Latest news with #oftheUnitedNations
NDTV
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- NDTV
Watch: US Teen Sings Indian National Anthem, Wows Internet On Independence Day
As India celebrates its 79th Independence Day on Friday (Aug 15), a video of an American teenager singing the national anthem has been circulating on social media, leading to warm reactions from social media users. In the now-viral video, 17-year-old Gabe Merritt can be seen performing a heartfelt rendition of Rabindranath Tagore's composition, Jana Gana Mana. Disha Pansuriya, who lives in the US, shared the video on Instagram with the text overlay: "You feel proud when a 17-year-old American sings Indian National Anthem." Ms Pansuriya revealed that Gabe had learned the national anthems of several countries but had a particular affinity towards the 52-second-long Indian anthem. "Oh my god! My heart just smiled through this. He is just amazing, he knows mostly every country's national anthem, but @india is his favourite! I pray and wish he goes places with his exceptional talent!!" Ms Pansuriya captioned the video. Watch the viral video here: View this post on Instagram A post shared by Disha pansuriya (@dishakpansuriya) 'Lots of love from India' As of the last update, the video had garnered nearly 60,000 views and hundreds of comments, with the majority of social media users expressing astonishment at the teenager's soulful singing of the anthem. "That was a super proud moment," said one user, while another added: "Beautiful brother. Lots of love from me and India and I invite you to come to India and visit the beautiful country." A third commented: 'This was the best thing I saw today.' Jana Gana Mana Rabindranath Tagore, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1913, originally composed the hymn as "Bharoto Bhagyo Bidhata" in Bengali on December 11, 1911. The first of the five stanzas of the song was adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India as the National Anthem on 24 January 1950. The members of the Indian delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations held in New York in 1947 gave a recording of "Jana Gana Mana" as the country's national anthem.
New Indian Express
28-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
17th BRICS Summit: Bold words, blunt impact
If one were to go solely by the Declaration of the 17th BRICS Summit held in Rio de Janeiro without context, the Summit appears to be a roaring success. It hit the right notes on cooperation, projecting a cohesive voice for the Global South, and standing up to the Global North with calls for radical economic and governance reform. With the Declaration spanning over 100 clauses that cover the BRICS pillars of political and security, economic and financial, cultural and people-to-people cooperation, the Declaration at first glance appears both extensive and impressive. However, beneath the rhetoric, the document essentially reiterates past positions, which lack substance and fail to provide a clear roadmap for implementation. The core of the BRICS agenda has been to position and present itself as an alliance to counter Western dominance and advance Global South cooperation. The Declaration recognises the need for progressive tax reform to help reduce inequality. However, it limits itself to the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, while missing the opportunity to discuss and develop other mechanisms for just taxation, such as global corporate tax or programmes for regional tax cooperation among BRICS+ countries. The Declaration raises alarm about an increase in global military spending. It also reiterated BRICS' commitment to the peaceful resolution of international disputes through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy. It condemned the military strikes against Iran, a member of BRICS, in particular on 'peaceful nuclear facilities'. It called it a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, as well as relevant resolutions of the IAEA. It raised grave concern about the continuous Israeli attacks against Gaza, obstruction of the entry of humanitarian aid into the territory and use of starvation as a method of warfare, and called for adherence to international law. It called for negotiations to achieve an 'immediate, permanent and unconditional ceasefire, the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and all other parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory'.
Herald Malaysia
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Herald Malaysia
UN Charter: Eighty years of a fragile miracle
Eighty years have passed — and the UN Charter is feeling every one of them. Jul 11, 2025 The preambular words of the UN Charter displayed at the United Nations Headquarters, in New York. (UN Photo/Mark Garten) By Andrea TornielliEighty years have passed — and the UN Charter is feeling every one of them. On June 26, 1945, the Charter of the United Nations was signed in San Francisco. The Preamble sets out the goal to 'save succeeding generations from the scourge of war' and 'promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.' The signatories were representatives of 50 countries emerging from the most catastrophic — and not yet concluded — world war in human history. That war claimed the macabre record of around 50 million deaths, most of them civilians. Eighty years later, this institution — a 'temple' of multilateralism, whose very purpose lies in prioritising negotiation over the use of force, in maintaining peace, and in upholding international law — shows all its wrinkles. Yet, the UN's creation represented a true miracle, one that occurred in the American city named after the Saint of Assisi. This fragile miracle is in a way like the glass of the UN's 'Glass Palace,' but it is one that has produced significant achievements: the codification and development of international law, the construction of the human rights framework, the refinement of humanitarian law, the resolution of numerous conflicts, and many peacekeeping and reconciliation missions. Today, more than ever, we are in need of this fragile miracle. We must make it less fragile, believe in it—as the Successors of Peter have believed, visiting the UN Headquarters from 1965 to 2015, recognising the United Nations as the appropriate legal and political response for the times in which we live — times marked by technological power that, in the hands of ideology, can produce horrific atrocities. Speaking at a conference at the University of Padua recently, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto spoke with clear realism. 'We must guard the achievements of years that have led us to codify international law, which is totally different from an international order and very often in opposition to it. Because the international order,' the minister added, 'is normally imposed by someone, by the strongest, who can decide that in some cases that law does not matter. That's what we are living now… This is because multilateralism has died, and the UN matters in the world about as much as Europe does: nothing!' It doesn't take much imagination to understand what he's referring to. Just look at what has happened over the past three years: from Russia's aggression against Ukraine to Hamas' inhumane October 7 attack on Israel; from the war that razed Gaza, turning it into a ghostly heap of rubble and corpses, to the alarming conflict between Israel and Iran that drew in the United States as well. Sadly, it is true: the international order is imposed by the strongest, who decide when to proclaim and when to ignore international and humanitarian law, depending on what suits them. That is why, eighty years after the beginning of that fragile miracle, we repeat with the voice of Pope Leo XIV the 'more urgent than ever' words of the prophet Isaiah: 'Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.' 'Let this voice from on high be heard,' said the Pope. 'Let the wounds caused by the bloody actions of recent days be healed. Let all logic of domination and revenge be rejected, and let the path of dialogue, diplomacy, and peace be chosen with determination.' Humanity must choose the path of multilateralism and negotiation, which began eighty years ago. It is the only alternative for a world teetering so dangerously on the edge of self-destruction. --Vatican News
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
30-06-2025
- Politics
- First Post
How Trump had his way in Nato's Hague Summit
Nato allies spared no effort in putting the US president at ease at the two-day Hague summit. However, it was more evident than ever that the US and Europe no longer see themselves as sharing a common enemy read more The Nato Summit, held recently on June 24–25 in The Hague, has been described as both 'transformational' and 'historic'. 'We're witnessing the birth of a new Nato,' said Finland's President Alexander Stubb. Following the conclusion of the summit, the White House stated: 'In a defining moment for global security, President Donald J Trump achieved a monumental victory for the United States and its allies, brokering a historic deal to dramatically increase defense contributions across the Nato alliance — marking a new era of shared responsibility and strength in the face of global threats.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Nato is a political and military alliance of countries from Europe and North America. Its members are committed to protecting each other from any threat. It was created by 12 countries from Europe and North America on April 4, 1949. Since then, 20 more countries have joined Nato through 10 rounds of enlargement. At present, Nato has 32 member countries—30 from Europe, besides the USA and Canada. These countries, called Nato Allies, are sovereign states that come together through Nato to discuss political and security issues and make collective decisions by consensus. The principle of collective security is at the heart of Nato's founding treaty. Article 5 of Nato's Charter says that 'The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,' and that 'if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area'. Recent geopolitical shifts, particularly Trump's stance on burden-sharing, have raised concerns about Nato's future. In his first term as president, Trump had repeatedly threatened to withdraw US forces from Europe as part of his 'America First' policy. Moreover, Trump had also declared that he was not going to protect Nato members that failed to meet their defence spending targets. Therefore, during the run-up to the Nato Summit at The Hague, there were anxieties among the other Nato members that if the US withdrew from Nato, it would have enormous strategic consequences as Russia would get emboldened to be more aggressive towards its European neighbours. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In 2023, the US Congress had passed a legislation requiring Congressional assent for any US withdrawal from Nato. Even so, the procedure for withdrawal remains relatively straightforward, requiring only one year's notice under Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Given Trump's threats in his first term that he would not protect allies who failed to spend enough on defence and even quit Nato, the stakes for this intergovernmental military alliance have been high. Not surprisingly, Trump's Nato allies spared no effort in putting him at ease at the two-day summit, and he completely dominated the summit. There are some important takeaways from the recent Nato Summit. The first takeaway is the big hike in defence spending. Nato members have committed to a 5 per cent defence spending target which has to be reached within a decade. It's a remarkable jump from the current 2 per cent guideline, which too isn't met by eight Nato members out of 32. Only 3.5 per cent of that figure is meant to be achieved entirely through core defence spending on troops and weapons. The remaining 1.5 per cent can be shown as being for 'defence-related expenditure'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Thus, Trump returned to Washington with a deal which he was happy with. The other member states had agreed to increase their Nato spending, which is what he wanted. As he put it, 'I left here differently. I left here saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a rip-off, and we're here to help them protect their country.' However, not all European Nato members came on board. Spain officially refused to be a party to the agreement, while Slovakia had reservations. The second major takeaway, which is important from the point of view of the European countries, is that the Nato Summit declaration reaffirmed its commitment to provide support to Ukraine. The declaration called it an 'enduring sovereign commitment' towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry. The declaration also stated that the security of Ukraine contributes to their own, and to this end they would make direct contributions towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is generally felt that the European Nato members persuaded Trump to agree to this in return for their pledges to increase defence spending. Significantly, the declaration stated that contributions to Ukraine's security could be included by members when calculating their own defence spending. This is important in the context of their being able to meet the 5 per cent defence spending target. The third takeaway is that there are some important signals about how things are changing. The recent Nato summit communique is much shorter and its language much weaker as compared to previous years. The statement issued after last year's Nato Summit in Washington had stated that Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and gravely undermined global security. It had also said that Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to the Nato Allies' security. In contrast to this, the declaration issued after the recent Nato Summit in The Hague does not even mention the Russian invasion of Ukraine, though it does make a reference to 'the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Again, while the Nato Summit held in Washington last year under then-US President Joe Biden had issued a declaration that mentioned Ukraine 59 times, this year's much shorter declaration only has two mentions of Ukraine. It is clear that other Nato leaders were deferential towards US President Donald Trump, who has for years embraced Putin and sharply criticised Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The fourth big takeaway is that The Hague summit declaration is not only very short, but it is also focused on portraying the alliance solely in terms of military capability and economic investment to sustain that. The declaration of every Nato summit after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has used the same form of words: 'We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.' The declaration issued by The Hague Summit on June 25 conspicuously does not have any mention of international law, the UN Charter or a rules-based international order. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the unfolding scenario, questions regarding the future of Ukraine are particularly important, particularly as US support for Ukraine has dried up under Trump. Last year, at the Nato Summit in Washington, Zelenskyy was feted by the then US President Joe Biden and secured a pledge from Nato that Ukraine's push for membership was 'irreversible'. This year – despite Nato chief Mark Rutte insisting that remains the case – the final declaration of the summit had no mention of Ukraine's bid to join. In essence, Trump has ruled out Nato membership for Kyiv, and Zelenskyy, who has been vociferous on the subject before, was quiet this time round at the Nato Summit in The Hague. In fact, Zelenskyy was left largely on the margins of this Nato summit, though he managed to get a closed-doors meeting with US President Donald Trump. While Zelenskyy was successful in securing aid for Ukraine from Europe, he did not make much progress with the US, which had been Ukraine's most important benefactor and whose equipment had been critical for checking Russia's advance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At a press conference following the meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump acknowledged that it is 'possible' that Putin has ambitions to invade a Nato country, but when asked whether money and equipment will still flow from Washington to Kyiv, he appeared to show reluctance. On the issue of giving Ukraine additional Patriot air defence systems, which it badly needs, Trump said that 'we're going to see if we can make some available — they're very hard to get". As regards financial aid to Ukraine, Trump said, 'As far as money going, we'll see what happens.' Though there were none of the bumper pledges of new weaponry to Kyiv that had been a hallmark of earlier gatherings, a consolation for Zelensky was Trump's remark, 'I had a good meeting with Zelensky. He's fighting a brave battle. It's a tough battle.' Trump added, 'Vladimir Putin really has to end that war. People are dying at levels that people haven't seen before for a long time'. While Trump said that he would talk again soon to Russian President Vladimir Putin to push stalled peace efforts, he made no mention of any possible sanctions on Moscow for stalling on these talks. Trump called the summit outcome 'a monumental win for the United States' and 'a big win for Western civilisation'. However, what this recent Nato summit and the run-up to it made quite clear is that the US and Europe no longer perceive themselves as having the same common enemy. Europe is focused on Russia as the major threat to international peace, while the US is devoting more attention to the increasingly bellicose China. Their perceptions are not identical at all, and this undeniable fact is important for understanding how global geopolitics is unfolding. The writer is a retired Indian diplomat and had previously served as Consul General in New York. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
The Star
26-06-2025
- Politics
- The Star
We built order from ruins
Photo: MANUEL ELIAS/UN Photo EIGHTY years ago this month, the Charter of the United Nations was signed in San Francisco, United States, turning the page on decades of war and offering hope for a better future. For 80 years the UN has stood as the highest expression of our hopes for international cooperation, and as the fullest embodiment of our aspiration to end the 'scourge of war'. Even in a world steeped in cynicism, this is a milestone worth acknowledging. The UN remains the only organisation of its kind, and the only one to have endured for so long. That longevity is remarkable when we consider the context of its founding: assembled from the rubble of not one, but two global cataclysms.
