Israeli exceptionalism and Global South
Two events in the past week provided yet another glimpse of the global political shifts and growing inter-state tensions. One was a meeting in Bogota, Colombia, convened by the Hague Group, which is expressly opposed to the Israeli-US exceptionalism in the Middle East (read Palestine) — an issue that has already caused ripples in Europe too. The other event revolved around Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's extensive visit to China, with a message that Sino-Australia relations remain unaffected by the intense tariffs' wars that the US President Donald Trump is waging.
The Hague Group is an alliance of eight countries committed to cutting military ties with Israel and which insists on compliance with the arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued by the International Criminal Court. The group consists of Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal, and South Africa.
A joint statement issued after the meeting of nearly 30 countries — including China, Malaysia, Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey, Iraq, Qatar, i.a. — demanded enforcement of international rulings to halt what they described as genocide in Gaza.
The Bogota declaration called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, unrestricted access for humanitarian aid and the international prosecution of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The Hague Group declared after the meeting that the international community has "a legal and moral obligation to act".
"This includes suspending all military trade with Israel and ensuring that the orders of the ICJ (International Court of Justice) are fully respected and implemented," it said.
However, only 12 of the participating countries — including six founding members (Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia, Namibia, and South Africa), plus Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, Oman, and Saint?Vincent and the Grenadines — formally signed the joint declaration to underscore their commitment to the six specific measures (such as arms embargoes and port restrictions).
Pakistan's absence was conspicuous if viewed it against the presence of almost all the heavy-weights of the Islamic fraternity - Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkiye, Bangladesh, and Qatar invited.
Reportedly, the diplomat assigned to attend got his visa "very late" and hence missed the event, but one wonders if that was the only reason for one of the lead Muslim countries to miss such an important event in support of the Palestinian and against the Israeli aggression?
Yet, the formal declaration, and its literal endorsement by a dozen countries marked the strongest joint statement yet by the group as well leading nations of the Global South. The Hague has aligned itself with South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. While the court has issued provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide, critics say those rulings have been largely ignored.
Also present was Francesca Albanese, the United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. She warned that the world is facing a "critical test".
"The events in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide," she said. "This is not just a legal matter — it is a moral one. The time for action is now."
Now to the Australian PM Albanese's weeklong discussions and meetings in Shanghai. The visit carried two distinct messages; despite being the core member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) and the Australia, United Kingdom, and the United States (AUKUS) partnership, the country's PM is ready to defy Trump's aggressive posturing in general, and the unjustified US campaign focused on China containment. This geo-political alignment cast its shadow also on the Sino-Aussie relations, leading to unnecessary tensions since 2017.
The second message centred on Australia's resolve to maintain economic autonomy — national interest — and steer its trade relations with China clear of the partnership with the US and other allies.
Bilateral relations have been on the mend since Albanese took office in 2022 as Australia's 31st prime minister. In an apparent thaw, China lifted its import restrictions on Australian lobsters in December last year. That is why PM Albanese chose to engage with Premier Li Qiang — a meeting that coincided with the 10th anniversary of the implementation of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
Both vowed to ramp up economic cooperation, and work for greater market and industrial integration - something that is sweet music to the Chinese ears because of Beijing's non-aggressive approach rooted in geo-economic relationships. And these are rapidly expanding under the Belt and Road Initiative.
In a world riven with turmoil and uncertainties all around, it is indeed a welcome sign that as a key ally of the United States, Australia realizes the long-term hazards associated with political brinkmanship and economic coercion. It probably realizes that the Global South probably offers more economic and trade cooperation dividends than the partnership in geopolitically driven alliances. As political and economic centres gravitate towards China — and very soon to India too — the future belongs to Asia: a reality that the Global North needs to realise sooner than later instead of peddling narratives that blatantly paint China and its allies in bad light.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Bhutto's paradoxes
Listen to article As another July 5th recedes into Pakistan's collective memory, it remains a symbolic rupture: the night when the populist experiment of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was abruptly terminated by General Zia-ul-Haq's martial law in 1977. Yet beyond the immediate tragedy of democratic collapse lies a deeper contradiction, one embodied in Bhutto himself. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto occupies a uniquely paradoxical position in Pakistan's political history. Revered by many as the architect of Pakistan's first populist revolution, and reviled by others as a feudal masquerading as a socialist, Bhutto's legacy defies simple categorisation. The contradiction between his progressive rhetoric and elite background lies at the heart of both his appeal and his failure. Bhutto rose to prominence during the waning years of Ayub Khan's "technocratic" dictatorship, a period marked by growing resentment among the middle and working classes. In 1967, he launched the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) with the electrifying slogan of Roti, Kapra Aur Makaan (bread, clothing and home), calling for radical land reforms, industrial nationalisation and workers' rights under the banner of "Islamic socialism". His early writings, including The Myth of Independence (1969), struck a defiantly anti-imperialist tone, calling for sovereignty and self-reliance in the face of global power dynamics. Stanley Wolpert portrays Bhutto as the country's first genuine populist, a man who spoke directly to the dispossessed. Yet the dissonance between Bhutto's public image and his class identity was stark. Born into a wealthy Sindhi landowning family, Bhutto was steeped in the very feudal structures he claimed to oppose. His elite education in Berkeley and Oxford further insulated him from the lived realities of the working class. Marxist sociologist Hamza Alavi would later characterise him as part of the post-colonial salariat — those whose authority derived from colonial-era bureaucratic and landholding privileges. Nowhere was this contradiction more visible than in Bhutto's land reforms. Introduced in 1972 and again in 1977, the reforms were billed as revolutionary but largely failed in implementation. Legal loopholes allowed landowners to retain vast holdings by registering them as family or religious properties. Bhutto's estates remained intact. As political economist Akbar Zaidi has argued, the reforms were more performative than redistributive, designed to satisfy leftist constituencies while preserving the socio-economic status quo. His nationalisation drive, another key pillar of his socialist platform, proved similarly flawed. Though intended to dismantle capitalist monopolies, the programme often targeted small and medium enterprises while leaving entrenched landowning elites untouched. It expanded state control but failed to democratise economic power. Corruption, inefficiency and political favouritism marred its implementation. Politically, Bhutto's government bore authoritarian hallmarks. Dissent was met with repression; opposition newspapers shuttered, student organisations such as the National Students Federation (NSF) violently suppressed, and political rivals jailed. In Can Pakistan Survive? Historian Tariq Ali argued that Bhutto's fear of genuine popular mobilisation led him to rely increasingly on the very instruments of elite power he once condemned. To understand Bhutto's paradox is to enter the realm of Antonio Gramsci's theory of passive revolution, a transformation from above that adopts revolutionary language without dismantling elite structures. Bhutto was adept at this: donning shalwar kameez to mingle with workers in Karachi, delivering fiery speeches against "capitalist exploiters", while maintaining patronage ties with Sindhi waderas and securing his feudal interests. Ayesha Jalal, in Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia, characterises Bhutto's rule as a blend of "patronage politics and authoritarian populism" — a balancing act between military power, landed gentry, and an urban proletariat that was never allowed to organise independently. His politics opened the door for middle and lower-class participation, yet failed to institutionalise any long-term redistribution of power. This legacy of ambivalence continues to shape Pakistan. The PPP, under Benazir Bhutto, inherited its founder's populist lexicon but not his capacity for mass mobilisation. The party remains rhetorically progressive but structurally tethered to elite interests. The deeper question Bhutto's life leaves behind is a persistent one: Can a man born into privilege truly dismantle the systems that uphold that privilege? Bhutto was not a revolutionary in the tradition of Marx, Mao or Nasser. He was a skilled orator, a master of political theatre and a shrewd tactician. But his socialism was symbolic rather than structural, and his revolution was more rhetorical than real. His story is emblematic of post-colonial populism across the Global South, where leaders deploy the language of the masses while safeguarding the interests of the few. Bhutto's contradiction was not a footnote in his political journey. It was the foundation upon which his power was built and the fault-line along which his project ultimately fractured. So, Bhutto, answering the question, claimed he could. But history suggests he did not.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
ICJ's climate ruling
Listen to article The International Court of Justice's landmark advisory opinion that states are obligated under international law to tackle climate change is a seismic shift in the global fight against climate catastrophe. By unequivocally declaring that states failing to curb fossil fuels and protect the climate system commit an "internationally wrongful act", the world's highest court has transformed moral rhetoric into legal obligation. For vulnerable nations, the ruling is a vindication of their long-running complaint that developed countries owe the rest of the world for causing the climate crisis. The ICJ opens the door for affected states to seek restitution, compensation, and restoration of their ecosystems. While proving direct causality remains complex, the court insists it is not impossible. The opinion also explicitly names fossil fuel subsidies, exploration licences and corporate deregulation as potential violations, making the transition to renewable energy a requirement, rather than an optional policy. The court also notes that "a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights", which means that, at least in theory, countries that fail to address climate change are human rights violators. Unfortunately, any law is only as strong as its enforcement mechanism, even more so for international law, where violators such as the US and Israel routinely walk out of treaties, rather than accept adverse decisions. Even before the US withdrew from most climate-related agreements under President Trump, it had long disregarded international laws that conflicted with "American interests", whether related to climate, conflict, or commerce. Still, at the bare minimum, the non-binding opinion should push the EU and countries that claim to hold human rights in high esteem into increasing their investment in climate change mitigation, while strengthening the case for some form of reparations, whether direct cash transfers or some form of preferential treatment for the worst-hit countries.
Business Recorder
3 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Israel army kills two Palestinians in West Bank
RAMALLAH: The Palestinian Authority on Thursday said Israeli troops killed two Palestinian teens overnight in the occupied West Bank, with Israel's army confirming the deaths but saying its forces targeted people throwing firebombs. 'The General Authority of Civil Affairs informed the Ministry of Health of the martyrdom of Ahmad Ali Asaad Ashira al-Salah (15 years old) and Mohammad Khaled Aliyan Issa (17 years old), killed by (Israeli) gunfire last night, Wednesday, in the town of al-Khader, south of Bethlehem,' said the agency, which is affiliated with the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli army confirmed the report to AFP, saying its forces had killed two people from a group of 'several terrorists'. Gaza civil defence says Israeli fire kills 93 aid seekers 'During an (Israeli army) operation adjacent to the area of Al-Khader… soldiers identified several terrorists hurling Molotov cocktails toward a central highway in the area,' it added. 'The soldiers responded with fire toward the terrorists, eliminating two of them.' Violence has surged in the West Bank since the beginning of the war in Gaza, sparked by an unprecedented Hamas attack on Israeli soil on October 7, 2023. At least 960 Palestinians – including militants and civilians – have been killed by Israeli soldiers or settlers, according to an AFP tally based on Palestinian Authority data. In the same time period, at least 36 Israelis – including civilians and security forces – have been killed in Palestinian attacks or during Israeli military operations there, according to official Israeli figures.
