Archives: Articles

By Zeenat Khan

An historic first win of course calls for celebration. It is doubly true in Zohran Mamdani’s case after his mayoral win of New York City (NYC.) A year ago, no one knew who he really was or what he stands for. As expected, his win has sparked nationwide reaction. Social media is buzzing with Mamdani’s praises. People from New York to Uganda to Orissa (now Odisha) to Bangladesh have gone wild. It is not only the U.S. media but the worldwide media coverage of this young man’s win that seemed like this was the only major noteworthy news to report on. After he was declared the winner on November 4, media frenzy was everywhere, and everyone was in party mood. I am not the cloud that dims the festive light but am here merely to share some of my observations. Mamdani’s win overshadowed two other major wins; Firstly, Democrat Abigail Spanberger became the first woman governor to lead the state of Virginia. Secondly, Democratic candidate Mikie Sherril was elected the new female governor of New Jersey. She is the second female governor in the state. Both cases call for a huge celebration. But the U.S. Media’s nonstop coverage of Mamdani dominated last Tuesday night from the other two elected governors getting a fair amount of media coverage.

I am simply amused by some Bangladeshi English daily’s continuous coverage of Zohran Mamdani. Feeling giddy with happiness, they are writing in a manner as if he is a son of the soil; one passionate piece after another beaming with delight. One overly enthusiastic team member of a daily uploaded a YouTube video in fake American accent to analyze why Mamdani won. One video was done in Banglish (Bangla with an English accent.) However, the videos were comical. If Bangladeshi dailies can get so excited over NYC’s newly elected mayor then my question is why can’t they endorse and promote a Bangladeshi upcoming young leader by giving him/her major coverage for their upcoming election? That will be good public service.

The sheer number of Bangladeshi people who are more interested in what’s happening in America than their own country is mind boggling. One particular newspaper was reporting in a way that working-class Bangladeshis in NYC had a huge hand in Mamdani’s win just because he lovingly mentioned that “Bangladeshi aunties” worked as volunteers during his campaign. What can I say? Bangladeshis are very sentimental in expressing their emotions. Zohran, I am sure had other South Asian, Jamaican, Dominican, Mexican, Haitian, Puerto Rican, Nigerian, and Indian “aunties” from Brooklyn and Queens who went door to door to ask for votes. The “auntie” phrase has caught on.

Indian media also overdid it with their coverage of Mamdani maybe because Zohran Mamadani is the son of acclaimed filmmaker Mira Nair. She hails from the Indian state of Orissa where she grew up. Nair left Delhi University after a year before coming to the United States to continue her studies. Indian media acted similarly when Kamala Harris was running for the highest office (note: she doesn’t identify herself as an Indian), when Jhumpa Lahiri won the Pulitzer Prize (she identifies herself as British American,) as well as Usha Vance (though she identifies herself as Indian American. According to US media, Usha embraces her roots and heritage.)

For the last few months we have heard relentless squabbles between different groups of people covered by the mainstream media about Mamdani’s race, and religion. Everyone who is anti-immigrant was questioning his political ideologies and relishing at the thought of his possible deportation by taking away his US citizenship. His pictures were deliberately altered by giving him a longer, fuller, and darker beard to make him look “scary,” and also to hint that he has some possible terrorist connection because of his pro-Palestinian views. His opposing team led by Andrew Cuomo took Mamdani through the ringers. Andrew Cuomo is the worst of the worst because he agreed with a radio interviewer a few days before the voting started that if elected Mamdani would support another 9/11!

A day after the election, this same Cuomo tried to be gracious by conceding defeat and sort of congratulating Mamdani and showing willingness to work with Zohran for his love of the people of New York City. The hypocrisy and the bad acting go hand in hand! That particular media clip made me feel sick about the nature of politics. Mamdani said it best in his victory speech: “that Cuomo’s name he is not going to utter again!” Similarly, the President of the United States put out a video message saying he is willing to help Mamdani when he takes office, but he has to show respect to those in the White House.

The American mainstream media is like a dog with a bone. With their endless stories they pursued Mamdani for months because of his religion and his background; more than what he plans to do if elected. Since I don’t live in New York City, I haven’t followed Mamdani’s election closely but know enough that he has made big promises to the voters.

Using a candidate’s religion the main focus in an election is routinely done in the U.S. We have seen it during the Obama campaign. He even had to produce his birth certificate that was issued by the state of Hawaii as proof of citizenship. With Zohran Mamdani, it was sort of a repeat of the old show. But this time it was done with much more vengeance that people of Muslim faith were made to feel uncomfortable once again.

In both cases, they picked Islam to denounce both the religion and the candidates. Only difference is: Barack Obama identifies himself as a Christian and Zohran Mamadani as a Muslim. As we all know Obama’s mother is Christian and father, a Kenyan Muslim. On the flipside Mamdani’s mother is a Hindu and father a Muslim from Uganda. But media and Republican politicians only emphasized the Islamic faith of the candidates. How can children in a two-religion household belong to one faith and ignore the other completely unless one of the parents converts? I never heard Mira Nair becoming a Muslim and why should she? I really do not believe in conversion though people do convert for various reasons. When two people from different faiths fall in love; one usually chooses to convert. The main reason is because it is a simple way to bridge religious differences for the purpose of marriage and to bring two families together.

The American media did not report a lot on two of the behind the scene principle characters who planned Mamdani’s campaign. One is his mother Mira Nair, and the other is his wife Rama Duwaji. Nair has been relentlessly campaigning for her son ever since he won the primary. Media accused Zohran of hiding his wife as she was not with him campaigning day and night. Mira Nair took to Instagram and other social media outlets to convince the “aunties” why they should vote for her son. Zohran’s wife and mother carefully orchestrated a campaign strategy and choreographed it for him to perform in a way that attracts the voters. A mother’s directorial ingenuity combined with his wife’s artistic skills was a tremendous help for Mamdani to reach out to millions.

And the result was that people responded overwhelmingly. Everyone took a stand against what the other candidates were offering. Most New Yorkers do not like Andrew Cuomo (who had to resign as New York’s governor in 2021 following an investigation by the state’s attorney general that found he had sexually harassed 11 women.) Apart from Cuomo (ran as an independent) people hardly knew the Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa. And the current mayor Eric Adams has been a lame duck for some time because of some questionable behaviors. All these contributed to Zohran Mamadani’s win to some extent.

During his mayoral campaign, Mamdani made no bones about his privileged upbringing. His father is a professor at Columbia University, and mother has made quite a few commercially successful feature films starting with Salam Bombay, Monsoon Wedding, Mississippi Masala, and Namesake that I have watched. I read that in New York City, the Mamdani family lives in a subsidized Columbia University apartment. Though as per media reports, Mira Nair owns an apartment in a posh and upscale neighborhood in Chelsea, NYC. The apartment situated among other luxury residential buildings is worth 2 million dollars.

Yes, Zohran Mamdani attended the Bronx School of Science and Technology (a highly selective, specialized public school.) But for college he went to Bowdoin, a private liberal arts college in Maine, where for an academic year the tuition is $71,000.

So when Mamdani says he has seen poverty up close; I take it with a grain of salt. Without a lived experience how can one say it? Understanding poverty goes beyond a simple observation. Living in poverty in NYC where rent is too high, and failing to pay monthly rent results in eviction is something someone from a fully privileged background will not simply understand. A pang of hunger in one’s belly is not understood by someone who eats three meals a day. Coming from an affluent background one’s reaction is subjective. Simply put, one has to live the stressful life of a poor in order to feel it.

I am by no means disagreeing that Zohran Mamdani is passionate, dedicated, has empathy, and had it in him to convince millions to vote for him. His charisma, upbeat attitude, and ever smiling face went a long way to win the voters over. They found him approachable, saw fire and determination in him. Most importantly, he has the desire to bring social change.

Zohran Mamdani is only 34. When overzealous young people with their ideas and enthusiasm want to bring forth change too quickly may seem excessive. To make life better for the ordinary and hardworking people will require time and patience. Pronouncing something and delivering positive results on the campaign promises are two different things. One of Mamdani’s campaign promises is to make public buses fair-free. Another one is: to make NYC an affordable place to live and work. Some people on a daily basis commute 2 plus hours to get to work in the city. To make these two promises possible will be a daunting task by itself. His other promises including “relentless improvement” along with rent freeze, universal childcare, and other needs of working class people will not be quite easy to deliver. He will need huge federal funding.

Mamdani seems driven as the day after his win he has already put together an all-female transition team which includes Lina Khan (former Federal Trade Commission Chair) and other women with work experience and innovative ideas. Like every other immigrant living in America, I am elated that Zohran Mamdani won. I wish him all the best in running The Big Appleotherwise known as the city that never sleeps.

Postscript: Meanwhile, I have been overwhelmed with text messages with catchy phrases like “New Yorkers allowed themselves to hope that the impossible could be made possible” after Mamdani’s win. The last one I got was from someone who was in an airport waiting for a flight and the message said, “A new day. Everyone is very hopeful and happy about Zohran. I think he is amazing. Wife is an artist and cartoonist. Very cool family. Dad is Muslim and Ugandan and mom Mira is Hindu, wife Syrian. Truly a multiethnic progressive family! People have hope for the first time in a long time. Everyone I know is celebrating.” I think I heard enough and decided to turn off the phone.

Zeenat Khan writes from Maryland, USA

8 November 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Pieter Friedrich

My interview with NYC’s mayor-elect, fifteen months before his historic win

In August 2024, I did a brief phone interview with New York State Assembly member Zohran Mamdani to cite him for an article about the Ram Mandir float controversy at that year’s India Day Parade. Mamdani was one of the few elected officials willing to publicly oppose the float, which celebrated building a temple on the ruins of a mosque demolished by Hindu nationalist mobs.

On Tuesday, he became New York City’s next mayor.

Mamdani’s victory makes him the first Muslim mayor in the city’s history, the first person of South Asian descent to hold the office, and at 34, the youngest mayor in over a century. What stands out to me now, reading back through the interview, is how clearly he articulated what the Ram Mandir represents in the broader context of Hindu nationalism’s expansion into American sociopolitics.

When I asked why he opposed the float, Mamdani spoke about his family — his Hindu grandfather reciting Urdu poetry and his Muslim grandfather singing bhajans in Gujarati. He called the Ram Mandir “the latest example” of a movement using communal violence as “a tool for mobilizing” political power, and he called on Mayor Adams to ensure the float didn’t roll. Adams never responded. The float went ahead, although not without further protest.

Mamdani has been consistently outspoken in his criticism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, calling him a “war criminal” in reference to the 2002 Gujarat riots. In August 2020, when Modi laid the first brick of the Ram Mandir, Mamdani organized a Times Square protest against what he called a “vile spectacle of fascism,” documenting how Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) uses violence against communities as a tool for political mobilization.

During a Diwali event in Queens last month, Mamdani defended his criticism of Modi while reaching out to Hindu American voters, explaining that his opposition stems from the vision of the India he grew up knowing. “I have been critical of Mr. Modi because of the vision that I grew up with was of an India that was pluralistic, an India where everyone belonged, no matter their religion,” he said. “And my critique has been of Mr. Modi and the BJP political party for their vision of an India that only has room for certain kinds of Indians, and it’s part of a belief that pluralism is something to be celebrated, something to be strived for.”

This record made Mamdani a target throughout his campaign, with Hindu nationalist organizations in both the US and India, including the Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA), coordinating opposition to his candidacy. Before the June Democratic primary, a plane flew over the Statue of Liberty with a banner reading “Save NYC from global intifada. Reject Mamdani” — funded by Indian-American Hindu nationalist organizations.

CoHNA was among 20 Hindu organizations that signed an October letter condemning Mamdani’s so-called “Hinduphobic” statements. That’s the same CoHNA that developed Georgia’s SB375 with Senator Shawn Still. The same playbook: frame opposition to Hindu nationalist ideology as anti-Hindu bigotry, mobilize donors, coordinate testimony, and build political influence through manufactured victimhood narratives.

Mamdani won anyway, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo by about 9 points in a race that drew over 2 million voters — the highest mayoral turnout since 1969.

I’ve documented how Hindu nationalist organizations have built influence in American institutions at every level. I’ve testified 24 times in the past month across Georgia to oppose legislation that they helped write. I’ve watched them deploy identical tactics in city after city, state after state. Yet now America’s largest city will be led by someone with a clear record of opposing this movement.

The interview was short — maybe 10 minutes — but his analysis holds up. The full transcript is below.

____________________________________________________

Pieter: Why did you join this letter, and what does this particular float mean to you as a Muslim of Indian origin?

Zohran: I joined this letter, and I continue to speak in opposition to the proposal of including this float in this Sunday’s India parade, because it’s not just about one float. This is the latest example of a movement that seeks to transform India and the idea of India from a diverse, secular republic into a Hindu state, and erase the legacy of an India where my Hindu grandfather recited Urdu poetry, and my Muslim grandfather sang bhajans in Gujarati.

For the BJP and associated Hindu nationalist groups, India’s Muslim population isn’t only an obstacle to their political goals, it is anathema to their definition of the nation. And the BJP uses violence against entire communities, often Muslim, sometimes Christian, as a tool for mobilizing its base for political gain.

This temple, the representation of this temple in a float, it is but the latest example of that long-term vision and movement and record. And the destruction of Babri Masjid was one of the first examples of that tactic of using violence as a tool of mobilization. And it began as a rally, it became violent, it led to the dismantling of a masjid with individuals using their very hands, and it triggered a wave of communal violence across India that killed over 2,000 people.

Even beyond that, it emboldened Hindu nationalists across the country and across the world to commit to building a Hindu temple on the site of that very mosque as a symbol of their vision of India purged of its Muslim heritage.

And to now have a float representing that very temple in a city where we often rightfully discuss our strength as being our diversity, it is outrageous and it is something that so clearly crosses the boundaries of the kind of political expression we should be welcoming on our streets.

That’s why I continue to call on Mayor Eric Adams and City Hall to ensure that such a float does not have any place in this forthcoming Sunday’s rally.

Pieter: Your letter mentions the New Jersey bulldozer issue, and I wanted to ask you, here in the US, do you see a growing trend of Hindu nationalist activity in America? And then I also wanted to ask you what you hope the New York City government does in response, but I think you just touched on that as far as what you want the mayor to do.

Zohran: You know, I would just say that it is deeply personal to me as an Indian American Muslim. My very existence is something that this movement would love to deny. And this is such a clear expression of bigotry and the audacity that the organizers of this event have, that they think such an expression would be welcome on the streets of New York City. It is one that must be met with widespread opposition, and we continue to wait and see whether the mayor will put his thumb on the scale of bigotry or his thumb on the scale of inclusion. And we still have no answer.

Pieter Friedrich is a freelance journalist specializing in analysis of South Asian affairs.

8 November 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Istanbul (QNN)- The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office issued an arrest warrant on Friday against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and several other Israeli officials, over committing genocide in the Gaza Strip.

In a statement, the Public Prosecutor’s Office said warrants were issued for 37 suspects, including Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz. The suspects face charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.

The statement stressed that Israeli authorities face charges of carrying out genocide, conducting massive airstrikes on Gaza, and obstructing the delivery of humanitarian aid.

This move comes months after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants on November 21, 2024, for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The ICC stated that they committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

As a result, Netanyahu and Gallant are now unable to visit any of the 120 countries that have signed the Rome Statute, the treaty that underpins the ICC’s authority to enforce such decisions.

The latest Turkish decision follows a call in mid-September by ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan to expedite arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. Khan revealed at the time that he had faced pressure from several world leaders not to proceed with the arrest request.

The Istanbul Prosecutor’s Office described the move as a response to growing evidence of mass atrocities in Gaza, where Israeli forces have conducted months of heavy bombardment, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian deaths and a deepening humanitarian catastrophe.

8 November 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Jeffrey D. Sachs and Sybil Fares

The flimsy moral pretext today is the fight against narcotics, yet the real objective is to overthrow a sovereign government, and the collateral damage is the suffering of the Venezuelan people. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is.

The United States is dusting off its old regime-change playbook in Venezuela. Although the slogan has shifted from “restoring democracy” to “fighting narco-terrorists,” the objective remains the same, which is control of Venezuela’s oil. The methods followed by the US are familiar: sanctions that strangle the economy, threats of force, and a $50 million bounty on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as if this were the Wild West.

The US is addicted to war. With the renaming of the Department of War, a proposed Pentagon budget of $1.01 trillion, and more than 750 military bases across some 80 countries, this is not a nation pursuing peace. For the past two decades, Venezuela has been a persistent target of US regime change. The motive, which is clearly laid out by President Donald Trump, is the roughly 300 billion barrels of oil reserves beneath the Orinoco belt, the largest petroleum reserves on the planet.

In 2023, Trump openly stated: “When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over, we would have gotten all that oil… but now we’re buying oil from Venezuela, so we’re making a dictator very rich.” His words reveal the underlying logic of US foreign policy that has an utter disregard for sovereignty and instead favors the grabbing of other country’s resources.

What’s underway today is a typical US-led regime-change operation dressed up in the language of anti-drug interdiction. The US has amassed thousands of troops, warships, and aircraft in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The president has boastfully authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela.

On October 26, 2025, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went on national television to defend recent US military strikes on Venezuelan vessels and to say land strikes inside Venezuela and Colombia are a “real possibility.” Florida Sen. Rick Scott, in the same news cycle, mused that if he were Nicolás Maduro he’d “head to Russia or China right now.” These senators aim to normalize the idea that Washington decides who governs Venezuela and what happens to its oil. Remember that Graham similarly champions the US fighting Russia in Ukraine to secure the $10 trillion of mineral wealth that Graham fatuously claims are available for the US to grab.

Nor are Trump’s moves a new story vis-à-vis Venezuela. For more than 20 years, successive US administrations have tried to submit Venezuela’s internal politics to Washington’s will. In April 2002, a short-lived military coup briefly ousted then-President Hugo Chávez. The CIA knew the details of the coup in advance, and the US immediately recognized the new government. In the end, Chávez retook power. Yet the US did not end its support for regime change.

In March 2015, Barack Obama codified a remarkable legal fiction. Obama signed Executive Order 13692, declaring Venezuela’s internal political situation an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security to trigger US economic sanctions. That move set the stage for escalating coercion by the US. The White House has maintained that claim of a US “national emergency” ever since. Trump added increasingly draconian economic sanctions during his first term. Astoundingly, in January 2019, Trump declared Juan Guaidó, then an opposition figure, to be Venezuela’s “interim president,” as if Trump could simply name a new Venezuelan president. This tragicomedy of the US eventually fell to pieces in 2023, when the US dropped this failed and ludicrous gambit.

The US is now starting a new chapter of resource grabbing. Trump has long been vocal about “keeping the oil.” In 2019, when discussing Syria, President Trump said “We are keeping the oil, we have the oil, the oil is secure, we left troops behind only for the oil.” To those in doubt, US troops are still in the northeast of Syria today, occupying the oil fields. Earlier in 2016, on Iraq’s oil, Trump said, “I was saying this constantly and consistently to whoever would listen, I said keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil, don’t let somebody else get it.”

Now, with fresh military strikes on Venezuela vessels and open talk of land attacks, the administration is invoking narcotics to justify regime change. Yet Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” No US theory of “cartel wars” remotely justifies coercive regime change.

Even before the military strikes, US coercive sanctions have functioned as a siege engine. Obama built the sanctions framework in 2015, and Trump further weaponized it to topple Maduro. The claim was that “maximum pressure” would empower Venezuelans. In practice, the sanctions have caused widespread suffering. As economist and renowned sanctions expert Francisco Rodríguez found in his study of the “Human Consequences of Economic Sanctions,” the result of the coercive US measures has been a catastrophic decline in Venezuelan living standards, starkly worsening health and nutrition, and dire harm to vulnerable populations.

The flimsy moral pretext today is the fight against narcotics, yet the real objective is to overthrow a sovereign government, and the collateral damage is the suffering of the Venezuelan people. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. The US has repeatedly undertaken regime-change operations in pursuit of oil, uranium, banana plantations, pipeline routes, and other resources: Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Chile (1973), Iraq (2003), Haiti (2004), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and Ukraine (2014), just to name a few such cases. Now Venezuela is on the block.

In her brilliant book Covert Regime Change (2017), Professor Lindsay O’Rourke details the machinations, blowbacks, and disasters of no fewer than 64 US covert regime-change operations during the years 1947-1989! She focused on this earlier period because many key documents for that era have by now been declassified. Tragically, the pattern of a US foreign policy based on covert (and not-so-covert) regime-change operations continues to this day.

The calls by the US government for escalation reflect a reckless disregard for Venezuela’s sovereignty, international law, and human life. A war against Venezuela would be a war that Americans do not want, against a country that has not threatened or attacked the US, and on legal grounds that would fail a first-year law student. Bombing vessels, ports, refineries, or soldiers is not a show of strength. It is the epitome of gangsterism.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development.

Sybil Fares is a specialist and advisor in Middle East policy and sustainable development at SDSN

4 November 2025

Source: commondreams.org

By Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad

From the barracks of Rawalpindi to the halls of Washington, a sordid alliance stalks the republic of Pakistan: a military caste addicted to power, a civilian class cowed into servitude, and a foreign patron ever ready to pull the leash. What unfolds is less a grand strategy than a tragicomedy: generals trading sovereignty for sinecures, soldiers harboring contempt for their officers, and a once-promising democratic movement crushed under the twin weights of imperial ambition and martial tutelage.

At the summit of Pakistan’s national hierarchy sits the uniformed elite—high-command officers whose benefit resides not in defending the people, but in ensuring their own station remains unchallenged. The vast majority of junior officers and ordinary soldiers know the drill: they march at a command, live off state hand-outs, yet watch in silence as their rulers gamble everything in Islamabad’s corridors of power. Beneath their boots pulses a latent contempt: not for the institution of soldiering, but for the generals who confuse war-games with governance, who mistake subservience for sovereignty. They know the charade: a military that catalogs enemies abroad yet fails its citizens at home; a top brass more at ease with arms deals and alliances than with schools or clinics.

Meanwhile, in Washington and its allied capitals, they observe the last great outsourcing of empire. The U.S. sees Pakistan not as an independent partner, but as a subcontractor—an air-strip here, a drone base there, a pliant nuclear state with acceptable risks. When Imran Khan—in office—moved, albeit imperfectly, toward a new Pakistan: one marked by social justice, independent foreign policy, and friendship with all nations, he ran head-first into this alliance. He derailed the pat-scripts: refused U.S. basing rights, challenged embassy diktats, and dared to recast Kashmir and Palestine not as trophies of patronage but as tests of principle. His mistake was not corruption—it was defiance. And the consequence was swift: a regime-change operation dressed in parliamentary garb, a military and intelligence complex that salivated at the smell of capitulation, and a Washington that nodded, funded and quietly applauded.

From here the narrative spirals into farce. Pakistan’s flag-waving elite collect defense pacts as one might souvenirs—each a badge of fidelity to the imperial order, each certifying that the country’s violent and unjust alignments will continue unimpeded. The generals embrace those pacts not because they secure Pakistan—they don’t—but because they secure the elite’s privilege: a share of the deals, a veneer of patriotism, a shield against accountability. And while their generals trade in hardware and geopolitics, the cries of the oppressed vanish into night: Pashtun civilians bombed under the guise of “counter-terror,” Afghan refugees reviled as villains by a state that once nurtured their tormentors.

Yes, nuclear-armed Pakistan could not muster a single bullet for Gaza. It did not send a protection force. It does not lobby the United Nations for justice, despite the occasional meaningless rhetoric. Instead it signs on to the next big defense contract, brushes its hands of the Palestinian plight, and turns its back on the ideal of Muslim solidarity. What kind of state is this that boasts nuclear weapons yet lacks the moral will to send aid—or more than a token gesture—to fellow victims of aggression? A state that lectures others on terrorism while shelling its own Pashtun tribes. A state so short on legitimacy it must invoke the bogeyman of the Afghan refugee, call entire populations “terrorists,” then crush any dissent with tanks and tear-gas.

Speaking of dissent—when Imran Khan’s movement rose, the state responded with idylls of terror. Cadres of young activists, women, students, social justice advocates—whether Karachi or Khyber—found themselves in dungeons sanctioned by a military-political complex. The hearings were stacked, the charges manufactured, the message simple: move for justice and you move into our sights. The generals clapped their hands, Washington twisted the strings, and the civilian face of Pakistan trembled. The officer class may nominally obey the high command—but in quiet mess halls and among soldiers’ wives the whispers of outrage gather: “Why are we policing our own people? Why is Urdu-speaking Karachi the victim of our operations? Why do we trespass into forests and valleys and call them terror zones?”

In the borderlands the farce becomes terrifyingly concrete. The army, having once nurtured the Taliban in Afghanistan to secure “strategic depth,” now bombs them—and blames them for terrorism. In this brain-twist of national strategy, the creator is recast as the adversary, the patron transformed into the provoked. The Pashtun civilian watches as homes are razed near the Durand Line, as refugees arrive on Pakistani soil bearing the costs of wars Pakistan helped manufacture, and as the generals portray them as fifth-column terrorists. The irony would be comical were it not so brutal.

And what of Kashmir? In the so-called “free” Azad Kashmir of Pakistan, huge anti-government demonstrations rage. A region whose inhabitants yearn for dignity, not just slogans. Under Imran Khan, new polling suggested the unthinkable: Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir, despite seeing the abysmal conditions in Azad Kashmir, began to seriously consider joining Pakistan—not as another occupier but as a fortress of self-determination. The generals would rather you not notice that: they prefer the pre-scripted dispute, the perpetual conflict, the tortured rhetoric of “we stand with Kashmir” while the state stands with its own survival. The polls are telling: if Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is failing, the state itself is structurally unhealthy.

To be sure, the Pakistan military remains an institution of extraordinary capability. But capability is not legitimacy; nor is turf-control a foundation for national purpose. The generals continue to conflate war-power with nation-power, forgetting that true power is fostered by schools, by hospitals, by trust in institutions—and by consent, not coercion. And when a regime trades in foreign patronage—be it Washington’s dollars or Beijing’s infrastructure—but cannot deliver justice or dignity at home, the bargain has already been lost.

As the Iranian–Israeli conflict rages, as Gaza bleeds, and as the great-game intensifies in South Asia, Pakistan stands at a crossroads: obey its patrons, shrink its sovereignty, and reclaim the empire-client script—or reject the military’s primacy, embrace true independence, and build a republic that answers not to external powers but to its people. The generals will tell you that the choice is security; the civilians will whisper it is dignity.

Here is the truth the generals, the politicians, and the strategists don’t want you to admit: you cannot rule a nation by telling its people to be silent while you thunder abroad. You cannot build strategic depth on the graves of your own citizens. You cannot pretend to champion Palestine while allying with its oppressors. You cannot call yourself a sovereign state when your alliances define you more than your aspirations.

Pakistan’s military may still march on; its generals may still wield the levers of power; Washington may still fax orders and funnel funds. But the people—they are waking up. And once the echo of Imran Khan’s voice becomes a roar, no amount of bayonets, no arsenal of deals, no drums of war will silence it. The generals may hold the fortress of Rawalpindi, but they cannot hold the conscience of a nation. The struggle for that is already well underway—and the verdict will not wait.

Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), Islamabad, Pakistan.

1 November 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Press Release

The recent ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, guided by the theme “Resilient Together, Prosper Together,” served as a powerful reminder of a core regional truth: Southeast Asia’s shared diversity, when guided by compassion, is its greatest strength. This unity is what ASEAN must protect.

The memory of the July crisis lingers—five days when Buddhist neighbours Cambodia and Thailand exchanged artillery fire along their disputed border. The toll was stark: 32 lives lost, over 130 wounded, and nearly 170,000 displaced, including an eight-year-old boy killed by rockets in Sisaket province. Yet the tragedy also affirmed ASEAN’s method of turning confrontation into conversation.

When tempers flared, the ASEAN spirit of musyawarah (consultation) was tested. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim stepped forward as a facilitator. The image of a Muslim leader mediating between two Buddhist nations demonstrated a unique regional capacity, achieving an immediate ceasefire on 28 July 2025. This ceasefire was signed off on October 26, 2025, on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Kuala Lumpur.

The key was not shared religion, but shared values. The mediation was effective because it was free from historical or doctrinal entanglement, speaking instead from a place of shared human understanding. It was not religion that divided the borderlands; it was pride and politics. Yet it was faith diversity that helped heal the wound. Islamic, Buddhist, and Hindu philosophies all anchor in the sanctity of life and the moral obligation to choose peace over ego.

This response was bolstered by Muslim and Buddhist NGOs providing humanitarian aid, psychological support, and grassroots dialogue. Groups from monasteries in Siem Reap to charities in Kedah made neighbourliness a tangible reality, reflecting Southeast Asia’s instinct to cooperate.

The summit affirmed the clear message from this crisis: peace is not sustained by shared ideology, but by shared humanity. This was not mere tolerance; it was transformation. The region didn’t erase difference; it elevated it, converting religious plurality into diplomatic capital. Diversity was not the problem; it was the solution.

ASEAN’s success offers lessons for a world fractured by identity. The image of a Muslim leader mediating between Buddhist nations is a symbol of principled pluralism. It shows that neutrality need not mean detachment; it can mean compassion in action. This collaboration also underlines that peace is not built by governments alone but cultivated by faith communities and citizens who believe in mutual respect.

July’s crisis reminded us of the fragility of peace. But what followed reaffirmed it can be rebuilt. The message from Kuala Lumpur resonates where faith and diversity unite, humanity prevails. In a fractured world, ASEAN’s blend of diversity—rooted in compassion and respect—offers a different path. This is the peace we have built, and it is a peace we must protect.

Issued on behalf of The International Forum on Buddhist Muslim Relations [BMF]

K V Soon (Vidyananda)
Secretary

[https://buddhistmuslimforum.org]

Contact Information

Email: soonkv@gmail.com

About the BMF

______________________________________________________

The International Forum on Buddhist-Muslim Relations (BMF) is an international interfaith initiative formed in direct response to the urgent need to mitigate rising religious tensions and conflicts, particularly in flashpoint areas such as Southern Thailand and Myanmar (Rakhine State).

The BMF was formally established in 2013, with initial consultative meetings on “Contemporary Issues in Buddhist-Muslim Relations in South and South East Asia” held in Bangkok, Thailand. Its formation was a proactive commitment by concerned leaders to create a sustained platform for constructive dialogue and joint action across the region and elsewhere.

Core Objectives and Mission

The BMF’s mission is to foster peace and understanding by serving as a hub for both intra-religious and inter-religious engagement. Our key objectives include:

• Platform for Engagement: Serving as a primary platform for education and advocacy initiatives.
• Conflict Prevention: Enabling rapid reaction, solidarity visits, early warning, and conflict prevention in the event of conflict.
• Actionable Tools: Developing and providing tools and materials for constructive engagement and strategic common actions.
• Positive Messaging: Promoting the effective use of media, especially social and alternative media, for positive messaging and amplifying peaceful narratives.

Core Group Members

The BMF draws strength from a diverse network of individuals and organizations across the region. It is driven by the commitment and expertise of a core group of internationally recognized members, including:

• International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB)
• International Movement of a Just World (JUST)
• Persyarikatan Muhammadiyah
• Religion for Peace (RfP)
• The Network of Religious and Traditional Peacemakers (The Network)

The BMF stands as a united front, modelling coexistence and actively working to build resilience against conflict in diverse communities worldwide.

______________________________________________________

Upcoming Dialogue: A Call for Shared Values

In line with our commitment to constructive engagement and education, the BMF is pleased to announce a special dialogue series taking place on November 16, 2025

This event will focus on leveraging shared values for social change. We invite media and stakeholders to participate in this important discussion. Full details on the topic and speakers are available on our website:

[https://buddhistmuslimforum.org/dialogue-series-on-socially-engaged-shared-values-i/]

31 October 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Dozens of people have been killed in new massacres by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) during their takeover of the city of El-Fasher in Sudan’s western Darfur region, according to medical and humanitarian reports.

The Sudan Doctors Network described the situation as “a true genocide”, saying the RSF, which has been battling Sudan’s army for control of the country, killed more than 1,500 people in just three days as civilians tried to flee the besieged city.

“The massacres the world is witnessing today are an extension of what occurred in El-Fasher more than a year and a half ago, when over 14,000 civilians were killed through bombing, starvation, and executions,” the group said, calling the attacks “a deliberate and systematic campaign of extermination.”

Satellite imagery from Yale’s Humanitarian Research Lab showed clusters of objects consistent with human bodies and large areas of red discoloration on the ground after the RSF advanced into the city.

At least 2,000 people have reportedly been killed since the crime began, including volunteers and Red Crescent workers targeted in mosques. The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed that 460 people were massacred at the Saudi Maternity Hospital, with Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus saying the organization was “appalled and deeply shocked.”

Israeli Fingerprints on the Crime Scene

While the RSF’s atrocities in El-Fasher shocked the world, a growing body of evidence points to covert Israeli links to the paramilitary group.

A recent investigation by Sudan Transparency revealed that Israeli intelligence services opened channels of communication with RSF Commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti) as early as 2021. The report cites a secret flight in May 2021 linked to a former Israeli military official, which reportedly delivered advanced surveillance equipment to Khartoum after a brief 45-minute stopover.

“Israel’s relationships in Sudan extended beyond the SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces) to the RSF Commander Hemedti,” the report stated, adding that the “shipment of advanced spying equipment” was part of these covert exchanges.

Independent researchers have also identified Israeli-made LAR-160 multiple rocket launchers reportedly in RSF possession, systems originally designed by Israel Military Industries.

According to Kribsoo Diallo, a Cairo-based Pan-African researcher interviewed by QNN, these ties likely had “direct consequences on the battlefield.”

“If confirmed, such links may have enhanced the RSF’s operational capacity through intelligence data or advanced communication systems,” Diallo said. “This could explain their ability to sustain a long siege over El-Fasher and carry out highly coordinated attacks on civilian areas.”

He added that the existence of such relationships, even indirectly through private arms networks, gives the RSF “a sense of political protection and impunity,” which undermines international accountability efforts.

RSF Copies Israel’s Gaza Playbook for Atrocities

Observers say the RSF has begun mirroring Israel’s language and tactics used in Gaza, framing mass violence as “military necessity.”

An Al Jazeera investigation found that the RSF used Israeli-style legal justifications to target civilian areas, such as labeling the Zamzam displacement camp a “military zone” before attacking it. Legal experts say this mirrors Israel’s argumentation in Gaza, where hospitals, schools, and shelters are bombed under the claim they are “Hamas bases.”

An RSF adviser even told Israeli media that the Sudanese army’s actions “resemble terrorist Palestinian attacks on Israel”, a rhetorical appeal seemingly designed to attract sympathy from Tel Aviv.

“The RSF is adopting the same language Israel uses to legitimize collective punishment,” said Luigi Daniele, senior lecturer in international humanitarian law at Nottingham Law School. “Declaring entire neighborhoods or camps as ‘military zones’ is a clear attempt to strip civilians of protection, a tactic pioneered in Gaza.”

Sudan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Al-Harith Idriss Al-Harith Mohamed, told the Security Council that the massacres in El-Fasher “amount to genocide by all legal standards.”

“Women and girls are attacked in broad daylight,” he said. “What we are witnessing in El-Fasher is a continuation of a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing that has been ongoing since 2023.”

Human rights groups say the international silence surrounding both Gaza and Sudan underscores how external alliances and intelligence ties shield perpetrators from accountability.

“What we see in El-Fasher is not just a local tragedy,” said Diallo. “It’s the reproduction of a global pattern, where military technology, political cover, and intelligence cooperation cross borders to sustain impunity.”

Strategic Interests and the Red Sea Factor

Analysts believe Israel’s involvement in Sudan extends beyond its historical ties with the Sudanese military or normalization agreements. Sudan’s strategic location on the Red Sea offers Israel both a security buffer and a geopolitical advantage in monitoring maritime routes and countering Iranian or Chinese influence.

“Sudan provides Israel with an entry point into the Horn of Africa and the Sahel,” Diallo told QNN. “By building ties with both General Burhan and Hemedti, Israel ensures leverage over whichever faction prevails, securing its interests regardless of Sudan’s internal outcome.”

This balancing act, he added, “complicates international accountability and turns Sudan’s conflict into a stage for regional power struggles.”

By Dr. Ramzy Baroud

Has Donald Trump’s sharp rebuke of Israel in his October 23 Time Magazine interview fundamentally changed the calculus in the Middle East? His comments immediately sparked two opposing views: for some, his position represents the clear demarcation of a genuine shift in US foreign policy; for others, it is nothing more than a political ploy designed to claw back credibility lost by the US during two years of Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Regarding the end of the recent Gaza genocide, Trump claimed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “had to stop because the world was going to stop him,” adding, “you know, I could see what was happening … And Israel was becoming very unpopular.” With these words, Trump signaled his view that the systematic extermination of Palestinians in Gaza had pushed Israel to an inevitable point of isolation that even the US could no longer indefinitely hold back.

This is the crux of his message, repeated in his stark warning to Netanyahu: “Bibi, you can’t fight the world … The world’s against you. And Israel is a very small place compared to the world.” This may appear to be an obvious fact, yet considering the history of US — and, by extension, Western — blind support, Israel has always felt much larger than its own size. Indeed, Israel’s perceived power has historically been defined by the unconditional backing of the United States.

But, according to Trump’s claim, the US no longer perceives itself as the unconditional vanguard for Israel. He points to a new global power dynamic, noting, “There are a lot of powers out there, okay, powers outside of the region,” whose influence has made Washington’s traditional protective role unsustainable. This newfound realization is most evident when Trump addresses Israel’s desire to illegally annex the occupied Palestinian West Bank. He is now ready to take action, using unprecedented language: The annexation “won’t happen because I gave my word to the Arab countries. It will not happen. Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.”

Such a phrase is unprecedented in the history of US-Israeli relations. Yet, this defiance could easily be dismissed as Trumpian showmanship — bold statements that rarely translate into coherent policy. During his second term, Trump called for an end to the war but did little to stop it, expressing sympathy toward Gazans while still supplying Israel with weapons. His contradictions make it difficult to distinguish conviction from performance.

The significance of Trump’s unprecedented warning is amplified by the sheer timing. The Time interview was made available on the same day that the Israeli parliament (Knesset) approved two bills that would apply Israeli law to the occupied West Bank, paving the way for the full, illegal annexation of the occupied territory. This provocative vote occurred while US Vice-President JD Vance was still in Tel Aviv. On his way out of the country, Vance launched a virulent attack on the Israeli government, describing the vote as “weird” and “a very stupid political stunt,” one which he took as an “insult.”

Those cautious of any supposed US shift are justified in their cynicism. There is little evidence that Washington is changing course. The unconditional support throughout the genocide is irrefutable proof of its commitment to Israel. The long trajectory of US backing, from before Israel’s founding to today, strongly suggests that a sudden pivot is highly unlikely. So, if this is not a fundamental shift, what is actually happening here?

Though the “unbreakable bond” remains, the balance of power has shifted. Israel has alternated between being the privileged client state and, through its lobby, the driver of the regional agenda. The war exposed Israel’s weaknesses and restored the old dynamic — the US as savior, dictating priorities. Beyond the annual $3.8 billion in military aid, Washington approved an additional $26 billion to sustain Israel’s economy and wars. When Israel failed to meet its military goals in Gaza, the US intervened with the ‘Gaza deal’, producing a shaky ceasefire that let Israel pursue its objectives by other means.

The result is a reversal of roles: Trump became more popular in Israel than Netanyahu, resurrecting the image of the US as the decisive power. The apparent clash between the two countries is less about values than about control — who steers Israel’s ship, Tel Aviv or Washington. The strong American rhetoric suggests awareness of its renewed leverage, but leverage alone is not policy.

This remains far from a genuine change of course. The US insists on managing the so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict through its own political priorities, fundamentally aligned with Israel’s. By ignoring international law — the only source of balance and objectivity — Washington ensures that the roadmap to the region’s future, despite occasional disagreements, remains entirely in US-Israeli hands..

Such policies will fail to bring peace or justice and will inevitably reignite the same cycle of Israeli violence. While bombing has temporarily slowed in Gaza, violence is already surging in the occupied West Bank.

A just and lasting peace cannot be wrought through the whims of US administrations, through endless wars, or through uncommitted statements about non-annexation. True peace requires genuine accountability, sustained international pressure, sanctions, and the rigorous enforcement of international law. Only when the world continues to fight Netanyahu — and the self-destructive policies he represents — will a new genocide be averted and a just peace finally be achieved.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

1 November 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

Occupied Palestinian Territory – Israel’s actions against the activities of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in Gaza raise serious concern, representing a new episode in a systematic policy aimed at undermining humanitarian work and ending the presence of UN and international organisations in the Gaza Strip.

On Thursday, Israeli forces arrested UNICEF staff member Raed Al-Afifi, 45, at Kerem Shalom crossing while he was carrying out his official duties, despite being present with prior coordination. No information has been provided by Israeli authorities regarding his location or the charges against him.

In a related development, the Israeli army had requested the agency to withdraw its trucks and supplies from Kerem Shalom a day before the arrest and subsequently prevented the entry of aid trucks carrying medical equipment for hospitals in northern Gaza, as well as vaccinations for newborns and nutritional supplements.

These measures deliberately obstruct humanitarian relief efforts and target an organisation that currently plays a central role in Gaza’s humanitarian work, managing vital projects in health, education, child protection, and infrastructure rehabilitation.

The targeting of UNICEF is part of a broader campaign to restrict United Nations agencies and international humanitarian organisations, aiming to end their presence and operations after they witnessed widespread violations affecting Palestinian civilians during the war, and to further deprive the population of livelihoods and essential services in Gaza.

Immediate action by the international community and the United Nations is urgently needed to ensure the protection of humanitarian workers, guarantee free access for aid to civilians, and halt all Israeli measures designed to starve the population and silence international witnesses of what is happening in the Gaza Strip.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is a Geneva-based independent organization with regional offices across the MENA region and Europe

1 November 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Timothy Snyder

TORONTO – When announcing an aggressive policy, US President Donald Trump typically offers some grotesque justification – a nonsensical fiction that is supposed to stick in our minds as a rationale for violence. The more we swallow these lies now, the harder it will be to question future falsehoods, because that would challenge our view of ourselves as intelligent beings.

This is the magic of the Big Lie, as Hitler explained in Mein Kampf:Tell a whopper so outrageous that people simply cannot believe it is untrue. Hitler’s biggest lie was to claim that an international Jewish conspiracy was the source of Germany’s woes – a scapegoat that could be blamed for any problem and absolve others of any responsibility. In 1939, Hitler and his propagandists spread blatant falsehoods about Poland as well – that it did not really exist as a state, and also that it was the aggressor that had triggered World War II.

Trump’s big lies are almost too numerous to count. Perhaps the most versatile is that his policy focus is on curbing the illicit fentanyl trade. Early in his second term, Trump claimed that Canada attacked the United States first by allowing fentanyl to flow freely across the border. And really, shouldn’t it become the 51st US state?

This complaint was a pretext for imposing tariffs on Canadian exports. But when Trump lumps Canada and Mexico together and claims that fentanyl is “pouring in” across the borders with both countries, he is lying. In 2024, only about 0.2% of the fentanyl seized by US border authorities came from Canada, which was not even mentioned in the US Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment.

But in the past few months, the Trump administration has constructed an even more sinister geopolitical fantasy: military strikes on small boats in international waters are necessary to deter drug smuggling. These attacks, which many experts view as patently illegal, have been clustered off the coast of Venezuela and have killed at least 61 people so far. Although it is widely recognized that the attacks will not stop the flow of fentanyl into the US, Trump has said that his government will continue “to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country.”

The extrajudicial killing of alleged narcotics smugglers is less about drug trafficking and more about power projection – and maybe even regime change. Although videos of the bombings have become social-media fodder, there is no evidence that the targets were drug traffickers. (In fact, Vice President J.D. Vance joked in September about killing innocent fisherman, saying that he “wouldn’t go fishing right now in that area of the world.”)

Moreover, the Trump administration has reportedly authorized covert CIA action in Venezuela and deployed its most advanced aircraft carrier to the Caribbean Sea. This display of military power is intended to serve as political spectacle. The danger is that that it could escalate into an unwinnable, open-ended conflict.

The tragedy is that the opioid crisis has been an essential element of the American experience for the past quarter-century. The US has the world’s highest rate of opioid deaths, owing largely to the profit-driven “health-care” system that guides people toward pain medication but does not incentivize the intensive, long-term care required to treat addiction.

The crisis began because of a money-making scheme by Purdue Pharma, the US pharmaceutical company that developed and aggressively marketed the popular opioid painkiller OxyContin. While OxyContin was responsible for the initial rise in overdose deaths, many users turned to heroin and now fentanyl – which is some 50 times more powerful than heroin – when they could no longer obtain a prescription for Purdue Pharma’s bestselling product.

The Americans living at the epicenters of the addiction crisis tend to vote Republican; without their support, Trump would never have been elected. Trump and Vance are attuned to the opioid epidemic, in the sense that they see the wellspring of misery as a political resource that can be directed against an enemy of choice – whether an ally like Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney or an adversary like Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

In his 2016 memoir Hillbilly Elegy, Vance recounts how his mother, a nurse with easy access to prescription drugs, was addicted to pharmaceuticals. But his political messaging on immigration and security has spun a different story, with Vance blaming other countries – “the poison coming across our border” – for her travails. It follows that Americans must view their addictions as an attack from outside.

It is important to understand the psychology Trump and Vance are exploiting. Addicts tend to blame others for their condition. The rise of the far right in US politics has elevated this mindset to a national platform. The belief that someone else must be responsible for the country’s problems has come to inform foreign policy, with the Trump administration concocting ever more absurd stories, for example that each strike on a Venezuelan boat saves 25,000 American lives.

Lies work because they shift blame. Holding other countries responsible for the opioid crisis is an attractive form of moral outsourcing for Americans. But fiction on such a grand scale requires an entire alternative reality to be constructed around it. Trump and his administration are training the press and the American public to associate the boat strikes with stopping the flow of fentanyl and other drugs – a prime example of the falsehoods that imperialists tell before launching doomed wars of choice.

Wars begin with words, which implies that words must be taken seriously before conflict erupts. Only by calling out the big liars and telling the small truths can we have any hope of restraining Trump’s increasingly aggressive presidency.

Timothy Snyder, the inaugural Chair in Modern European History at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto and a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna, is the author or editor of 20 books.

1 November 2025

Source: countercurrents.org