Latest news with #StockholmInternationalPeaceResearchInstitute
Al-Ahram Weekly
3 days ago
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Germany's Merz calls on Israel to provide aid to Gaza's starving population - War on Gaza
Germany's chancellor on Sunday called on Israel's prime minister to quickly provide aid to "starving" Palestinians in Gaza, in a phone call between the two leaders. Chancellor Friedrich Merz "expressed his deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza," said a government statement. "He called on Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu to do everything in his power to achieve an immediate ceasefire. He urged him to provide the starving civilian population in Gaza with urgently needed humanitarian aid now. This aid must reach the civilian population quickly, safely, and in the required quantities." Israel's war on Gaza -- described as genocide by several prominent genocide scholars and numerous aid organisations -- has killed at least 59,821 Palestinians and injured more than 144,851, the majority of them women and children. The war has been compounded by Israel's blockade on the entry of all humanitarian aid, including food, which has persisted for nearly five months since it was imposed on 2 March. Israeli occupation forces have killed over 1,000 Palestinians attempting to access food aid in Gaza since a US-Israeli so-called humanitarian foundation, began operations in late May, according to the UN. The UN and NGOs on the ground have decried the severe scarcity facing Gaza's 2.4 million people, with shortages of food, clean water, medicine and fuel. More than 100 aid organisations have already warned that "mass starvation" was spreading across the Palestinian territory. Germany, seeking to atone for the Holocaust, has long been one of Israel's most steadfast supporters. It is one of the biggest suppliers of weapons to Israel, providing about 30% of Israel's arms imports between 2019 and 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It ranks second only to the United States, which accounted for over two-thirds (69%) of all arms sold to Israel from abroad during the same period. Last year, Germany's arms sales to Israel were worth €326.5m ($361m) -- a tenfold increase compared with 2022 -- with the majority of export licences granted after the war on Gaza began in October 2023, according to Germany's federal government. But as the civilian toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza have worsened, Germany has recently intensified its subtle criticism of its ally. The German government has stated that it regards recognition of a Palestinian state as "one of the final steps on the path to achieving a two-state solution." *This story was edited by Ahram Online. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
India.com
6 days ago
- Politics
- India.com
These 44 countries may regret trusting China for..., Pakistan, Bangladesh paying heavy price for doing this, should India be worried?
These 44 countries may regret trusting China for..., Pakistan, Bangladesh paying heavy price for doing this, should India be worried? In the past few years, there have been many reports about problems with Chinese weapons. Some Chinese missiles failed during tests in Pakistan, and Chinese fighter jets crashed in Bangladesh. Still, China continues to sell its low-cost weapons and aircraft to many countries around the world. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China sold weapons to 44 countries between 2018 and 2024. But this raises some important questions as to which countries are buying these weapons, and why? Especially when there are doubts about their quality. And should India be worried about this? What went wrong with Chinese weapons in Pakistan and Bangladesh? Missile and jet failures in Pakistan Shaheen-3 Missile Incident : On July 22, 2025, Pakistan tested the Shaheen-3 missile, which was developed with help from China. The missile failed during the test and crashed near a nuclear facility in Dera Ghazi Khan, causing a loud explosion. Some debris even fell close to homes in Dera Bugti, Balochistan. This missile, like the JF-17 fighter jet, is a joint project between China and Pakistan. : On July 22, 2025, Pakistan tested the Shaheen-3 missile, which was developed with help from China. The missile failed during the test and crashed near a nuclear facility in Dera Ghazi Khan, causing a loud explosion. Some debris even fell close to homes in Dera Bugti, Balochistan. This missile, like the JF-17 fighter jet, is a joint project between China and Pakistan. Problems with JF-17 Fighter Jet : Pakistan's JF-17 Thunder jet, made in partnership with China, has faced many technical issues. In 2020, there were complaints about its radar not being accurate. Also, the FM-90 missile system, which comes with the jet, had faulty sensors. : Pakistan's JF-17 Thunder jet, made in partnership with China, has faced many technical issues. In 2020, there were complaints about its radar not being accurate. Also, the FM-90 missile system, which comes with the jet, had faulty sensors. Issues with F-22P Navy Ships: China also built F-22P frigates for Pakistan's navy. These ships had engine problems and did not perform well. Their radar and sensor systems were also found to be faulty. Despite all this, many countries still buy weapons from China because they are cheaper compared to those from the US or Europe. But the reliability of these weapons remains a serious concern. Jet crashes in Bangladesh raise concerns over Chinese Weapons Bangladesh had procured K-8W jet trainers from China, but by 2018, serious flaws were discovered in their ammunition systems. Several jets ended up crashing, causing both financial and operational setbacks for the Bangladeshi Air Force. Back in 2017, Bangladesh also bought the FM-90 surface-to-air missile system from China. However, issues soon emerged in its radar and sensor systems, leading to doubts about its reliability. These repeated incidents have sparked major concerns over the quality of Chinese-made military equipment. Despite this, many nations continue to turn to China for arms due to their lower prices and flexible terms. Which countries are buying Chinese weapons? According to data from the SIPRI and RAND Corporation, between 2018 and 2024, at least 44 countries purchased arms and aircraft from China. Most of these buyers are developing nations, drawn by the affordability and accessibility of Chinese military exports. Between 2018 and 2024, around 77.3 per cent of China's total arms exports went to Asian countries, followed by 19.1 per cent to Africa. Here's a region-wise breakdown of major buyers and the Chinese weapon systems they've acquired: Here's a look at some of the key countries and what they've purchased: Pakistan – China's top defense client Pakistan accounts for a massive 63 per cent of China's arms exports. The two countries also co-develop certain weapons. Key acquisitions include: JF-17 Thunder fighter jets (jointly developed), J-10C multirole fighter jets, PL-15E air-to-air missiles, HQ-9 and LY-80 air defense systems, F-22P and Type 054A/P frigates, Wing Loong drones. Bangladesh K-8W trainer jets, FM-90 air defense systems, Type 056 corvette ships, C-802 anti-ship missiles. Between 2010 and 2020, Bangladesh's total military purchases from China amounted to around USD 970 million (Trend-Indicator Value). Myanmar Myanmar has deepened defense ties with China, especially post-2021 coup. Weapons acquired include: 17 JF-17 fighter jets, CH-3A surveillance drones, Y-8 transport aircraft, Type-43 frigates, Type-92 armored vehicles. CH-3A drones were reportedly used for surveillance against civilian protestors following the military coup. Thailand S26T submarines, VT-4 main battle tanks, Type 071E amphibious landing ships. Indonesia C-705 anti-ship missiles, FM-90 air defense systems. In 2017, a fatal accident involving Chinese-made arms raised fresh questions about their reliability. Sri Lanka Y-12 transport aircraft, Type 053H frigate. Africa: 19.1 per cent of Chinese Arms exports Nigeria: CH-4 drones, VT-4 tanks, SH-5 artillery. Algeria: CH-4 drones, HQ-9 missiles, C-28A corvettes. Ethiopia: SH-15 self-propelled howitzers. Côte d'Ivoire: VN22B armored vehicles. Sudan: FTC-2000 trainer jets, Type 96 tanks. Uganda: Type 85 tanks, SH-3 artillery. Zambia: K-8P trainer jets, Z-9 helicopters. Kenya: VN-4 and WZ-551 armored personnel carriers. Namibia: FT-9 jets, Type 07PA artillery. Cameroon: Type 07PA artillery, WZ-551 vehicles. Ghana: Z-9 helicopters. 🇹🇿 Tanzania: Type 63A amphibious tanks. Djibouti: WMA301 assault guns. Senegal: PTL-02 assault guns. Morocco: Sky Dragon 50 air defense systems. Egypt: Wing Loong drones. Tunisia: CH-4 drones. Middle East: Expanding Influence Saudi Arabia Has actively procured CH-4 and Wing Loong drones. Over 40 Chinese defense firms participated in the 2024 World Defense Show in Riyadh. United Arab Emirates Bought Wing Loong and CH-5 drones, diversifying away from U.S. suppliers. Jordan turned to China for CH-4 drones in 2015, after the U.S. denied a request for MQ-1s. Iraq Acquired CH-4 drones and FT-9 trainer jets. Oman Purchased C-802 anti-ship missiles. Iran, a long-time Chinese defense partner since the 1980s, Iran has received: C-802 and C-704 missiles, Type 92 armored vehicles, Tanks, aircraft, and missiles. South America Venezuela: K-8W trainer jets, VN-4 armored vehicles. Bolivia: K-8 jets, Type 92 armored vehicles. Peru: Type 90B rocket launchers.
Business Recorder
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Defeating war mafias
'Every dollar spent on war is a dollar stolen from education, health, and climate resilience,' warned UN Secretary-General António Guterres. These are not empty words – they are a desperate plea from the head of the world's highest multilateral institution. Yet, the world continues to squander trillions, not for safety, survival, or human progress, but for destruction and death. Despite the blood-soaked history of the 20th and 21st centuries, the global obsession with militarism persists. Governments funnel precious resources into weapons of war, dragging their economies deeper into crisis while starving critical social sectors – education, health, clean water, and climate action. We stand at a dangerous crossroads. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reports that global military expenditure reached a record USD 2,718 billion in 2024 – the most rapid rise in any single year since the Cold War. This surge comes amid escalating humanitarian crises, worsening climate disasters, and widespread poverty. The UN warns this trend directly undermines progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The contrast is horrifying: over 700 million people live in extreme poverty, More than 800 million suffer from chronic hunger, and nearly 10 percent of the world's population goes to bed hungry. Diseases flourish where clinics do not exist, and children die for lack of clean water – while drones worth tens of millions patrol the skies. Is this the hallmark of a civilized world, or one held hostage by a militarized, profit-driven logic? Each fighter jet, missile system, and bomb is more than a display of military might – it is a monument to humanity's failure to learn from its own suffering. The truth is stark: where weapons flow, peace falters; where peace is ignored, poverty takes root. The United States, China, Russia, Germany, and India lead the world in arms spending. Even Europe, once celebrated for its commitment to human development, has joined the spree – swelling the coffers of the military-industrial complex. The Middle East remains a hotbed of arms trade, with Israel ramping up its defence spending to USD 46.5 billion amid its wars in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. In response, Saudi Arabia has raised its military expenditure to USD 80.3 billion. Fear and insecurity whether manufactured or real have become the currency of this global marketplace of destruction. War profiteers thrive in this chaos, turning human tragedy into corporate windfall. Let Gaza bleed, Ukraine burn, Tehran boil, or the people of Syria and Yemen perish – every bullet fired and every missile launched adds to their profits. This is not just an arms race; it is a symphony of suffering, orchestrated by military-industrial mafias who flourish on bloodshed and human misery. And yet, history tells us a different story. The most intractable conflicts – Vietnam, Northern Ireland, South Africa, the Balkans, even the Cold War – were resolved not by bombs, but by dialogue, diplomacy, and political courage. Why must we wait for unspeakable devastation before embracing reason? The answer lies in the military-industrial complex, a term popularized by Us President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned of its 'unwarranted influence' on democracy and governance. Today, that complex is global. It commands budgets larger than many national economies, manipulates foreign policy, and fuels perpetual conflicts – not for national defense, but for profit. Major arms manufacturers do not thrive in peace. They thrive in perpetual uncertainty, lobbying parliaments, shaping military doctrines, and securing contracts even in nations with no existential threats. This is no longer about national security; it is a self-sustaining ecosystem of fear, funded by public money and driven by private greed. If we truly want a world of peace, we must confront this addiction to militarization. Peace must be made strategically viable, politically rewarding, and economically sustainable. To control the arms race, bold and urgent action is needed to redirect military budgets: Diverting just 10 percent of global arms spending could end hunger, educate all and eliminate preventable diseases. Nations cutting defense budgets and investing in people should receive trade perks, debt relief, and development aid. The UN must be reformed and restructured and be freed from veto paralysis reflecting global democratic will or risk irrelevance. A strict global mechanism must hold arms suppliers and buyers accountable for weapons misuse. To world leaders, we must ask: What legacy will you leave behind? One of ruins, displacement, and despair – or one of peace, justice, and shared prosperity? The people over the globe demand a better, peaceful and a prosperous world. A peaceful world is not a utopian fantasy – it is a moral imperative. In an age defined by ecological collapse, economic inequality, and mass displacement, another century of war is unaffordable. War is not destiny. It is a choice – one rooted in greed, fear, and inertia. But peace, too, is a choice – a bold, wise, and courageous one. It must now become the collective will of humanity. Let us remember: the First and Second World Wars erased cities and generations. If we fail again, a Third World War will leave no victors – only graveyards. Victory will echo only in the silence of mass death. Let us instead build a common legacy of cooperation, dismantle the arms industry's grip on humanity, and channel our efforts toward defeating our true enemies: poverty, ignorance, disease, and climate chaos. These are the wars worth waging. Peace is not weakness. It is strength. It is survival. It is the only way forward. Let us choose it – and fight for it – together. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Otago Daily Times
17-07-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Endure and remain true to an ethic of all-embracing and forgiving love
Imagine if countries invested in peace rather than war, Andrew Shephard writes. The world of geopolitics has entered a new period. Established alliances and agreements of the last 80 years are being discarded. The United States administration threatens both bordering countries and its allies and is, once again, dropping bombs in the Middle East. In Europe, an empire of old, led by a strong man, seeks to expand its territory westwards. Meanwhile, in the Asia-Pacific, China's growing strength, previously projected softly, through aid and economic projects, is manifested through increasing military presence. Such developments, broadcast via news headlines and tweets, are, for many, a cause for considerable concern. Clamouring voices warn us of the inevitability of future conflict and the necessity to prepare for this. How do we do this? We arm ourselves. Accordingly, unsurprisingly, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) details that in 2024, global military expenditure rose for the tenth consecutive year. The $US2.7 trillion (about $NZ4.6 trillion) spent is the highest in Sipri's six decades of records, and a 9.4% increase on the previous year. Over the last decade, global military expenditure has increased by 37% and now accounts for 2.5% of the world's gross domestic product (GDP). The largest military spender remains, by far, the United States. The $US997 billion it spent in 2024 accounted for 37% of the total global expenditure. Yet, even in remote Aotearoa New Zealand, our leaders, alarmed by the geopolitical reordering, have responded in kind. The government's 2025 Budget sets aside $9b in extra defence funding over the next four years, on top of the current annual operating budget of nearly $5b. Over the next eight years, New Zealand's military spending will increase from just over 1% to more than 2% of the GDP. This rise in military expenditure has received little questioning. It is taken as self-evident that the appropriate response to the developments of emerging global powers, the territorial ambitions of authoritarian leaders, the emergence of new conflicts and the resurgence of old wars is to escalate military spending. But is this the only possible and only reasonable response? What if we were to interrogate one of the underlying assumptions at play here: that to live in a world of peace, one must be prepared for war? To engage in such questioning requires, firstly, a more honest accounting of human history: specifically, the crucial awareness that the current events we are witnessing are not an aberration but are par for the course. Periods without war, characterised by genuine peace, are the exception, not the norm of human history. This recognition, that peace is fragile and fleeting, appears to be at the heart of Jesus' enigmatic teachings contained in the Bible. In the gospels (Matthew 24:3-14), Jesus informs his followers that they will hear of "wars and rumours of wars." Strangely, though bombarded with bad news, with devastating accounts of humanity's inhumanity and predictions of grim futures of violence, Jesus tells his followers not to be "alarmed". Throughout his ministry, Jesus instructs his followers in a way of life characterised by love for their enemies and a commitment to peacemaking. Both then and now, amidst a culture of fear, trapped in catastrophising and hypothesising, always planning and preparing for conflict, Jesus proposes another way. Jesus warns his followers not to allow their imaginations and therefore actions to be configured by the constant, fear-inducing rumours of war. They are not to be "led astray", to "betray" their commitment to peace, to succumb to "hatred" or to allow their commitment to love to "grow cold". To remain true to an ethic of all-embracing and forgiving love in the face of human hatred and violence, Jesus encourages his followers to offer the watching world evidence an alternative is possible. An embrace of the way of peace, Jesus contends, is good news to a world addicted to war. Throughout the centuries, many have taken Jesus' commission seriously. A history of courageous leaders — Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Archibald Baxter, Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi, to name a few — ignoring the ceaseless rumours, have instead attuned themselves to a still, small voice and, imagining a new future, pursued peace. What might it mean for us as individuals, a society, globally, to mute the cacophonous voices of fear and embrace ways that make for peace? To suggest this alternative is not, as detractors often contend, utopian idealism. Nor is it confined to those who profess to be followers of Jesus' way of peace. After a civil war concluded in 1948, the country of Costa Rica abolished its military, redirecting military spending to environmental, education and health initiatives. Today, Costa Rica has some of the highest standards of living in its region, and a remarkable record of preserving and enhancing its ecological biodiversity. Imagine if Aotearoa New Zealand, with the same size population, redirected its weekly military spending of $110million away from preparing for death-dealing towards life-affirming ventures. Building new hospitals? Investing in the struggling education sector? Increased funding to preserve and protect our whenua, waterways, oceans and threatened biodiversity? How might such funds be used to prepare us for the impacts of climate change already being experienced? A proposal: for a future in which conflict is resolved not through war, and peace is less episodic, redirecting military funding toward peacebuilding and conflict resolution training in our schools might be a good place to start. ■Dr Andrew Shepherd is a senior lecturer in theology and public issue at the University of Otago. He will teach CHTH231-331 Christianity, War and Violence, as a pre-Christmas Summer School course in late 2025.
Deccan Herald
17-07-2025
- Business
- Deccan Herald
India's balancing act in a polarised world
The recent NATO Summit in The Hague witnessed the new dawn of realism, prominently led by United States President Donald Trump and followed silently by most European partners. With a commitment to 'invest 5 per cent of GDP annually towards defence — and security-related spending by 2025', it is clear that NATO is concerned about the US' security and economic Spain has taken a tough stance by announcing to spend only 2.1% of its GDP on military, followed closely by Belgium seeking 'maximum flexibility' in meeting NATO's revised spending target. Experts point out how the 2025 NATO Declaration bluntly made no mention of 'protection and preserving the rules-based international order as laid down by the UN Charter' — a norm noticed in earlier declarations. Although security-related issues are embedded within the NATO discourse, diplomatic endeavours need to factor in aspects of inclusive growth, shared prosperity, and collective multilateral order — an element noticed in its previous iterations.A look at global outlay on defence reflects a steady increase in spending capacities of the nations. For instance, in 2024, military spending globally rose by 9.4% in real terms, amounting to $2,718 billion. This also happens to mark the tenth consecutive year of an increased global defence budget. The US, China, and Russia top the list, with India in fourth position, as per the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Military Expenditure India, its defence capabilities are gradually expanding by way of industrial reforms, modernising armed forces, and strengthening the native defence production to meet not only its domestic needs but also for bolstering exports. Spending almost 2.3% of its GDP on defence, India allocated about $75 billion in its Union Budget geopolitical strife across the globe, including in its own backyard with terrorist strikes in Pahalgam in April, has perceptibly compelled New Delhi to focus its energies on enhancing self-reliance in military preparedness. Yet technological innovations, R&D development, and leveraging investment towards military infrastructure depend largely on a nation's fiscal framework and its strategic cordial, yet careful, stance away from a NATO membership is rooted in its historical foreign policy of non-alignment and maintaining its strategic autonomy. Instead of depending on any military alliance to aid its external security, India chooses to safeguard its borders flexibly, depending on the fast-changing regional and global in the face of increased global defence spending, development is naturally experiencing a stress test at the international scale. Talks of climate adaptation, building health resilience, energy transition and ensuring holistic sustainable development are gradually coming under intense strain. As such, Agenda 2030 appears to be in a tensions have visibly created ruptures in the global security architecture resulting in a fractured community. Real needs of the vulnerable, such as access to clean energy, nutritious food, and good health is a pivotal target for a majority of the low-income and least-developed countries. But at the same time, securing one's territorial integrity, sovereignty, and maintaining strategic autonomy is heavily reliant on cutting-edge military equipment and defence multilateral forums like the G20 and BRICS pushing forward the socio-economic development agenda of the Global South and attempting to establish a counterforce to the existing Western institutions, ensuring smooth international order is a persistent challenge. In this sense, threats by Trump to impose extra tariffs on the BRICS countries yet again underscore the economic realism aimed at capturing the currency market in global supply by both NATO and non-NATO countries alike, global spending trends on defence possibly enforce the reprioritisation of security over development. Yet it's a catch-22 situation. As one of the prominent partners and fastest-growing economies in the world, the big question remains — is India ready to deal with the economic trade-offs associated with welfare and larger developmental targets and defence spending?Swati Prabhu is Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
