have made tremendous progress militarily, economically and scientifically," the prime minister noted. "As they have advanced, we have moved towards multipolarity and that is how it should be. No single power should control the world," he said.
If Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi, which are "three equally important global powers," collaborate and "act in unison, multipolarity will become a global reality. No one will accept this unipolarity anymore," the Myanmar leader emphasized.
In order to succeed in the multipolar world, smaller countries "must try to cooperate" with Russia, China, and India, he said. "Making that attempt is absolutely worthwhile. We need to develop our own economic capabilities, while simultaneously increasing cooperation with each other," he added.
Hlaing was among the high-ranking foreign guests who visited Moscow for the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany on May 9.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
35 minutes ago
- First Post
Why is Iran cracking down on dog-walking in public spaces?
Iran has expanded its ban on public dog-walking to over 25 cities, citing health, safety and morality concerns. With no national law outlawing pet ownership, local prosecutors are enforcing restrictions using penal codes. Critics argue the crackdown reflects deeper efforts to suppress personal freedoms and cultural shifts seen as un-Islamic by the regime read more An Iranian child looks at the dog as he walks, in Tehran, Iran, March 30, 2021. File Image/WANA via Reuters Iranian authorities have drastically widened restrictions on dog ownership and public pet activity by banning dog-walking in at least 25 cities across the country. While there is no nationwide legislation banning dog ownership outright, these local-level prohibitions are being enforced using Iran's penal provisions and religious-cultural rationale. The measures, first implemented in Tehran in 2019, have now become a countrywide trend. Judicial officials in numerous provinces have justified the crackdown by citing concerns over hygiene, safety, morality and social order. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The renewed focus on dog bans puts a spotight the Iranian state's enduring discomfort with what it considers Western cultural infiltration, and is a continuation of the post-1979 Islamic regime's efforts to suppress behaviours seen as un-Islamic or foreign in origin, reported AFP. How Iran is enforcing a ban on dog walking Over the past week, prosecutors and judicial officials in cities across Iran have imposed fresh restrictions against dog walking, including in Ilam, Kermanshah, Hamadan, Kerman, Boroujerd, Robat Karim, Lavasanat, Golestan, Kashmar and Khalkhal, among others. The restrictions follow a precedent set by Tehran in 2019, where police first issued a directive against walking dogs in public places. According to domestic news outlets, cities like Isfahan and Kerman recently joined the expanding list. In Isfahan, public prosecutor Mohammad Mousavian announced that the act of walking a dog is considered a violation of 'public rights' and that it jeopardises the 'health, comfort, and peace of citizens.' As per Mousavian's directive, all forms of dog walking — whether in public areas, parks or inside private vehicles — are now banned. 'Any form of dog walking in the city — whether in parks, public spaces, or vehicles — is prohibited and will be dealt with seriously,' he said. Law enforcement has been directed to confiscate vehicles transporting dogs and to shut down pet shops and unlicensed veterinary clinics. Authorities in Ilam echoed a similar position. According to local media, a city official said, 'Legal action will be taken against violators,' though further details were not provided. In Khalkhal, a city in Ardabil province, prosecutor Mozaffar Rezaei confirmed the prohibition, stating, 'Offenders will face consequences if they are seen walking dogs in parks, public spaces, or carrying them on their vehicles.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Rezaei also stated that 'in addition to the financial and physical damages, religious rulings and cultural considerations must be taken into account, as this practice reflects the promotion of a Western lifestyle.' In Kashmar, a city in northeastern Iran, the public prosecutor declared that the purpose of the ban was to protect 'public hygiene and the physical and psychological safety of the public.' The reformist-leaning Faraz News reported that more than 20 cities had announced new restrictions over a single weekend. Despite the lack of a uniform national policy, local authorities have relied on articles from Iran's Penal Code and Constitution to impose these restrictions, notably Article 638 concerning public morality, Article 688 on threats to public health, and Article 40 which prohibits actions that cause harm to others. Why Iran is banning dogs in public spaces Iran's theocratic establishment has long opposed dog ownership, perceiving it as a sign of Westernisation and cultural deviation. Religious interpretations that classify dogs as najis, or ritually impure, underpin much of this opposition. Contact with dogs, especially their saliva, is viewed by many scholars as religiously unacceptable. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In 2017, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei weighed in on the issue, stating: 'Keeping dogs for reasons other than herding, hunting and guard dogs is considered reprehensible.' He added via Tasnim News Agency, 'If this practice resembles that of non-Muslims, promotes their culture or causes harm and disturbance to neighbours, it is deemed forbidden.' The religious establishment's influence on public lawmaking was also visible in 2021 when 75 lawmakers signed a letter denouncing dog ownership as a 'destructive social problem' that could 'gradually change the Iranian and Islamic way of life.' This echoed earlier efforts in 2010 when Iran's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance barred advertisements for pets or related products. In 2014, lawmakers introduced legislation that proposed fines or even corporal punishment for dog-walkers, though the bill failed to pass. The controversial 'Protection of the Public's Rights Against Animals' bill, first floated over a decade ago, also attempted to curb pet ownership. Dr. Payam Mohebi, president of the Iran Veterinary Association and a vocal critic of the draft law, noted, 'Over the years, they have changed this a couple of times and even discussed corporal punishment for dog owners. But their plan didn't get anywhere.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He also recalled earlier legislative proposals that sought to confiscate dogs and abandon them in deserts or hand them over to zoos. What that means for dog owners in Iran With the latest directives, police have been authorised to take more aggressive measures. Authorities have been instructed not only to confiscate dogs and impound vehicles but also to track and prosecute social media accounts promoting pet ownership or selling animals. Mousavian called on Iran's cybercrime units to dismantle such accounts and launch legal proceedings against those behind them. The justification given was that the bans were 'in response to serious public demands.' These developments come amid increasing reports of dog owners being fined, harassed or facing threats of eviction. In some cases, dogs have been confiscated or owners arrested for walking their pets in public. This video that I've received today made me angry. A young man being beaten up savagely by the police in Iran just because he resisted to give his dog away. His mother is trying to help him but see what happens. According to the laws in Iran, walking a dog in public is a crime. — Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) July 13, 2021 Given the heightened scrutiny, many citizens have started walking their dogs late at night or driving them around to avoid police detection. Despite these efforts, enforcement has remained inconsistent. In cities like Tehran, many residents continue to walk their pets in less visible locations, revealing the difficulty of fully enforcing the ban in urban environments where pet ownership has steadily grown. How pet ownership is evolving into a form of resistance in Iran Owning a pet — especially a dog — has, over time, evolved into a subtle form of resistance in Iran. For younger generations in particular, having a dog is a lifestyle choice that also expresses personal identity and rejection of rigid state norms. The act of walking a dog in public is increasingly being interpreted as a symbolic challenge to the state's attempts to control everyday life. This dynamic is comparable to other forms of passive resistance in Iran — such as violating the compulsory hijab, participating in underground gatherings, or consuming banned substances. All are behaviours that exist in legal grey areas and continue despite government disapproval. Public frustration is growing over what some perceive as misplaced priorities. Critics argue that with rising concerns over violent crime and economic instability, law enforcement should focus on genuine threats to public safety rather than cracking down on pet owners. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In Isfahan, a group of animal rights activists gathered outside the governor's office to protest what they alleged was municipal culling of stray dogs and called for a reversal of recent bans, reported Iran International. It remains uncertain how effective the government will be in curbing a social trend that continues to gain popularity, despite — or perhaps because of — official disapproval. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Should China-Nehru link be investigated?': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey slams Rahul Gandhi; asks if 1962 war was 'imposed'
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey (left) and Rahul Gandhi/ File photos NEW DELHI: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on Monday intensified his criticism of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi , calling for a probe into the alleged historic links between the Nehru-Gandhi family and China. His demand stemmed from what he described as "revelations" found in declassified documents from the 1961 Belgrade Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). In a sharply worded X post shared on Monday, Dubey took aim at India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru , questioning his foreign policy choices during the formative years of the Cold War. 'Rahul Baba, do you know that at China's behest, your family's patriarch Nehru ji created the new gimmick of non-aligned countries? Look at the member countries of the first conference in Belgrade in 1961. After isolating India from both Russia and America, did any country come to India's defence during or after the 1962 war with China?' Dubey asked. — nishikant_dubey (@nishikant_dubey) The BJP MP went on to allege that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), championed by Nehru, eventually "benefited" China rather than serving India's strategic interests. Citing the 26th declaration adopted at the Belgrade Summit, Dubey argued that the text revealed Nehru's alignment with Chinese interests. 'Tibet to China, Panchsheel for China, and after making China a permanent member of the United Nations, this conference ordered the UN to recognise China as the sole representative state. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo By siding with China, did your family impose the 1962 war on India or not?' he said. He followed up with a pointed query directed at Rahul Gandhi: 'Should the relationship between China and the Nehru family be investigated?' The 1961 Belgrade Summit was the inaugural meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement — a coalition of states aiming to stay independent from both the Western and Soviet power blocs. Nehru was a key architect in shaping the principles and objectives of the movement. This is not the first time Dubey has targeted the Congress leadership. He previously accused the Nehru-Gandhi family of compromising India's interests in relation to Pakistan, particularly citing the Indus Waters Treaty. He had also flagged India's financial commitments to Pakistan under the treaty, claiming they were the result of Congress-era policies that weakened India diplomatically.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
How foreign students fuel US universities and turn them into global campuses
Decades ago, international students made up just a small slice of enrollment at elite American universities. But over the years, their growing presence has redefined campuses, reshaped university priorities, and sparked political tension—especially under the Trump Harvard University, foreign students once constituted only 11 percent of the student population. Today, they represent 26 percent. Across the Ivy League, international students now account for 27 percent of the student body, significantly higher than the national average of 6 percent. Columbia University leads the pack with foreign students making up 40 percent of its total growing international presence reflects a deliberate strategy by US universities to enhance their global appeal, diversify campuses, and tap into new revenue streams. According to education consultant Rajika Bhandari, rising middle classes in countries like India and China have fuelled the demand for elite Western education. Families in these nations are increasingly aware of global university rankings and see Ivy League schools as life-changing opportunities. Universities, in turn, have welcomed this trend. International students, particularly at the graduate level, often pay higher tuition rates and receive little to no financial aid. This influx has helped US institutions offset budget constraints and maintain robust STEM programmes. Schools like Harvard and Columbia now count foreign students as a critical part of their academic and financial this internationalisation has not been without pushback. Former President Donald Trump targeted foreign student entry as part of broader efforts to reshape higher education. In a controversial move, he used federal immigration powers to block foreign students from entering Harvard, triggering a legal challenge from the university, which denounced the action as retaliatory and dispute highlights a growing vulnerability: as colleges rely more heavily on international students, federal immigration policies have become powerful tools of influence. Trump even floated the idea of capping foreign student enrolment at schools like Harvard to the Ivy League continues to attract global talent—especially at the graduate level—public universities often face political pressure to limit international admissions in favour of in-state students. Despite this, the economic and academic contributions of foreign students are undeniable. Many go on to bolster the US workforce in critical areas like tech and engineering, injecting billions into the national economy along the historian William Kirby puts it, top graduate programs must recruit globally to remain competitive. Without access to the world's best minds, universities risk losing their what began as a slow international outreach has evolved into a defining feature of modern American higher education. But as political tides shift, universities must now navigate the fine balance between global ambition and domestic policy constraints.(With PTI inputs)Tune InMust Watch
