Latest news with #Peacebuilding
Malay Mail
05-08-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Anwar earns respect from China and US by mediating Cambodia-Thailand peace talks — Phar Kim Beng
AUG 5 — Amid a shifting and uncertain global order, Malaysia's Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has achieved what few regional leaders have managed: gaining the respect of both China and the United States while elevating Asean diplomacy from ceremonial declarations to substantive peacebuilding. In hosting the historic Cambodian-Thai military talks in Kuala Lumpur, Anwar has not only asserted Malaysia's credibility as Asean Chair, but also demonstrated that principled neutrality, when anchored in regional responsibility, can earn international trust. The ongoing negotiations at the Malaysian Ministry of Defence between the military leaderships of Cambodia and Thailand mark the first time that defence officials from both sides have come together under third-party auspices to address their tense border dispute. These talks are no mere photo opportunity. Overseen by Malaysian Army Chief General Mohammad Nizam Jaafar, they are deeply technical and intentionally discreet, focusing on contentious flashpoints and the mechanics of sustaining the ceasefire agreed just days earlier. With military attachés on standby to monitor implementation and a parallel Asean-led mechanism under development, Malaysia is doing more than hosting; it is actively shaping the architecture of regional security. By convening these talks ahead of Thursday's General Border Committee (GBC) meeting — comprised of 54 senior representatives including Defence Ministers and Army Chiefs — Malaysia has created the preconditions for concrete deliverables. That this process is happening without fanfare, and yet with full awareness and tacit support from Beijing and Washington, is no accident. Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Manet, Malaysia's Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Thailand's acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai shake hands as they pose for photos following a press conference, on the day of mediation talks on the Thailand-Cambodia border conflict, in Putrajaya July 28, 2025. — Reuters pic Both great powers — China and the United States — have vested interests in a stable Asean . For China, the Thai-Cambodian border serves as a critical corridor into mainland Southeast Asia and Indochina. For the U.S., stability in this region reduces the risk of further militarization and offsets the spread of spoilers aligned with anti-democratic impulses. By playing the honest broker and avoiding overt alignment with either camp, Malaysia under Anwar has demonstrated that Asean need not be a pawn in great power politics — it can be a partner. Malaysia's role here is fundamentally Asean in spirit but global in consequence. This is the type of conflict resolution that aligns with the original intent of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC): non-violence, peaceful dialogue, and regional solutions to regional problems. Yet too often, TAC principles have remained aspirational. Anwar's facilitation of these military-to-military talks has moved them squarely into the realm of action. What sets this initiative apart is its firm foundation in confidence-building measures, not coercive diplomacy. No guns are drawn, no ultimatums issued — just serious, high-level engagements that involve both civilian and military chains of command. That this is happening in Kuala Lumpur — not Bangkok, Phnom Penh, Beijing, or Washington — speaks volumes about Malaysia's growing strategic capital. The regional silence that greeted the initial outbreak of violence between Thailand and Cambodia only underscored the urgency for credible intervention. With over 300,000 displaced and military tensions simmering since late July, there was a real risk that Asean 's credibility could collapse under the weight of its own indecision. That collapse has now been averted, thanks to Malaysia's resolve and the maturity of the Anwar administration's foreign policy apparatus. This moment is not just a win for Malaysia — it is a defining test for Asean 's evolution. If the current talks result in verified ceasefire compliance and long-term deconfliction measures, it would mark a milestone in Asean 's ability to contain bilateral disputes before they metastasize into regional crises. The long-criticized 'Asean Way' is being refined in real time: quiet, deliberate, but no longer impotent. For Malaysia, this is also a return to its long-standing tradition of behind-the-scenes diplomacy — from the days of Tun Hussein Onn's neutrality to Tun Razak's outreach to China. But under Anwar, there is a sharpened edge: the willingness to assume responsibility, invite the aggrieved parties to the table, and assume verification roles typically eschewed by Asean states. This is not just diplomacy — it is leadership. And the world is watching. From Beijing's calibrated approval to Washington's quiet endorsement, Malaysia's credibility is being affirmed. In an era where most peace efforts collapse under the weight of mistrust or great power rivalry, Malaysia's achievement offers a rare and valuable alternative: that a mid-sized Muslim-majority state in Southeast Asia, led by a Prime Minister with intellectual depth and moral clarity, can broker peace without playing patron or pawn. Anwar Ibrahim has elevated not only Malaysia's stature but also the potential of Asean as a regional peacemaker. In so doing, he has redefined the standards of statecraft in Southeast Asia — with the endorsement, if not the applause, of the world's most powerful capitals. * Phar Kim Beng PhD is Professor of Asean Studies, International Islamic University of Malaysia and Director of Institute of Internationalisation and Asean Studies (IINTAS). ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
ABC News
26-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
UN Security Council faces a whole new world in 2025 — and Donald Trump is testing it
Since the end of World War II, there are two international organisations that have arguably done more than any others to prevent a third catastrophic global conflict: NATO and the United Nations Security Council. Donald Trump, with his doctrine of American isolationism, is severely testing both — by hinting at pulling out of NATO, and bypassing the Security Council on his way to bomb Iran. This week, NATO members met in the shadow of Trump's latest dig at the alliance, when he suggested he may not be entirely committed to NATO's Article 5 — the mutual defence pact, which states that an attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all. "Depends on your definition," he said on his way to the meeting. "There are numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends." NATO members are now adjusting to the possibility of reshaping their alliance and the need to rethink their defence budgets and procurements. The Security Council is a key part of the UN, which today celebrates 80 years since its foundation, but it is far less able to adapt than NATO. So what impact has Trump's decision to attack Iran without going to the Security Council first had? "I think it's done major damage," said Professor John Langmore, chair of the Initiative for Peacebuilding at Melbourne University. "The most powerful country in the world has acted without regard to the laws and processes, and got away with it. "It very seriously undermines the Security Council, and certainly damages its credibility." It's widely accepted that the UN Security Council, created in the aftermath of World War II, no longer reflects the world as it was then. Its most powerful members were the victors of the war; the US, Great Britain, France, and Russia, along with China, who all have the power to veto any resolution. On June 5, the US vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent" ceasefire in Gaza, despite its 14 other members voting in favour. In February, the US sided with Moscow over the war in Ukraine by drafting a Security Council resolution calling for an end to the war, but containing no criticism of Russia. Nonetheless, Langmore believes the council continues to fulfil its main job of preventing global conflict. "It's been highly effective because there hasn't been a World War III," he said. "It hasn't been able to stop local more localised violence in a whole series of ways. But it has acted in ways that have prevented global war." Chris Michaelsen, a Professor of International Law at Western Sydney University, agrees the council is still effective. "The world is a more peaceful place," Michaelsen said. "It doesn't seem like it, but that's an empirical fact. The number of inter-state wars in the 80 years since the establishment of the United Nations has drastically reduced." Michaelsen said in many big crises — "Ukraine, Iran, Gaza" — the veto countries prevented the council from acting as the UN charter envisaged. "But there are still many other crises — in Africa, and other parts of the world — where despite the massive antagonism now between the Trump administration, China and Russia, the council is still functioning," he said. But he said while the council will survive the Trump presidency, and America's withdrawal from international bodies like the World Health Organisation, its future may depend on who sits in the White House after he leaves office. "If it's another MAGA administration, then I think it can potentially have a lasting damaging effect on the council — because we are essentially looking at 10 years of US disengagement," he said. "I think that's not fatal, but it leads to a further irrelevance."
Russia Today
23-05-2025
- Business
- Russia Today
Trump wonders ‘what the hell' Zelensky was doing in South Africa
US President Donald Trump voiced surprise at a visit by Vladimir Zelensky to South Africa during a meeting with his South African counterpart Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House on Wednesday. According to Trump, he phoned Zelensky at the time of his April visit and asked 'what the hell' he was doing in South Africa. Ramaphosa explained that South Africa had shared some 'lessons' on peacebuilding with the Ukrainian leader. 'That's what Nelson Mandela taught us: if you want to achieve peace in the country, do it unconditionally, sit down and talk,' the South African president said. Zelensky's visit to Pretoria sparked widespread criticism from South African political commentators and activists due to his dismissive attitude toward a 2023 Ramaphosa-led peace initiative. The two presidents also discussed US concerns about alleged violence against white Afrikaners and the South African government's land reform policies. Trump reportedly sought clarification on what he described as a 'genocide' of the white minority. Ramaphosa dismissed the claims, reaffirming South Africa's democratic values and rejecting the idea that land was being unlawfully seized. 'No, no, no, no,' he responded when asked about land confiscation. 'Nobody can take land,' he added. The South African delegation also used the visit to present a revised trade and investment framework aimed at strengthening bilateral economic cooperation. Parks Tau, South Africa's Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, confirmed that the proposal was delivered during talks with the US Trade Representative. Tau said trade was at the core of the new proposal. 'We also discussed customs duties and tariffs with the American side,' he noted. He pointed out that nearly 77% of US goods imported into South Africa enter duty-free, while a similar portion of South African exports, primarily commodities, also benefit from tax exemptions. Tau added that South Africa highlighted its growing gas shortages and signaled interest in importing US liquefied natural gas (LNG), which was positively received by both the US ambassador and White House representatives. 'It's one of the areas that we will be following up on,' he said. As he departed the White House, President Ramaphosa told reporters that the talks had gone 'very well.'
