Syria FM says wants to ‘strengthen relations' with China
DAMASCUS: Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shaibani expressed on Monday his government's willingness to build a 'strategic partnership' with China, a key backer of ousted ruler Bashar Assad.A foreign ministry statement said that Shaibani met with the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, Fu Cong, at UN headquarters in New York, where he had been representing Syria at a session of the Security Council.In the meeting with Beijing's envoy, Shaibani said Syria's new government was seeking to 'strengthen relations with China' and that the two countries 'will work together to build a long-term strategic partnership in the near future,' according to the statement.This was not the first high-level meeting between the two governments since Islamist-led forces toppled Assad in December, capping years of civil war. In late February, interim President Ahmed Al-Sharaa met with the Chinese ambassador to Damascus.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
5 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
What we know about GHF, the controversial US-backed group pledging aid to Gaza
A shadowy US-backed group pledging to distribute aid in Gaza has faced accusations of helping Israel fulfil its military objectives while excluding Palestinians, of bypassing the UN system, and of failing to adhere to humanitarian principles. What do we know about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), and what criticism has it faced? Who are they? Registered in Geneva in February, the GHF has no known offices or representatives in the unofficial capital of the humanitarian world. Its former executive director, Jake Wood, announced his resignation on Sunday, saying it was impossible to do his job in line with humanitarian principles. His announcement came hours before the organization said it would start delivering aid. On Monday, the GHF said it had commenced operations, delivering 'truckloads of food to its Secure Distribution Sites, where distribution to the Gazan people began. 'More trucks with aid will be delivered tomorrow, with the flow of aid increasing each day,' it said, as it announced the appointment of a new executive director. The UN said on Tuesday that it had no information on whether it had actually delivered any supplies. Photos distributed by the group on Monday showed trucks loaded with boxes, and people carrying some of the boxes away, at a site surrounded by metal fencing. What the photos do not show is the precise location of the distribution or the number of alleged beneficiaries. Why does it matter? Israel ended its total blockade last week after stopping any aid from entering Gaza for more than two months, but aid groups say only a trickle of assistance has been allowed into the territory so far. The blockade sparked widespread hunger amid severe food and medical shortages in a territory already battered by the war. For decades, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees had spearheaded aid efforts in Gaza, with dozens of other organizations participating in efforts to assist the population. Israel has accused UNRWA of providing cover for Hamas militants, claiming that some of the agency's employees took part in Hamas's October 7 attack. A series of investigations found some 'neutrality-related issues' at UNRWA, but stressed Israel had not provided conclusive evidence for its headline allegation. What criticism do they face? One of the criticisms the GHF has faced has been over its designation of what it calls secure distribution sites -- a tactic humanitarians say contravenes the principle of humanity because it would force people to move again in order to stay alive. The vast majority of Gaza's population of more than two million have already had to move several times over the course of the war sparked by Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack. Another question critics have raised is who determines the location of the distribution points -- especially in light of Israel's plans for the 'conquest' of Gaza and the movement of its population. In an article published on May 24, the New York Times reported, citing unnamed Israeli officials, that a new US-backed aid plan for Gaza had been 'conceived and largely developed by Israelis as a way to undermine Hamas.' Who's going to work with them? For now, no one aside from the United States has announced support for the GHF. The United Nations has ruled out involvement in its plan, with spokesman Farhan Haq saying that it 'does not accord with our basic principles, including those of impartiality, neutrality, independence.' A group of NGOs, including ActionAid, this month said: 'Aid that is used to mask ongoing violence is not aid, it is in fact humanitarian cover for a military strategy of control and dispossession.' Last week, Swiss rights watchdog TRIAL International asked authorities in Switzerland to investigate the GHF in order to determine whether its activities adhered to Swiss and international humanitarian law. It also criticized the alleged use of private security companies which it said led to a 'risky militarization of aid.' What about Hamas and the Palestinians? In Gaza, the interior ministry called the GHF's work part of an Israeli 'plan... to control aid distribution in the Gaza Strip.' It also called the GHF a 'suspicious' organization and accused Israel of using it for military purposes. The GHF on Monday accused Hamas of issuing 'death threats targeting aid groups supporting humanitarian operations at GHF's Safe Distribution Sites, and efforts to block the Gazan people from accessing aid at the sites.' Israel has repeatedly accused Hamas of diverting humanitarian supplies and of weaponizing hunger in the Gaza Strip. With Hamas still powerful in Gaza more than 18 months into the war, and with suspicions of collaboration with Israel landing people in jail or dead, Palestinian businessmen who have in the past worked with aid groups were unlikely to cooperate with the GHF.
Asharq Al-Awsat
6 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Gaza Humanitarian Group Is a ‘Distraction' from What Is Needed, UN Says
The work of a US-backed private humanitarian organization tasked with distributing aid in Gaza is a distraction from what is needed, such as the opening of crossing points, a UN spokesperson said on Tuesday. The GHF, which began as an Israeli-initiated plan and has drawn criticism from the United Nations and others, said on Monday it began distributing supplies in Gaza. This follows an Israeli blockade for 11 weeks that was only partially lifted in recent days and that prompted a famine warning from a global hunger monitor and international criticism. "We do not participate in this modality for the reasons given. It is a distraction from what is actually needed (...)," Jens Laerke, spokesperson for the UN humanitarian office (OCHA) told a Geneva briefing, calling for the reopening of all crossings. He also called for an end to Israeli restrictions on the type of aid being allowed to enter the enclave, which he said was being "cherry picked" and did not always match needs. Israel is in charge of vetting all aid entering Gaza and regularly rejects a wide array of items it considers could be put to military use by the Hamas group. It says the new system is aimed at separating aid from Hamas, which it accuses of stealing and using food to impose control over the population, a charge rejected by Hamas, which says it protects aid convoys from gangs of armed looters. Juliette Touma, communications director of the UN Palestinian refugee agency, said that it had large medical shipments waiting that have been denied entry into Gaza. "We have over 3,000 trucks, not only of food, but also medicines that are lining up in places like Jordan, like Egypt, that are waiting for the green light to go in, and they're carrying medicines and that is expiring soon," she said.
Arab News
7 hours ago
- Arab News
The end of certainty and the rise of the rest
The liberal international order that has shaped the world since 1945 is no longer the uncontested framework for global governance. Born of the Western victory in the Second World War and codified through institutions like the UN, International Monetary Fund and NATO, the Pax Americana was long underpinned by open markets, expanding democracy and US-led multilateralism. Today, this vision no longer commands consensus — even in the West. The postwar order is not collapsing overnight, but it is being overtaken — by geopolitical pluralism, ideological contestation and the rise of credible alternatives. Across the globe, new political models are emerging that blend state-led capitalism, centralized governance and selective modernization. These are not temporary deviations. They reflect historical traditions, domestic legitimacy and regional priorities. In many parts of the Global South, Western-style liberal democracy is no longer seen as the default destination. It is simply one among many options. Nowhere is this shift clearer than in the internal disarray of Western democracies. In the US, partisan tribalism, social media disinformation and institutional gridlock have eroded democratic norms. 'Trumpism' could outlast President Donald Trump. It prioritizes identity over policy, suspicion over alliance and power over principle. America's leadership in innovation, higher education and cultural influence remains formidable. But its ability to lead by example has weakened — both at home and abroad. In many parts of the Global South, Western-style liberal democracy is no longer seen as the default destination Dr. John Sfakianakis Europe faces its own reckoning. The center is hollowing out, squeezed between populist right-wing nationalism and disillusioned progressivism. Inflation, inequality and housing insecurity have undermined the postwar middle class, once the bedrock of European stability. The social democratic model is stretched thin, caught between rising fiscal demands — from climate to defense — and waning political will. Brexit, far from being a sovereign renaissance, has revealed the costs of detachment in an interdependent world. Slowly and quietly, the UK is rebuilding practical ties with Europe out of necessity rather than nostalgia. This fraying coherence has global consequences. For decades, the West assumed others would converge toward its model. That presumption is no longer viable. Across Asia, the Middle East and the Global South, performance-based legitimacy, long-term vision and technocratic governance are gaining appeal — especially after the West's uneven response to COVID-19, various economic crises and political polarization. The Middle East exemplifies the contradictions of this emerging order. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are pushing ambitious economic reforms — from Vision 2030 to sovereign wealth diversification — while maintaining firm, centralized control. They are no longer just recipients of external power but brokers of influence. The region is also a strategic arena where great powers compete. Washington, Beijing and others are no longer merely extending power, but negotiating it. China's rise further underscores the shift. The Chinese model — rooted in state-led capitalism, digital infrastructure and strategic planning — offers an alternative to Western liberalism that many countries find compelling. Legitimacy in China comes not from elections but from economic performance, social stability and national revival. For much of Southeast Asia and parts of Africa, Beijing's approach represents a pragmatic, if imperfect, model for development without democratization. The war in Ukraine marks not only a geopolitical rupture but a rejection of the Western-centric international architecture Dr. John Sfakianakis The war in Ukraine marks not only a geopolitical rupture but a rejection of the Western-centric international architecture. Russia seeks strategic autonomy through multipolar partnerships, turning eastward toward China and southward toward its BRICS partners. This loose coalition has grown into somewhat of a platform for institutional counterbalance to the West — spurred by resentment over the weaponization of the dollar and the perceived double standards of liberal norms. Yet this is not a story of inevitable Western decline. The US still anchors the global financial system, leads in technological innovation and shapes cultural narratives. Europe remains a bastion of soft power and institutional depth. But influence must now be earned, not assumed. The era of uncontested Western primacy is over. What remains is a world of competing systems, fractured legitimacy and negotiated relevance. What is fading is not democracy itself but the illusion of its inevitability. The world is fragmenting into a mosaic of governance models — liberal, illiberal, technocratic, hybrid. The task for the West is no longer to assert universality but to demonstrate adaptability and relevance. That task begins at home. Without restored trust, renewed institutions and a revitalized social contract, Western democracies cannot credibly lead abroad. Internationally, engagement must be grounded in mutual respect — not paternalism. Sovereign states will chart their own paths. Partnership, not proselytization, is the new currency of diplomacy. We are not entering a new Cold War era. We are entering something more uncertain: a world without a center of gravity, without a sole definition of progress and without a clear endpoint. The liberal order's twilight is not the end of order — it is the beginning of something more complex, more pluralistic and more demanding. The end of certainty may feel like decline. But it could also be the beginning of a more honest, resilient global order — if the West is willing to adapt.
