In a world increasingly characterized by diversity, complexity, and rapid change, unity has become more important than ever before. Unity is the state of being joined together in harmony, working towards common goals despite differences in background, opinion, or identity. In the modern world marked by globalization, technological advancement, political polarization, and environmental challenges, unity is not just a desirable ideal but a vital necessity. It serves as the foundation for peace, progress, and stability in societies across the globe.
In a world increasingly characterized by diversity, complexity, and rapid change, unity has become more important than ever before. Unity is the state of being joined together in harmony, working towards common goals despite differences in background, opinion, or identity. In the modern world marked by globalization, technological advancement, political polarization, and environmental challenges, unity is not just a desirable ideal but a vital necessity. It serves as the foundation for peace, progress, and stability in societies across the globe.
- Unity as a Source of Strength: The modern world faces numerous challenges climate change, economic inequality, global pandemics, terrorism, and social injustice, to name a few. These are not problems that can be solved by isolated individuals or nations acting alone. Instead, they require cooperation, mutual understanding, and collective action. Unity brings together people from different walks of life, combining their ideas, skills, and resources to address problems on a larger scale. As the saying goes, “United we stand, divided we fall.” When people are united, their collective strength is far greater than the sum of their individual capabilities.
- Unity in Diversity: One of the most striking features of the modern world is its diversity. Never before have people of different races, religions, cultures, and languages lived and interacted so closely. While this diversity can be a tremendous source of innovation and creativity, it can also lead to misunderstandings, conflict, and division if not managed wisely. Unity does not mean uniformity; it means respecting differences while finding common ground. In multicultural societies, unity ensures social cohesion and helps prevent the rise of discrimination, hatred, and violence. Countries that embrace unity in diversity, such as Canada, Singapore, and South Africa, serve as examples of how peaceful coexistence and national development can go hand in hand.
- Unity in the Face of Global Crises: Recent global events have shown how interconnected our lives are. The COVID-19 pandemic was a wake-up call for humanity. It crossed borders, affected millions of lives, and disrupted economies around the world. In response, unity became essential as nations shared medical knowledge, scientists from different countries collaborated on vaccines, and communities came together to support one another. Likewise, the fight against climate change requires global unity. No single country can protect the planet alone.
- Political and Social Unity: In many parts of the world today, political polarization and social fragmentation are growing concerns. When societies are divided along political, religious, or ideological lines, progress is delayed, and mistrust prevails. Unity, in this context, involves open dialogue, compromise, and the ability to work toward shared goals despite differences. Political unity can ensure effective governance, protect democratic values, and create a sense of national identity. Social unity, on the other hand, strengthens communities, reduces crime and conflict, and fosters a culture of empathy and mutual support.
- Unity in the Digital Age: The internet and social media have transformed how people communicate and connect. While these tools have the power to unite people across continents, they also have the potential to create echo chambers, spread misinformation, and fuel division. In the digital age, unity means using technology responsibly to promote understanding, share accurate information, and build online communities based on respect and truth. The importance of digital unity lies in building a virtual world that supports real-world harmony and cooperation.
- The Role of Education Leadership: Unity must be nurtured, and this starts with education. Schools and universities should teach values such as respect, tolerance, teamwork, and civic responsibility. When young people are raised to value unity, they grow into adults who build inclusive societies. Moreover, effective leadership is essential in fostering unity. Leaders who rise above personal or political gain to bring people together, whether in government, business, or civil society, can inspire hope and drive meaningful change.
- From Unity to Success: Unity is the cornerstone of success. It is the invisible force that binds individuals into a team, communities into nations, and dreams into achievements. Whether in a family, a workplace, or an entire country, unity creates strength, inspires action, and drives progress. The path from unity to success is not always easy, but it is always powerful and transformational. For example, in a workplace, a united team is more likely to meet its goals, innovate, and grow. In a classroom, students who help each other learn more and perform better. In a country, citizens who work together can build a better future for the next generation.
- The Power of Unity: Unity means working together toward a common goal with shared values and mutual respect. When people are united, they support each other through challenges and celebrate achievements together. This sense of togetherness builds trust, reduces conflict, and brings out the best in everyone. In nature, we see unity in the flight of birds moving in harmony or the teamwork of ants building their colony. In human society, unity can be even more impactful. History is full of examples where unity has led to extraordinary success, whether in freedom movements, humanitarian missions, or scientific breakthroughs.
- Unity in Action: In daily life, unity can be seen in families where love and cooperation create a strong foundation. In schools, unity among students and teachers fosters a positive learning environment. In communities, unity helps solve problems such as poverty, disease, and disaster response more effectively. When people stand together, even the most difficult situations can be overcome. At the national level, unity is essential for peace, development, and resilience. A nation divided by conflict or hatred cannot progress. But when its people are united across different backgrounds, religions, or beliefs, success becomes achievable not just economically, but socially and culturally.
- Challenges to Unity: Achieving unity is not without its challenges. Differences in opinions, selfish interests, and prejudice can divide people. But through communication, empathy, and a shared vision, unity can be preserved. Leadership also plays a key role. True leaders unite people, not divide them.
As our challenges grow more complex and our societies more diverse, unity offers the only sustainable path forward. Unity is not just a feeling; it is a powerful force that leads to real, meaningful success. From the smallest team to the largest nation, unity creates the foundation for achievement, growth, and peace. If we want to move from where we are to where we dream to be, we must walk the path of unity. In an age of uncertainty, unity remains our greatest strength and perhaps our only hope for a better future.
Photo - Freepik
In a world increasingly characterized by diversity, complexity, and rapid change, unity has become more important than ever before. Unity is the state of being joined together in harmony, working towards common goals despite differences in background, opinion, or identity. In the modern world marked by globalization, technological advancement, political polarization, and environmental challenges, unity is not just a desirable ideal but a vital necessity. It serves as the foundation for peace, progress, and stability in societies across the globe.
- Unity as a Source of Strength: The modern world faces numerous challenges climate change, economic inequality, global pandemics, terrorism, and social injustice, to name a few. These are not problems that can be solved by isolated individuals or nations acting alone. Instead, they require cooperation, mutual understanding, and collective action. Unity brings together people from different walks of life, combining their ideas, skills, and resources to address problems on a larger scale. As the saying goes, “United we stand, divided we fall.” When people are united, their collective strength is far greater than the sum of their individual capabilities.
- Unity in Diversity: One of the most striking features of the modern world is its diversity. Never before have people of different races, religions, cultures, and languages lived and interacted so closely. While this diversity can be a tremendous source of innovation and creativity, it can also lead to misunderstandings, conflict, and division if not managed wisely. Unity does not mean uniformity; it means respecting differences while finding common ground. In multicultural societies, unity ensures social cohesion and helps prevent the rise of discrimination, hatred, and violence. Countries that embrace unity in diversity, such as Canada, Singapore, and South Africa, serve as examples of how peaceful coexistence and national development can go hand in hand.
- Unity in the Face of Global Crises: Recent global events have shown how interconnected our lives are. The COVID-19 pandemic was a wake-up call for humanity. It crossed borders, affected millions of lives, and disrupted economies around the world. In response, unity became essential as nations shared medical knowledge, scientists from different countries collaborated on vaccines, and communities came together to support one another. Likewise, the fight against climate change requires global unity. No single country can protect the planet alone.
- Political and Social Unity: In many parts of the world today, political polarization and social fragmentation are growing concerns. When societies are divided along political, religious, or ideological lines, progress is delayed, and mistrust prevails. Unity, in this context, involves open dialogue, compromise, and the ability to work toward shared goals despite differences. Political unity can ensure effective governance, protect democratic values, and create a sense of national identity. Social unity, on the other hand, strengthens communities, reduces crime and conflict, and fosters a culture of empathy and mutual support.
- Unity in the Digital Age: The internet and social media have transformed how people communicate and connect. While these tools have the power to unite people across continents, they also have the potential to create echo chambers, spread misinformation, and fuel division. In the digital age, unity means using technology responsibly to promote understanding, share accurate information, and build online communities based on respect and truth. The importance of digital unity lies in building a virtual world that supports real-world harmony and cooperation.
- The Role of Education Leadership: Unity must be nurtured, and this starts with education. Schools and universities should teach values such as respect, tolerance, teamwork, and civic responsibility. When young people are raised to value unity, they grow into adults who build inclusive societies. Moreover, effective leadership is essential in fostering unity. Leaders who rise above personal or political gain to bring people together, whether in government, business, or civil society, can inspire hope and drive meaningful change.
- From Unity to Success: Unity is the cornerstone of success. It is the invisible force that binds individuals into a team, communities into nations, and dreams into achievements. Whether in a family, a workplace, or an entire country, unity creates strength, inspires action, and drives progress. The path from unity to success is not always easy, but it is always powerful and transformational. For example, in a workplace, a united team is more likely to meet its goals, innovate, and grow. In a classroom, students who help each other learn more and perform better. In a country, citizens who work together can build a better future for the next generation.
- The Power of Unity: Unity means working together toward a common goal with shared values and mutual respect. When people are united, they support each other through challenges and celebrate achievements together. This sense of togetherness builds trust, reduces conflict, and brings out the best in everyone. In nature, we see unity in the flight of birds moving in harmony or the teamwork of ants building their colony. In human society, unity can be even more impactful. History is full of examples where unity has led to extraordinary success, whether in freedom movements, humanitarian missions, or scientific breakthroughs.
- Unity in Action: In daily life, unity can be seen in families where love and cooperation create a strong foundation. In schools, unity among students and teachers fosters a positive learning environment. In communities, unity helps solve problems such as poverty, disease, and disaster response more effectively. When people stand together, even the most difficult situations can be overcome. At the national level, unity is essential for peace, development, and resilience. A nation divided by conflict or hatred cannot progress. But when its people are united across different backgrounds, religions, or beliefs, success becomes achievable not just economically, but socially and culturally.
- Challenges to Unity: Achieving unity is not without its challenges. Differences in opinions, selfish interests, and prejudice can divide people. But through communication, empathy, and a shared vision, unity can be preserved. Leadership also plays a key role. True leaders unite people, not divide them.
As our challenges grow more complex and our societies more diverse, unity offers the only sustainable path forward. Unity is not just a feeling; it is a powerful force that leads to real, meaningful success. From the smallest team to the largest nation, unity creates the foundation for achievement, growth, and peace. If we want to move from where we are to where we dream to be, we must walk the path of unity. In an age of uncertainty, unity remains our greatest strength and perhaps our only hope for a better future.
Photo - Freepik

‘Never let facts get in the way of a story.’
This saying appears to be the defining mantra governing Timor Leste’s leadership, recently represented by its Charge d’Affaires in Nay Pyi Taw. Dili, it seems, now affirms a ‘dedication to upholding the principles of the ASEAN Charter’, and to ‘strengthening ties with Myanmar’. The restraint and composure shown by Myanmar to even entertain the Timorese representative should be commended.
The audacity is breathtaking. Timor Leste’s leaders have cavorted with terrorists who have butchered and seek to kill Myanmar citizens further. Its President, Jose Ramos Horta, has disgustingly validated representatives of a group of terrorist grifters and philanderers now sliding into irrelevance with each passing day. At one point, Timor Leste even called for Tatmadaw soldiers to betray their oaths. Horta further repeated outright lies from disgraced Yanghee Lee’s disreputable outfit – a worthless gaggle of former UN has-beens now working as groupies for terrorists in Myanmar to cling to any shred of relevance. Horta would later bark ‘condemnations’ of Myanmar’s planned elections, thus endorsing threats made against civilians involved in the country’s election process. Such calls for insurrection and interference in the domestic affairs of another sovereign country go far beyond the meaningless platitudes common to the cheap Western activist spiel spat out on social media.
These overtures should come as no surprise. Modern Timor Leste and Horta’s Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor (FRETELIN) was born through many years of subjecting Timorese and ethnic Indonesians to terroristic atrocities while being cradled by the paws of Western bias in their favour. FRETELIN thugs – very similar to the terrorists operating in Myanmar – forced rural bystanders into ‘protected villages’ in measures which led to massive bouts of famine, starvation and killing tens of thousands of civilians. As founder, Horta and his fellow FRETELIN terrorists oversaw the wanton slaughter of political rivals for many years, including innocent Timorese civilians who voted against independence.
Their campaign of “Mati An” in the 1970s saw the group murder thousands of its own members for ‘counterrevolutionary’ activities – actions adopted by the ABSDF (North) in their massacres in Pajaung and by the many lowlife terrorist cells roaming Myanmar today. This politicide extended to its main rival, the Timorese Democratic Union (UDT). Radio broadcasts by FRETELIN called for the execution of ‘traitors’, from UDT, riling up civilian bystanders into abetting the group’s atrocities.
And yet, Horta and FRETELIN received zero accountability for these crimes. The Serious Crimes Unit (SCU), a joint UN-Timor entity set up in 1999 to investigate war crimes, disproportionately focused on crimes by pro-Indonesia militias while ignoring or, at worst, covering up FRETELIN atrocities. FRETELIN-backed gangs disrupted independent investigations and threatened and even killed family members of FRETELIN victims. These heinous campaigns of terror somehow resulted in Horta being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1996 – another example of the award’s diminished legitimacy. So long as the terrorist in question serves the interests of the winds of the ‘international community’, said terrorist and his affiliates will be beyond reproach, with their only requirement being to occasionally spout Western liberal talking points.
This mindset of unchecked immunity has translated into Timor-Leste’s relations with Myanmar. Horta and his government believe there are no consequences for supporting terrorists from another country – the same kind of mindset seen in the (often vacuous) heads of Western European diplomats. Dili thinks it can mouth off and abet calls for terrorism in Myanmar with impunity and saunter into becoming an ASEAN member state.
We should remember this: Timor Leste is playing the Gambia playbook. It has marketed itself as a sock-puppet for the Western neoliberal rulers, getting overwhelmingly trounced in domestic opinion polls, in return for increased regional visibility and other perks. No genuinely productive citizen in the West currently has the time to cheer on the vapid, moral grandstanding exercises made overseas by their governing and ruling classes as they struggle with debt, immigration and soaring costs of living.
Myanmar, for context, has always sought harmony and peace in its international relations. The country’s governing and long-held foreign policy doctrine remains rooted in non-interventionism. Myanmar just so happens to be also one of those conflict landscapes where lazy, grandstanding statements, articles, books and entire careers as ‘country experts’ and academics can be manufactured by simply regurgitating terrorist propaganda. Six-figure salaries and consulting fees are drawn by ‘experts’ and activists repeating the same empty, biased nonsensical script, with paraphrased versions of the same junk published in outlets largely overseen by editors who couldn’t point out Shan State from Taninthayi Region on a map.
These experts rely on the work of local quislings only too willing to betray the country for the privilege of being labelled ‘brave dissidents’. Just like how FRETELIN’s terrorist gangs and PDF terrorists murder political opponents, discussions that go against the prevailing, anti-Myanmar government narrative are silenced and not allowed any genuine consideration – a legacy of the ‘safe space’ narrative environment cultivated by the despicable tyrants of western liberal hegemonic institutions. As such, this echo chamber becomes ripe for countries like Timor Leste and people like Horta and his sidekick, Xanana Gusmao, to partake in this exercise of moral grandstanding to increase their own visibility for ulterior motives. Horta condemns Myanmar, while flagrantly ignoring the terrorists that he calls his ‘friends’.
This prevailing context and Myanmar’s longstanding diplomatic posture do not mean the country’s government is toothless. Myanmar will not stand meekly in the face of disrespect that has crossed far beyond any acceptable thresholds. Myanmar thus must not compromise in its stand of opposing Timor Leste’s entrance into ASEAN.
Should Timor Leste be admitted, the country will only use its membership as a pulpit to take swipes at Myanmar and its interests, flagrantly disregarding the ASEAN charter’s non-interference provisions simply because its leadership have been bred and taught that they can act with impunity for being a Western neoliberal attack mouthpiece. Myanmar is under no obligation to entertain this delusion. In the same way, Horta demonstrates a disregard for facts to write his own saviour story. Myanmar should disregard its country’s desires in favour of focusing on its own interests. Let Horta and his cronies first clean up Timor Leste’s own house-still stained with and smelling of the blood of his opponents, before it dares lecture on Myanmar and cavort with terrorists.
Source: GNLM
(Explanation: This article is just the author’s opinion.)
‘Never let facts get in the way of a story.’
This saying appears to be the defining mantra governing Timor Leste’s leadership, recently represented by its Charge d’Affaires in Nay Pyi Taw. Dili, it seems, now affirms a ‘dedication to upholding the principles of the ASEAN Charter’, and to ‘strengthening ties with Myanmar’. The restraint and composure shown by Myanmar to even entertain the Timorese representative should be commended.
The audacity is breathtaking. Timor Leste’s leaders have cavorted with terrorists who have butchered and seek to kill Myanmar citizens further. Its President, Jose Ramos Horta, has disgustingly validated representatives of a group of terrorist grifters and philanderers now sliding into irrelevance with each passing day. At one point, Timor Leste even called for Tatmadaw soldiers to betray their oaths. Horta further repeated outright lies from disgraced Yanghee Lee’s disreputable outfit – a worthless gaggle of former UN has-beens now working as groupies for terrorists in Myanmar to cling to any shred of relevance. Horta would later bark ‘condemnations’ of Myanmar’s planned elections, thus endorsing threats made against civilians involved in the country’s election process. Such calls for insurrection and interference in the domestic affairs of another sovereign country go far beyond the meaningless platitudes common to the cheap Western activist spiel spat out on social media.
These overtures should come as no surprise. Modern Timor Leste and Horta’s Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor (FRETELIN) was born through many years of subjecting Timorese and ethnic Indonesians to terroristic atrocities while being cradled by the paws of Western bias in their favour. FRETELIN thugs – very similar to the terrorists operating in Myanmar – forced rural bystanders into ‘protected villages’ in measures which led to massive bouts of famine, starvation and killing tens of thousands of civilians. As founder, Horta and his fellow FRETELIN terrorists oversaw the wanton slaughter of political rivals for many years, including innocent Timorese civilians who voted against independence.
Their campaign of “Mati An” in the 1970s saw the group murder thousands of its own members for ‘counterrevolutionary’ activities – actions adopted by the ABSDF (North) in their massacres in Pajaung and by the many lowlife terrorist cells roaming Myanmar today. This politicide extended to its main rival, the Timorese Democratic Union (UDT). Radio broadcasts by FRETELIN called for the execution of ‘traitors’, from UDT, riling up civilian bystanders into abetting the group’s atrocities.
And yet, Horta and FRETELIN received zero accountability for these crimes. The Serious Crimes Unit (SCU), a joint UN-Timor entity set up in 1999 to investigate war crimes, disproportionately focused on crimes by pro-Indonesia militias while ignoring or, at worst, covering up FRETELIN atrocities. FRETELIN-backed gangs disrupted independent investigations and threatened and even killed family members of FRETELIN victims. These heinous campaigns of terror somehow resulted in Horta being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1996 – another example of the award’s diminished legitimacy. So long as the terrorist in question serves the interests of the winds of the ‘international community’, said terrorist and his affiliates will be beyond reproach, with their only requirement being to occasionally spout Western liberal talking points.
This mindset of unchecked immunity has translated into Timor-Leste’s relations with Myanmar. Horta and his government believe there are no consequences for supporting terrorists from another country – the same kind of mindset seen in the (often vacuous) heads of Western European diplomats. Dili thinks it can mouth off and abet calls for terrorism in Myanmar with impunity and saunter into becoming an ASEAN member state.
We should remember this: Timor Leste is playing the Gambia playbook. It has marketed itself as a sock-puppet for the Western neoliberal rulers, getting overwhelmingly trounced in domestic opinion polls, in return for increased regional visibility and other perks. No genuinely productive citizen in the West currently has the time to cheer on the vapid, moral grandstanding exercises made overseas by their governing and ruling classes as they struggle with debt, immigration and soaring costs of living.
Myanmar, for context, has always sought harmony and peace in its international relations. The country’s governing and long-held foreign policy doctrine remains rooted in non-interventionism. Myanmar just so happens to be also one of those conflict landscapes where lazy, grandstanding statements, articles, books and entire careers as ‘country experts’ and academics can be manufactured by simply regurgitating terrorist propaganda. Six-figure salaries and consulting fees are drawn by ‘experts’ and activists repeating the same empty, biased nonsensical script, with paraphrased versions of the same junk published in outlets largely overseen by editors who couldn’t point out Shan State from Taninthayi Region on a map.
These experts rely on the work of local quislings only too willing to betray the country for the privilege of being labelled ‘brave dissidents’. Just like how FRETELIN’s terrorist gangs and PDF terrorists murder political opponents, discussions that go against the prevailing, anti-Myanmar government narrative are silenced and not allowed any genuine consideration – a legacy of the ‘safe space’ narrative environment cultivated by the despicable tyrants of western liberal hegemonic institutions. As such, this echo chamber becomes ripe for countries like Timor Leste and people like Horta and his sidekick, Xanana Gusmao, to partake in this exercise of moral grandstanding to increase their own visibility for ulterior motives. Horta condemns Myanmar, while flagrantly ignoring the terrorists that he calls his ‘friends’.
This prevailing context and Myanmar’s longstanding diplomatic posture do not mean the country’s government is toothless. Myanmar will not stand meekly in the face of disrespect that has crossed far beyond any acceptable thresholds. Myanmar thus must not compromise in its stand of opposing Timor Leste’s entrance into ASEAN.
Should Timor Leste be admitted, the country will only use its membership as a pulpit to take swipes at Myanmar and its interests, flagrantly disregarding the ASEAN charter’s non-interference provisions simply because its leadership have been bred and taught that they can act with impunity for being a Western neoliberal attack mouthpiece. Myanmar is under no obligation to entertain this delusion. In the same way, Horta demonstrates a disregard for facts to write his own saviour story. Myanmar should disregard its country’s desires in favour of focusing on its own interests. Let Horta and his cronies first clean up Timor Leste’s own house-still stained with and smelling of the blood of his opponents, before it dares lecture on Myanmar and cavort with terrorists.
Source: GNLM
(Explanation: This article is just the author’s opinion.)

JerusalemCNN
A planned “humanitarian city” inside Gaza intended to hold hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would be a “concentration camp,” former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned.
JerusalemCNN
A planned “humanitarian city” inside Gaza intended to hold hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would be a “concentration camp,” former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned.
Defense Minister Israel Katz said last week he had told the military to advance plans for the zone, which would eventually contain the entire population of Gaza. The area would be built on the ruins of the city of Rafah in southern Gaza, and once Palestinians enter the zone, they would not be allowed to leave. Katz also vowed to implement a plan for the emigration of Palestinians from Gaza.
“It is a concentration camp. I am sorry,” Olmert told The Guardian newspaper on Sunday. “If they (Palestinians) will be deported into the new ‘humanitarian city’, then you can say that this is part of an ethnic cleansing.”
In response to Olmert’s comments, the Prime Minister’s Office called him a “convicted felon disgracing Israel on CNN.” In a statement, the office said: “We evacuate civilians. Hamas blocks them. He calls that a war crime?” Olmert was freed from prison in 2017 after serving 16 months on corruption charges.
Olmert has previously blasted the conduct of the Israeli military in Gaza and the country’s political leadership. In May, he said he could no longer defend Israel against accusations of war crimes. “What is it if not a war crime?” he asked rhetorically in an interview with CNN. He said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and far-right members of his government are “committing actions which can’t be interpreted any other way.”
More than 58,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the start of the war, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.
The latest comments from Olmert, who served as Israel’s prime minister from 2006-2009, go much further in criticizing the country’s intentions in Gaza, however, especially since comparisons to Nazi concentration camps in Israel is considered virtually unthinkable. But Olmert said it was the “inevitable interpretation” of the plans.
“When they build a camp where they (plan to) ‘clean’ more than half of Gaza, then the inevitable understanding of the strategy of this (is that) it is not to save (Palestinians). It is to deport them, to push them and to throw them away,” Olmert told the Guardian.
Katz’s plans for what he dubbed the “humanitarian city” were discussed at a meeting with Netanyahu on Sunday evening, according to a source familiar with the matter. But after Israeli news outlets reported that it would take months to build the zone and billions of dollars, the source said Netanyahu asked to make its establishment shorter and less expensive.
Yair Lapid, the head of Israel’s opposition, blasted the plans as an attempt by Netanyahu to let his far-right government partners “run wild with extreme fantasies just to preserve his coalition.” In a statement on social media, Lapid called to “end the war and bring back the hostages.”
Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer, told CNN last week that Katz’s plan amounts to the forcible transfer of a population in preparation for deportation. Both of these are war crimes, Sfard said.
“If they are done on a massive scale – whole communities – they can amount to crimes against humanity,” Sfard added, dismissing the notion that any departure from Gaza could be considered voluntary.
Ref : CNN
JerusalemCNN
A planned “humanitarian city” inside Gaza intended to hold hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would be a “concentration camp,” former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned.
Defense Minister Israel Katz said last week he had told the military to advance plans for the zone, which would eventually contain the entire population of Gaza. The area would be built on the ruins of the city of Rafah in southern Gaza, and once Palestinians enter the zone, they would not be allowed to leave. Katz also vowed to implement a plan for the emigration of Palestinians from Gaza.
“It is a concentration camp. I am sorry,” Olmert told The Guardian newspaper on Sunday. “If they (Palestinians) will be deported into the new ‘humanitarian city’, then you can say that this is part of an ethnic cleansing.”
In response to Olmert’s comments, the Prime Minister’s Office called him a “convicted felon disgracing Israel on CNN.” In a statement, the office said: “We evacuate civilians. Hamas blocks them. He calls that a war crime?” Olmert was freed from prison in 2017 after serving 16 months on corruption charges.
Olmert has previously blasted the conduct of the Israeli military in Gaza and the country’s political leadership. In May, he said he could no longer defend Israel against accusations of war crimes. “What is it if not a war crime?” he asked rhetorically in an interview with CNN. He said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and far-right members of his government are “committing actions which can’t be interpreted any other way.”
More than 58,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the start of the war, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.
The latest comments from Olmert, who served as Israel’s prime minister from 2006-2009, go much further in criticizing the country’s intentions in Gaza, however, especially since comparisons to Nazi concentration camps in Israel is considered virtually unthinkable. But Olmert said it was the “inevitable interpretation” of the plans.
“When they build a camp where they (plan to) ‘clean’ more than half of Gaza, then the inevitable understanding of the strategy of this (is that) it is not to save (Palestinians). It is to deport them, to push them and to throw them away,” Olmert told the Guardian.
Katz’s plans for what he dubbed the “humanitarian city” were discussed at a meeting with Netanyahu on Sunday evening, according to a source familiar with the matter. But after Israeli news outlets reported that it would take months to build the zone and billions of dollars, the source said Netanyahu asked to make its establishment shorter and less expensive.
Yair Lapid, the head of Israel’s opposition, blasted the plans as an attempt by Netanyahu to let his far-right government partners “run wild with extreme fantasies just to preserve his coalition.” In a statement on social media, Lapid called to “end the war and bring back the hostages.”
Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer, told CNN last week that Katz’s plan amounts to the forcible transfer of a population in preparation for deportation. Both of these are war crimes, Sfard said.
“If they are done on a massive scale – whole communities – they can amount to crimes against humanity,” Sfard added, dismissing the notion that any departure from Gaza could be considered voluntary.
Ref : CNN

During the summit, PM Modi will exchange views on key global issues, including the reform of global governance, peace and security, responsible use of artificial intelligence, climate action, global health and economic and financial matters.
During the summit, PM Modi will exchange views on key global issues, including the reform of global governance, peace and security, responsible use of artificial intelligence, climate action, global health and economic and financial matters.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to visit Brazil from July 5 to 8 to participate in the 17th BRICS Summit, which will be held in Rio de Janeiro from July 6 to 7. This high-level gathering of world leaders is a part of PM Modi’s five-nation tour, which also includes stops in Ghana, Trinidad & Tobago, Argentina and Namibia. The tour is being undertaken with the aim at strengthening India’s bilateral and multilateral ties.
PM Modi’s agenda in BRICS Summit
During the summit, PM Modi will exchange views on key global issues, including the reform of global governance, peace and security, responsible use of artificial intelligence, climate action, global health and economic and financial matters. He is also expected to hold several bilateral meetings on the sidelines, including talks with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to broaden the strategic partnership between India and Brazil in areas such as trade, defence, energy, space, technology, agriculture and health12.
All about PM Modi’s five nation tour
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to hold his first full-fledged bilateral meeting with Argentina’s President Javier Gerardo Milei during his upcoming visit to the country. While the two leaders have previously met on the sidelines of multilateral forums, this will be their first structured dialogue.
The agenda is expected to cover defence cooperation, trade and investment, rare earth minerals, agriculture, as well as traditional and renewable energy. India is also likely to raise its longstanding concerns over cross-border terrorism during the BRICS engagements involving Brazil and Argentina.
Four-nation tour begins with Ghana
PM Modi’s tour will begin in Ghana from July 2 to 3, where he will be hosted by newly elected President John Dramani Mahama. The visit comes as Ghana undergoes economic restructuring. Key areas of discussion will include agriculture, the establishment of a vaccine development hub in West Africa, critical mineral cooperation, digital public infrastructure, and the revival of cultural exchange programmes, according to Foreign Secretary Mr. Ravi.
Visit to Trinidad and Tobago
PM Modi will then travel to Trinidad and Tobago from July 3 to 4. This marks the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to the Caribbean nation since 1999. The visit aims to deepen historical and cultural ties and expand cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
Final stop: Namibia
The final leg of the tour will take Modi to Namibia, where he will pay tribute to the country’s decolonisation icon Sam Nujoma, who passed away on February 8. During this visit, India and Namibia are expected to sign an agreement enabling unified payment inter-operability, a step that could significantly boost financial cooperation.
All you need to know about the 17th BRICS Summit
The 2025 BRICS Summit marks a significant moment as Brazil assumes the rotating presidency of the bloc, which now includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and newly joined members such as Indonesia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia has also been invited to join, reflecting the group’s expanding influence.
The summit will be held at the Museum of Modern Art in Rio de Janeiro and is expected to bring together leaders from across the Global South to address pressing global challenges and advance the BRICS agenda. Under the theme “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance,” Brazil’s BRICS presidency has outlined a few key priorities.
These include:
- Improving global health through equitable access to medicines.
- Tackling neglected tropical diseases.
- Boosting trade and investment by promoting local currencies and alternative payment systems.
- Advancing climate action with a BRICS Climate Leadership Agenda.
The summit will also focus on responsible AI governance, reforming global peace and security systems and strengthening BRICS’ internal structure for more effective decision-making.
The 2025 summit takes place amid a shifting geopolitical landscape and ongoing efforts by BRICS to expand its influence and offer an alternative platform for emerging economies. The bloc’s expansion and focus on inclusive governance underscore its ambition to play a more prominent role in shaping global economic and political norms.
During the summit, PM Modi will exchange views on key global issues, including the reform of global governance, peace and security, responsible use of artificial intelligence, climate action, global health and economic and financial matters.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to visit Brazil from July 5 to 8 to participate in the 17th BRICS Summit, which will be held in Rio de Janeiro from July 6 to 7. This high-level gathering of world leaders is a part of PM Modi’s five-nation tour, which also includes stops in Ghana, Trinidad & Tobago, Argentina and Namibia. The tour is being undertaken with the aim at strengthening India’s bilateral and multilateral ties.
PM Modi’s agenda in BRICS Summit
During the summit, PM Modi will exchange views on key global issues, including the reform of global governance, peace and security, responsible use of artificial intelligence, climate action, global health and economic and financial matters. He is also expected to hold several bilateral meetings on the sidelines, including talks with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to broaden the strategic partnership between India and Brazil in areas such as trade, defence, energy, space, technology, agriculture and health12.
All about PM Modi’s five nation tour
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to hold his first full-fledged bilateral meeting with Argentina’s President Javier Gerardo Milei during his upcoming visit to the country. While the two leaders have previously met on the sidelines of multilateral forums, this will be their first structured dialogue.
The agenda is expected to cover defence cooperation, trade and investment, rare earth minerals, agriculture, as well as traditional and renewable energy. India is also likely to raise its longstanding concerns over cross-border terrorism during the BRICS engagements involving Brazil and Argentina.
Four-nation tour begins with Ghana
PM Modi’s tour will begin in Ghana from July 2 to 3, where he will be hosted by newly elected President John Dramani Mahama. The visit comes as Ghana undergoes economic restructuring. Key areas of discussion will include agriculture, the establishment of a vaccine development hub in West Africa, critical mineral cooperation, digital public infrastructure, and the revival of cultural exchange programmes, according to Foreign Secretary Mr. Ravi.
Visit to Trinidad and Tobago
PM Modi will then travel to Trinidad and Tobago from July 3 to 4. This marks the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to the Caribbean nation since 1999. The visit aims to deepen historical and cultural ties and expand cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
Final stop: Namibia
The final leg of the tour will take Modi to Namibia, where he will pay tribute to the country’s decolonisation icon Sam Nujoma, who passed away on February 8. During this visit, India and Namibia are expected to sign an agreement enabling unified payment inter-operability, a step that could significantly boost financial cooperation.
All you need to know about the 17th BRICS Summit
The 2025 BRICS Summit marks a significant moment as Brazil assumes the rotating presidency of the bloc, which now includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and newly joined members such as Indonesia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia has also been invited to join, reflecting the group’s expanding influence.
The summit will be held at the Museum of Modern Art in Rio de Janeiro and is expected to bring together leaders from across the Global South to address pressing global challenges and advance the BRICS agenda. Under the theme “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance,” Brazil’s BRICS presidency has outlined a few key priorities.
These include:
- Improving global health through equitable access to medicines.
- Tackling neglected tropical diseases.
- Boosting trade and investment by promoting local currencies and alternative payment systems.
- Advancing climate action with a BRICS Climate Leadership Agenda.
The summit will also focus on responsible AI governance, reforming global peace and security systems and strengthening BRICS’ internal structure for more effective decision-making.
The 2025 summit takes place amid a shifting geopolitical landscape and ongoing efforts by BRICS to expand its influence and offer an alternative platform for emerging economies. The bloc’s expansion and focus on inclusive governance underscore its ambition to play a more prominent role in shaping global economic and political norms.

Diplomatic relations between Myanmar and China have reached their diamond jubilee anniversary on 8 June 2025. The state-level grand celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Myanmar-China diplomatic tie was held in Nay Pyi Taw yesterday.
Bound by history, Myanmar and China have been sharing the intertwined fates with fraternal ties since prehistoric times.
Diplomatic relations between Myanmar and China have reached their diamond jubilee anniversary on 8 June 2025. The state-level grand celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Myanmar-China diplomatic tie was held in Nay Pyi Taw yesterday.
Bound by history, Myanmar and China have been sharing the intertwined fates with fraternal ties since prehistoric times.
The most ancient tie between the two countries was evidenced as early as 4 BC; there was a trade route linking China’s Sichuan and Yunnan provinces with Myanmar. Again, in the Chinese Tang Dynasty from 618-907 AD, a team of musicians and dancers from Myanmar’s Pyu Dynasty visited the capital of the Chinese Tang Dynasty and exchanged cultures. The very first Myanmar diplomat to China can be traced back to Myanmar’s Bagan Dynasty in the 12th century when the Venerable Sayadaw Shin Ditha Pamauk arrived in Beijing for negotiations, which concluded as a success story of an ancient diplomatic milestone between the two countries with mutual respect and understanding.
Sharing the geographical origins of mountains, hills and rivers, the two countries experienced similar historical paths, particularly in World War II when the world stood against fascism eighty years ago. While Russia (former Soviet Union) fought Nazi Germany together with its allies in the European frontline, Myanmar and China fought the Japanese fascists in the Asian frontline respectively. Historical records estimate that around 20 million Chinese sacrificed their lives and souls in the battles resisting the Japanese aggression, while Myanmar lost at least one million citizens in the struggle to expel Japanese fascist forces.
Myanmar and China established a strategic partnership as early as in fighting back the Japanese invasions, notably through the construction of the Yunnan-Myanmar Road, connecting Kunming in China’s Yunnan Province and Lashio in Myanmar’s Shan State. This vital route played a crucial role in the supply chain for China in resisting Japanese aggression. Chinese forces provided reciprocal support to the Myanmar Army in combatting Japanese invaders, especially in the frontline in northern Myanmar and the southern part of China. More than just neighbouring countries, Myanmar and China stood as allies in defending their sovereignty against foreign invasion. This reflects their Swe Myo Pauk Phaw spirit in the shared struggle against colonialism during the 1940s.
Accordingly, since World War II, Myanmar and China have already developed the groundwork for a “Community of Common Destiny for Mankind” or a “Shared Future” through their efforts.
The sense of a shared future and shared interests reflects togetherness on the road to building peace, development and prosperity, which will be shared among each other by recognizing differences and diversities with mutual respect and trust.
Today, the world is reshaping the international order toward a global environment with peace, justice and equality which guarantees for non-hegemonic arena; the People’s Republic of China is one of the steering nations in this mechanism guided by the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, of which, both Myanmar and China were pioneering signatories dating back in 1954.
What is more, Myanmar was the first non-communist country that recognized the new China after its founding of the People’s Republic of China on 1 October 1949. Furthermore, Myanmar is the very first neighbouring country to China that peacefully agreed to finalize the bilateral border demarcation; and the two countries have never ever had any disputes over their shared boundary ownership.
Under the Swe Myo Pauk-Phaw (fraternal) tie, Myanmar and China uphold mutual support in the international diplomatic realm. As an all-weather friend of China, Myanmar consistently supports the ‘One China’ policy and firmly rejects any acts of aggression against China carried out from Myanmar territory. Reciprocally, China has persistently maintained its steadfast diplomatic support to Myanmar on the international stage in every successive era.
However, without a doubt, the threats posed by neocolonialism have repeatedly sought to weaken this deep-rooted solidarity between the two Asian nations, which have been sharing affection for thousands of years with mutual respect. Both countries, Myanmar and China, firmly reject hegemonism, any attempts to distabilize the region, and neocolonial interference in any disguise, standing together in unity and supporting each other through every challenge.
The concept of a shared future and shared interests for a common destiny are the core values that should be vested in the global trend of multipolarity. The two leaders, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing of Myanmar and President Xi Jinping of the PRC jointly upheld the United Nationscentered international system and the international order underpinned by international law and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of developing countries when they met in Moscow in early May at the sideline of the Grand Celebration of 80th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. Their meeting reached an important consensus on building the Myanmar-China community with a shared future.
Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and President Xi Jinping exchanged congratulatory messages on the occasion of the diamond jubilee anniversary of the bilateral tie on Sunday.
Senior General Min Aung Hlaing emphasized that the longstanding “Pauk-Phaw” friendship, which was cultivated by successive generations of leadership, has continued to grow stronger over time. In 2011, this enduring relationship was elevated to a Comprehensive Strategic Cooperative Partnership. President Xi Jinping’s historic visit to Myanmar in 2020 marked a new chapter in bilateral relations, during which both nations reaffirmed their commitment to building a Myanmar-China community with a shared future.
In return, Chinese President Xi Jinping also highlighted in his congratulations that the friendship between Myanmar and China has stood the test of time and grown even stronger, adding that upholding the jointly advocated Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and the Bandung Spirit, the two countries have been committed to good neighbourliness, deepened mutually beneficial cooperation, and firmly supported each other on issues regarding their respective core interests and major concerns, setting a fine example of friendly exchange between countries.
China, as a rising power with strong economic and political unity, having a highly esteemed cultural status, consistently shares weals and woes in multi-faceted issues. China’s vast and immediate assistance in the recent major earthquake in Myanmar deserves earnest recognition as a milestone in the humanitarian efforts in Myanmar. The people of Myanmar always express our heart-touched gratitude to the government and the people of China for their timely and generous humanitarian assistance in earthquake management. What is more, it is our sincere appreciation to China for its unwavering support in Myanmar’s efforts to achieve long-lasting peace and stability, national reconciliation, and socioeconomic development.
The enduring ties between Myanmar and China bearing the Pauk Phaw spirit will stand lasting over to our future generations and descendants for the next thousands of years with resilient love.

Source: The Global New Light of Myanmar
Diplomatic relations between Myanmar and China have reached their diamond jubilee anniversary on 8 June 2025. The state-level grand celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Myanmar-China diplomatic tie was held in Nay Pyi Taw yesterday.
Bound by history, Myanmar and China have been sharing the intertwined fates with fraternal ties since prehistoric times.
The most ancient tie between the two countries was evidenced as early as 4 BC; there was a trade route linking China’s Sichuan and Yunnan provinces with Myanmar. Again, in the Chinese Tang Dynasty from 618-907 AD, a team of musicians and dancers from Myanmar’s Pyu Dynasty visited the capital of the Chinese Tang Dynasty and exchanged cultures. The very first Myanmar diplomat to China can be traced back to Myanmar’s Bagan Dynasty in the 12th century when the Venerable Sayadaw Shin Ditha Pamauk arrived in Beijing for negotiations, which concluded as a success story of an ancient diplomatic milestone between the two countries with mutual respect and understanding.
Sharing the geographical origins of mountains, hills and rivers, the two countries experienced similar historical paths, particularly in World War II when the world stood against fascism eighty years ago. While Russia (former Soviet Union) fought Nazi Germany together with its allies in the European frontline, Myanmar and China fought the Japanese fascists in the Asian frontline respectively. Historical records estimate that around 20 million Chinese sacrificed their lives and souls in the battles resisting the Japanese aggression, while Myanmar lost at least one million citizens in the struggle to expel Japanese fascist forces.
Myanmar and China established a strategic partnership as early as in fighting back the Japanese invasions, notably through the construction of the Yunnan-Myanmar Road, connecting Kunming in China’s Yunnan Province and Lashio in Myanmar’s Shan State. This vital route played a crucial role in the supply chain for China in resisting Japanese aggression. Chinese forces provided reciprocal support to the Myanmar Army in combatting Japanese invaders, especially in the frontline in northern Myanmar and the southern part of China. More than just neighbouring countries, Myanmar and China stood as allies in defending their sovereignty against foreign invasion. This reflects their Swe Myo Pauk Phaw spirit in the shared struggle against colonialism during the 1940s.
Accordingly, since World War II, Myanmar and China have already developed the groundwork for a “Community of Common Destiny for Mankind” or a “Shared Future” through their efforts.
The sense of a shared future and shared interests reflects togetherness on the road to building peace, development and prosperity, which will be shared among each other by recognizing differences and diversities with mutual respect and trust.
Today, the world is reshaping the international order toward a global environment with peace, justice and equality which guarantees for non-hegemonic arena; the People’s Republic of China is one of the steering nations in this mechanism guided by the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, of which, both Myanmar and China were pioneering signatories dating back in 1954.
What is more, Myanmar was the first non-communist country that recognized the new China after its founding of the People’s Republic of China on 1 October 1949. Furthermore, Myanmar is the very first neighbouring country to China that peacefully agreed to finalize the bilateral border demarcation; and the two countries have never ever had any disputes over their shared boundary ownership.
Under the Swe Myo Pauk-Phaw (fraternal) tie, Myanmar and China uphold mutual support in the international diplomatic realm. As an all-weather friend of China, Myanmar consistently supports the ‘One China’ policy and firmly rejects any acts of aggression against China carried out from Myanmar territory. Reciprocally, China has persistently maintained its steadfast diplomatic support to Myanmar on the international stage in every successive era.
However, without a doubt, the threats posed by neocolonialism have repeatedly sought to weaken this deep-rooted solidarity between the two Asian nations, which have been sharing affection for thousands of years with mutual respect. Both countries, Myanmar and China, firmly reject hegemonism, any attempts to distabilize the region, and neocolonial interference in any disguise, standing together in unity and supporting each other through every challenge.
The concept of a shared future and shared interests for a common destiny are the core values that should be vested in the global trend of multipolarity. The two leaders, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing of Myanmar and President Xi Jinping of the PRC jointly upheld the United Nationscentered international system and the international order underpinned by international law and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of developing countries when they met in Moscow in early May at the sideline of the Grand Celebration of 80th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. Their meeting reached an important consensus on building the Myanmar-China community with a shared future.
Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and President Xi Jinping exchanged congratulatory messages on the occasion of the diamond jubilee anniversary of the bilateral tie on Sunday.
Senior General Min Aung Hlaing emphasized that the longstanding “Pauk-Phaw” friendship, which was cultivated by successive generations of leadership, has continued to grow stronger over time. In 2011, this enduring relationship was elevated to a Comprehensive Strategic Cooperative Partnership. President Xi Jinping’s historic visit to Myanmar in 2020 marked a new chapter in bilateral relations, during which both nations reaffirmed their commitment to building a Myanmar-China community with a shared future.
In return, Chinese President Xi Jinping also highlighted in his congratulations that the friendship between Myanmar and China has stood the test of time and grown even stronger, adding that upholding the jointly advocated Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and the Bandung Spirit, the two countries have been committed to good neighbourliness, deepened mutually beneficial cooperation, and firmly supported each other on issues regarding their respective core interests and major concerns, setting a fine example of friendly exchange between countries.
China, as a rising power with strong economic and political unity, having a highly esteemed cultural status, consistently shares weals and woes in multi-faceted issues. China’s vast and immediate assistance in the recent major earthquake in Myanmar deserves earnest recognition as a milestone in the humanitarian efforts in Myanmar. The people of Myanmar always express our heart-touched gratitude to the government and the people of China for their timely and generous humanitarian assistance in earthquake management. What is more, it is our sincere appreciation to China for its unwavering support in Myanmar’s efforts to achieve long-lasting peace and stability, national reconciliation, and socioeconomic development.
The enduring ties between Myanmar and China bearing the Pauk Phaw spirit will stand lasting over to our future generations and descendants for the next thousands of years with resilient love.

Source: The Global New Light of Myanmar

In modern conflict zones, proposals for "humanitarian corridors" are often introduced as emergency mechanisms for delivering aid to civilians caught in crossfires. On paper, the concept appears benevolent and necessary: create temporary access routes through embattled or inaccessible regions, allowing food, medicine, and emergency supplies to reach vulnerable populations.
In modern conflict zones, proposals for "humanitarian corridors" are often introduced as emergency mechanisms for delivering aid to civilians caught in crossfires. On paper, the concept appears benevolent and necessary: create temporary access routes through embattled or inaccessible regions, allowing food, medicine, and emergency supplies to reach vulnerable populations. However, beneath the humanitarian impulse lies a complex web of legal, political, and security vulnerabilities, especially when such corridors traverse territories controlled by non-state armed actors.
Undermining Sovereignty: The Legal Dilemma
The foundation of international relations is built on the principle of state sovereignty. Enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, and reaffirmed by instruments such as the Declaration on Principles of International Law (1970) and customary international law, this principle affirms that each state has the exclusive right to control its internal affairs and territorial integrity without external interference.
Humanitarian corridors that bypass the central government and engage with non-state actors challenge this principle. When aid operations are coordinated with entities that do not hold recognized sovereignty, such actions can amount to de facto legitimization of parallel governance structures. This poses a dangerous precedent: legitimizing governance by force, rather than by law or democratic process.
According to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), particularly under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, humanitarian access must be consented to by the state party concerned. Article 70(1) of Additional Protocol I states that relief actions "shall be undertaken subject to the agreement of the Parties concerned." In non-international armed conflicts, which fall under Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II, humanitarian operations still require state consent, unless the Security Council authorizes otherwise under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Thus, from a legal perspective, humanitarian corridors established without the consent of the host state or a clear UN mandate may be illegitimate. They risk violating the principle of non-intervention and may be interpreted as an infringement on state sovereignty, potentially amounting to an internationally wrongful act.
The Philadelphi Corridor: A Warning from the Middle East
The so-called Philadelphi Corridor provides a real-world cautionary tale. Situated along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, this narrow strip was initially created under the Oslo Accords to serve as a buffer zone for monitoring arms smuggling and providing a humanitarian lifeline to Gaza.
Despite this objective, the corridor was quickly co-opted by Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in many countries, which used it as a conduit for smuggling weapons, ammunition, and military supplies into Gaza. Tunnels were dug beneath the corridor, enabling the steady flow of contraband. What was meant to be a route for humanitarian relief morphed into a strategic asset for militant actors, fueling violence in the region.
Eventually, citing national security concerns, Israel seized control of the corridor and announced it would never relinquish it again. This episode illustrates how humanitarian mechanisms, when not robustly governed, can directly compromise the security of neighboring states and prolong violent conflict.
The case also underscores a core principle of International Humanitarian Law: humanitarian aid must be neutral, impartial, and independent. When these principles are not observed, corridors can be repurposed for strategic advantage. The abuse of humanitarian access undermines not only security, but also the legitimacy of humanitarian norms.
Security Vulnerabilities in Fragile Regions
In regions where central authority is weak or contested, the establishment of humanitarian corridors poses a range of security risks:
Weapons and Narcotics Smuggling: Corridors passing through areas outside government control can become unmonitored pathways for illicit activities.
Terrorist Infiltration: Unregulated access can enable the movement of extremist fighters across borders or conflict lines.
Empowerment of Illicit Actors: By providing access to resources and international legitimacy, corridors can embolden non-state actors and entrench their control over territory.
Security guarantees in such regions are difficult to enforce. Unlike the Philadelphi Corridor, where Egypt and Qatar attempted (unsuccessfully) to provide monitoring forces, many conflict zones lack reliable third-party security providers. Who takes responsibility if the corridor is hijacked? Who ensures neutrality, safety, and the exclusive delivery of aid?
Furthermore, the financial burden of establishing and maintaining such corridors is immense. International organizations, including the United Nations, are often already overstretched. Meanwhile, donor fatigue and shifting geopolitical priorities limit the capacity of major powers to fund and secure such operations. Without robust oversight and sustained support, the risk of abuse becomes all but certain.
Moral Hazard and Political Liability
A less discussed but equally important issue is moral hazard. If international actors sidestep state authority to deliver aid, they may unintentionally incentivize armed groups to seize territory, knowing that humanitarian support will follow. This creates a perverse cycle: the more territory they control, the more likely they are to gain de facto recognition and access to resources.
Should weapons or contraband be smuggled through these corridors, neighboring states and international agencies that facilitated them could be held partially responsible. In a world increasingly governed by legal norms, liability does not stop at borders.
According to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), states may bear responsibility for aid programs that cause harm if they knowingly contribute to violations of international obligations. If aid leads to unintended consequences like arming militants or destabilizing neighboring regions, those involved may face not just political fallout but also legal scrutiny.
The Path Forward: Upholding Law and Sovereignty
The urgency of humanitarian need should not blind policymakers to the long-term strategic consequences of their decisions. Aid must be delivered in a manner that respects national sovereignty, supports the rule of law, and does not enable or legitimize actors who operate outside international norms.
In short, humanitarianism must not be weaponized. The international community has a responsibility to ensure that aid does not become a tool of conflict, but rather a bridge to peace. The experience of the Philadelphi Corridor is not just a warning—it is a blueprint of how good intentions can be hijacked without firm adherence to international law.
References;
- United Nations Charter, Article 2(4)
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (UNGA Resolution 2625, 1970)
https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ga_2625/ga_2625_ph_e.pdf - Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols (1977)
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties - Article 70, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions
(On relief actions and required state consent)
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-70 - Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gc-1949-1/article-3 - Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001)
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf - UN Security Council Resolution 2165 (2014) – Authorizing cross-border humanitarian aid in Syria/ https://undocs.org/S/RES/2165(2014)
- UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) – Guidelines on humanitarian access/ https://www.unocha.org/
- Sassòli, Marco. International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies, and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019.
- Fleck, Dieter (Ed.). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press, 2013.
- Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC)
https://pilac.law.harvard.edu/ - ICRC Commentaries on International Humanitarian Law
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/humanitarian-access-and-law - Byman, Daniel. A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism. Oxford University Press, 2011.
- Rubin, Barry. The Truth About Syria. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
- BBC News – Gaza smuggling tunnels: The life beneath (on Philadelphi tunnels)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11098259 - Council on Foreign Relations – Hamas and Gaza’s Tunnels
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hamas-and-gazas-tunnels
In modern conflict zones, proposals for "humanitarian corridors" are often introduced as emergency mechanisms for delivering aid to civilians caught in crossfires. On paper, the concept appears benevolent and necessary: create temporary access routes through embattled or inaccessible regions, allowing food, medicine, and emergency supplies to reach vulnerable populations. However, beneath the humanitarian impulse lies a complex web of legal, political, and security vulnerabilities, especially when such corridors traverse territories controlled by non-state armed actors.
Undermining Sovereignty: The Legal Dilemma
The foundation of international relations is built on the principle of state sovereignty. Enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, and reaffirmed by instruments such as the Declaration on Principles of International Law (1970) and customary international law, this principle affirms that each state has the exclusive right to control its internal affairs and territorial integrity without external interference.
Humanitarian corridors that bypass the central government and engage with non-state actors challenge this principle. When aid operations are coordinated with entities that do not hold recognized sovereignty, such actions can amount to de facto legitimization of parallel governance structures. This poses a dangerous precedent: legitimizing governance by force, rather than by law or democratic process.
According to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), particularly under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, humanitarian access must be consented to by the state party concerned. Article 70(1) of Additional Protocol I states that relief actions "shall be undertaken subject to the agreement of the Parties concerned." In non-international armed conflicts, which fall under Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II, humanitarian operations still require state consent, unless the Security Council authorizes otherwise under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Thus, from a legal perspective, humanitarian corridors established without the consent of the host state or a clear UN mandate may be illegitimate. They risk violating the principle of non-intervention and may be interpreted as an infringement on state sovereignty, potentially amounting to an internationally wrongful act.
The Philadelphi Corridor: A Warning from the Middle East
The so-called Philadelphi Corridor provides a real-world cautionary tale. Situated along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, this narrow strip was initially created under the Oslo Accords to serve as a buffer zone for monitoring arms smuggling and providing a humanitarian lifeline to Gaza.
Despite this objective, the corridor was quickly co-opted by Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in many countries, which used it as a conduit for smuggling weapons, ammunition, and military supplies into Gaza. Tunnels were dug beneath the corridor, enabling the steady flow of contraband. What was meant to be a route for humanitarian relief morphed into a strategic asset for militant actors, fueling violence in the region.
Eventually, citing national security concerns, Israel seized control of the corridor and announced it would never relinquish it again. This episode illustrates how humanitarian mechanisms, when not robustly governed, can directly compromise the security of neighboring states and prolong violent conflict.
The case also underscores a core principle of International Humanitarian Law: humanitarian aid must be neutral, impartial, and independent. When these principles are not observed, corridors can be repurposed for strategic advantage. The abuse of humanitarian access undermines not only security, but also the legitimacy of humanitarian norms.
Security Vulnerabilities in Fragile Regions
In regions where central authority is weak or contested, the establishment of humanitarian corridors poses a range of security risks:
Weapons and Narcotics Smuggling: Corridors passing through areas outside government control can become unmonitored pathways for illicit activities.
Terrorist Infiltration: Unregulated access can enable the movement of extremist fighters across borders or conflict lines.
Empowerment of Illicit Actors: By providing access to resources and international legitimacy, corridors can embolden non-state actors and entrench their control over territory.
Security guarantees in such regions are difficult to enforce. Unlike the Philadelphi Corridor, where Egypt and Qatar attempted (unsuccessfully) to provide monitoring forces, many conflict zones lack reliable third-party security providers. Who takes responsibility if the corridor is hijacked? Who ensures neutrality, safety, and the exclusive delivery of aid?
Furthermore, the financial burden of establishing and maintaining such corridors is immense. International organizations, including the United Nations, are often already overstretched. Meanwhile, donor fatigue and shifting geopolitical priorities limit the capacity of major powers to fund and secure such operations. Without robust oversight and sustained support, the risk of abuse becomes all but certain.
Moral Hazard and Political Liability
A less discussed but equally important issue is moral hazard. If international actors sidestep state authority to deliver aid, they may unintentionally incentivize armed groups to seize territory, knowing that humanitarian support will follow. This creates a perverse cycle: the more territory they control, the more likely they are to gain de facto recognition and access to resources.
Should weapons or contraband be smuggled through these corridors, neighboring states and international agencies that facilitated them could be held partially responsible. In a world increasingly governed by legal norms, liability does not stop at borders.
According to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), states may bear responsibility for aid programs that cause harm if they knowingly contribute to violations of international obligations. If aid leads to unintended consequences like arming militants or destabilizing neighboring regions, those involved may face not just political fallout but also legal scrutiny.
The Path Forward: Upholding Law and Sovereignty
The urgency of humanitarian need should not blind policymakers to the long-term strategic consequences of their decisions. Aid must be delivered in a manner that respects national sovereignty, supports the rule of law, and does not enable or legitimize actors who operate outside international norms.
In short, humanitarianism must not be weaponized. The international community has a responsibility to ensure that aid does not become a tool of conflict, but rather a bridge to peace. The experience of the Philadelphi Corridor is not just a warning—it is a blueprint of how good intentions can be hijacked without firm adherence to international law.
References;
- United Nations Charter, Article 2(4)
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (UNGA Resolution 2625, 1970)
https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ga_2625/ga_2625_ph_e.pdf - Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols (1977)
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties - Article 70, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions
(On relief actions and required state consent)
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-70 - Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gc-1949-1/article-3 - Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001)
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf - UN Security Council Resolution 2165 (2014) – Authorizing cross-border humanitarian aid in Syria/ https://undocs.org/S/RES/2165(2014)
- UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) – Guidelines on humanitarian access/ https://www.unocha.org/
- Sassòli, Marco. International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies, and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019.
- Fleck, Dieter (Ed.). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford University Press, 2013.
- Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict (PILAC)
https://pilac.law.harvard.edu/ - ICRC Commentaries on International Humanitarian Law
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/humanitarian-access-and-law - Byman, Daniel. A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism. Oxford University Press, 2011.
- Rubin, Barry. The Truth About Syria. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
- BBC News – Gaza smuggling tunnels: The life beneath (on Philadelphi tunnels)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11098259 - Council on Foreign Relations – Hamas and Gaza’s Tunnels
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hamas-and-gazas-tunnels

Despite Donald Trump’s fraying popularity at home, there is a corner of the globe where his brand remains remarkably resilient: Eastern Europe. Last Sunday, the Trump-loving far-right populist George Simion topped the first round of Romania’s presidential elections, securing over 40 percent of the vote and a realistic path to the top office. Echoing Trump’s pledge to “Make America Great Again,” Simion promises to “give back to the Romanian people what was taken from them”. He is not an outlier.
Despite Donald Trump’s fraying popularity at home, there is a corner of the globe where his brand remains remarkably resilient: Eastern Europe. Last Sunday, the Trump-loving far-right populist George Simion topped the first round of Romania’s presidential elections, securing over 40 percent of the vote and a realistic path to the top office. Echoing Trump’s pledge to “Make America Great Again,” Simion promises to “give back to the Romanian people what was taken from them”. He is not an outlier.
In neighbouring Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban openly embraces the mantle of Trump’s European standard-bearer. Trumpworld’s influence in the region extends beyond politics. Jared Kushner is spearheading a real estate venture in downtown Belgrade, and Donald Trump Jr has recently completed his second tour in months of Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria, rubbing shoulders with politicians, business elites and crypto entrepreneurs eager to forge ties with the Trump family.
Eastern Europe’s fascination with the “America First” president is fuelled by both ideological alignment and hard-nosed pragmatism. The MAGA message resonates widely across the post-communist landscape. A recent Gallup poll ahead of the 2024 United States election showed that 49 percent of respondents in Bulgaria and Hungary – and a staggering 59 percent in Serbia – preferred Trump over Kamala Harris. This is no coincidence. From the AfD supporters in former East Germany to the ruling Georgian Dream party in Tbilisi, illiberal actors across the region are rallying against the liberal democratic consensus. Their views on issues like LGBTQ rights, race, gender, multiculturalism, vaccines and Ukraine mirror those of Trump’s base. Trump’s friendliness towards Vladimir Putin has further enhanced his appeal in Russia-friendly nations like Serbia.
There is also a transnational dimension. Eastern European diasporas in the US tend to favour Trump, drawn by social conservatism or competition with other ethnic and racial groups. Their counterparts in Western Europe are similarly inclined, even as they benefit from the very open-border policies they often deride. In Romania’s recent election, 60 percent of Romanians living in the European Union and the United Kingdom voted for Simion. Many had previously backed Calin Georgescu, a far-right figure publicly defended by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference.
At home, elites see in Trump a potential enabler. A powerful friend in Washington who overlooks corruption and democratic backsliding could prove advantageous both domestically and internationally. The prospect of US foreign policy becoming indistinguishable from the Trump Organization’s business agenda is attractive in a region rife with opaque sectors like infrastructure, energy and mining. The recent US-Ukraine critical minerals deal is seen as a blueprint for currying favour with a transactional White House.
This relationship is already yielding dividends. In April, the Trump administration reversed sanctions on Antal Rogan, a close Orban ally, originally imposed under the Global Magnitsky Act by the Biden administration. The move has raised hopes elsewhere: in Bulgaria, tycoon and political heavyweight Delyan Peevski – also sanctioned under Magnitsky – is reportedly eyeing a similar reprieve.
Yet Eastern Europe’s Trump infatuation may prove fragile. Ironically, Trump’s economic nationalism threatens to undercut the very economies governed by his ideological allies. Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily reliant on automotive exports, stand to suffer under US tariffs. Slovakia’s car industry alone accounts for nearly 30 percent of national exports and employs 10 percent of the workforce. Even a modest 10 percent tariff could decimate jobs in Central Europe’s industrial belt.
Such economic fallout would have political consequences. In the Czech Republic, it might boost populist Andrej Babis, a Trump-like businessman. But in Hungary, Orban already faces a serious challenge from Peter Magyar, with elections looming next year. In Slovakia, Robert Fico governs with a slim majority and increasing public dissent – his long-term survival is uncertain.
Trumpism has already proven a liability for right-wing allies in Canada and Australia. While Eastern Europe remains more receptive, the region is not immune to the risks of over-identification with a movement that pits itself against the European Union, liberal values and global economic integration.
The MAGA revolution may still fire up crowds in Bucharest and Belgrade – but its contradictions could just as easily burn those who embrace it.
Source - https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/5/7/eastern-europe-bets-on-trump-but-at-what-cost
Despite Donald Trump’s fraying popularity at home, there is a corner of the globe where his brand remains remarkably resilient: Eastern Europe. Last Sunday, the Trump-loving far-right populist George Simion topped the first round of Romania’s presidential elections, securing over 40 percent of the vote and a realistic path to the top office. Echoing Trump’s pledge to “Make America Great Again,” Simion promises to “give back to the Romanian people what was taken from them”. He is not an outlier.
In neighbouring Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban openly embraces the mantle of Trump’s European standard-bearer. Trumpworld’s influence in the region extends beyond politics. Jared Kushner is spearheading a real estate venture in downtown Belgrade, and Donald Trump Jr has recently completed his second tour in months of Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria, rubbing shoulders with politicians, business elites and crypto entrepreneurs eager to forge ties with the Trump family.
Eastern Europe’s fascination with the “America First” president is fuelled by both ideological alignment and hard-nosed pragmatism. The MAGA message resonates widely across the post-communist landscape. A recent Gallup poll ahead of the 2024 United States election showed that 49 percent of respondents in Bulgaria and Hungary – and a staggering 59 percent in Serbia – preferred Trump over Kamala Harris. This is no coincidence. From the AfD supporters in former East Germany to the ruling Georgian Dream party in Tbilisi, illiberal actors across the region are rallying against the liberal democratic consensus. Their views on issues like LGBTQ rights, race, gender, multiculturalism, vaccines and Ukraine mirror those of Trump’s base. Trump’s friendliness towards Vladimir Putin has further enhanced his appeal in Russia-friendly nations like Serbia.
There is also a transnational dimension. Eastern European diasporas in the US tend to favour Trump, drawn by social conservatism or competition with other ethnic and racial groups. Their counterparts in Western Europe are similarly inclined, even as they benefit from the very open-border policies they often deride. In Romania’s recent election, 60 percent of Romanians living in the European Union and the United Kingdom voted for Simion. Many had previously backed Calin Georgescu, a far-right figure publicly defended by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference.
At home, elites see in Trump a potential enabler. A powerful friend in Washington who overlooks corruption and democratic backsliding could prove advantageous both domestically and internationally. The prospect of US foreign policy becoming indistinguishable from the Trump Organization’s business agenda is attractive in a region rife with opaque sectors like infrastructure, energy and mining. The recent US-Ukraine critical minerals deal is seen as a blueprint for currying favour with a transactional White House.
This relationship is already yielding dividends. In April, the Trump administration reversed sanctions on Antal Rogan, a close Orban ally, originally imposed under the Global Magnitsky Act by the Biden administration. The move has raised hopes elsewhere: in Bulgaria, tycoon and political heavyweight Delyan Peevski – also sanctioned under Magnitsky – is reportedly eyeing a similar reprieve.
Yet Eastern Europe’s Trump infatuation may prove fragile. Ironically, Trump’s economic nationalism threatens to undercut the very economies governed by his ideological allies. Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily reliant on automotive exports, stand to suffer under US tariffs. Slovakia’s car industry alone accounts for nearly 30 percent of national exports and employs 10 percent of the workforce. Even a modest 10 percent tariff could decimate jobs in Central Europe’s industrial belt.
Such economic fallout would have political consequences. In the Czech Republic, it might boost populist Andrej Babis, a Trump-like businessman. But in Hungary, Orban already faces a serious challenge from Peter Magyar, with elections looming next year. In Slovakia, Robert Fico governs with a slim majority and increasing public dissent – his long-term survival is uncertain.
Trumpism has already proven a liability for right-wing allies in Canada and Australia. While Eastern Europe remains more receptive, the region is not immune to the risks of over-identification with a movement that pits itself against the European Union, liberal values and global economic integration.
The MAGA revolution may still fire up crowds in Bucharest and Belgrade – but its contradictions could just as easily burn those who embrace it.
Source - https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/5/7/eastern-europe-bets-on-trump-but-at-what-cost

“Salute to the Houthis!” This nationalist cheering appeared across Chinese social media as Western commercial vessels ran a gauntlet of drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea against ships they claimed were traveling to Israel. Meanwhile, ships marked “Chinese Vessel & Crew” sail through these same waters relatively untouched. It’s not a coincidence.
“Salute to the Houthis!” This nationalist cheering appeared across Chinese social media as Western commercial vessels ran a gauntlet of drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea against ships they claimed were traveling to Israel. Meanwhile, ships marked “Chinese Vessel & Crew” sail through these same waters relatively untouched. It’s not a coincidence. Maritime tracking data now confirms what Houthi officials have been openly sharing: Chinese ships receive special treatment in a conflict zone that has become a crucible of hostility toward US interests.
This preferential treatment is no accident, but rather the result of careful diplomatic choreography. Recent US Treasury sanctions reveal that Houthi leaders, including Mohamed Ali al-Houthi of the Supreme Political Council, coordinated directly with Chinese officials to guarantee their vessels would not be targeted. This informal pact was formalized during diplomatic talks in Oman, culminating in explicit safe passage guarantees, even as drone and missile strikes against US and other Western shipping escalated. While Houthi officials publicly claim to discriminate between Western and Chinese vessels, their targeting systems remain rudimentary and prone to error, occasionally resulting in mistaken attacks on Chinese ships traversing the narrow Bab el-Mandeb strait, but have shown progress in improving their accuracy, thanks to Chinese technology.
For Beijing, its real battle starts on the economic front via the Islamic Republic proxies, where control of vital maritime corridors potentially yields greater advantages than any negotiated trade agreement.
This strategic calculation is reflected in China’s official messaging. Xinhua News Agency portrays the crisis as revealing “United States’ impotence” against “non-traditional opponents like the Houthis” while claiming US military intervention has “only triggered more resistance” and exposed “the decline of US economic influence and the gradual disintegration of its alliance system.” Behind this rhetoric lies a clear economic imperative: transit the Red Sea. For Beijing, preserving freedom of movement in this corridor is non-negotiable. While overall shipping traffic through the Red Sea has plunged by nearly 70 percent since attacks began, the proportion of China-linked tonnage has surged, a silent testament to the effectiveness of the arrangement.
The impact on European economies has been severe. Major European shipping companies have been forced to reroute vessels around the Cape of Good Hope. This creates an artificial competitive advantage for Chinese goods, which continue to flow unimpeded through the Red Sea corridor while European competitors face delays and higher expenses. German and French manufacturers are already reporting supply chain disruptions and lost market share to Chinese competitors, a tangible economic victory for Beijing, which was achieved primarily through proxy conflict rather than direct trade competition with the United States.
This arrangement goes beyond short-term tactical cooperation. US sanctions against Chinese satellite and shipping firms provide evidence that Beijing’s technological and logistical support has strengthened Houthi capabilities and created advantages for Chinese maritime interests. Multiple Chinese companies, including Shenzhen Boyu Imports and Exports among others, have been sanctioned for supplying dual-use components that bolster the Houthis’ missile and UAV capabilities. Beijing may not be firing missiles, but it supplies the parts, the software, and the satellite eyes that help aim them.
China’s technological and diplomatic support network
In April 2025, the United States sanctioned Chang Guang Satellite Technology Co. Ltd. (CGSTL) for providing satellite imagery to Yemen’s Houthis that enabled precise strikes on US naval assets in the Red Sea. CGSTL had previously been sanctioned in 2023 for providing battlefield intelligence during its military operations in Ukraine, establishing a pattern of the company acting as a de facto intelligence asset for US adversaries. But CGSTL is no ordinary company, embedded within the Chinese Academy of Sciences and backed by Jilin’s provincial government, it exemplifies China’s military-civil fusion policy, functioning more as an extension of Beijing’s intelligence apparatus than an independent enterprise. Despite Washington’s repeated warnings, Beijing has maintained a posture of strategic denial: providing the tools of war while feigning neutrality and taking no visible corrective action.
The technology pipeline from China to the Houthi forces represents a sophisticated approach to proxy warfare. The New York Times documented Chinese-origin hydrogen fuel cells recovered from Houthi drones used in shipping attacks, which extended flight range and reduced detectability. Perhaps most damning was the interception of 800 drone propellers with Chinese identifiers at the Omani border, the same model identified in UAVs used by the Houthis, Iranian-aligned militias in Iraq, and Russian-backed forces in Ukraine. Rather than shipping complete weapons systems, China exports the critical components, guidance modules, propulsion systems, and power supplies, allowing non-state actors to wage asymmetric warfare while Beijing maintains plausible deniability through intermediaries like online vendors operating through Chinese e-commerce platforms.
Iran gains leverage, China gains reach
China’s support for Iran strategically allows Beijing to reach its objectives without direct involvement or accountability. In January 2025, two Iranian ships carried over one thousand tons of sodium perchlorate from China to Iran’s Bandar Abbas port, an essential ingredient for solid missile fuel. That’s enough to manufacture around 260 medium-range missiles. While China has supplied missile technology to Iran for decades, the scale and visibility of these shipments signal a strategic expansion in the partnership despite China’s denial of involvement.
The implications ripple across the region. As Iran’s missile program grows, so does its capacity to arm and sustain proxy groups like the Houthis in Yemen. These groups don’t need long-range missiles; they need enhanced UAVs, better targeting systems, and reliable supply chains, all of which have visibly improved. China doesn’t have to arm the Houthis directly. Strengthening Iran enables a regional network that quietly serves Chinese interests by keeping the United States entangled in costly, low-return conflicts.
The quiet alignment between Beijing and Tehran came into sharper focus on April 26, 2025, when a large explosion hit the Bandar Abbas port. While Iranian officials denied importing missile fuel, private security company Ambrey confirmed the port had received these chemicals from China in March. Around the same time as the satellite company sanctions, Washington also targeted companies involved with the Tinos I, a Panama-flagged tanker that secretly carried Iranian oil to China. This operation was backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, creating a two-way street: Iran gets money for its oil, and China gets both fuel and influence.
China’s strategic ambiguity and dual narrative
Beijing has perfected a two-track approach to the Red Sea crisis. Publicly, Chinese officials initially avoided condemning Houthi attacks, instead calling vaguely for “relevant parties” to play “constructive” roles in maintaining stability. Only as international pressure mounted did China’s United Nations representatives acknowledge Houthi disruption of trade, while Chinese vessels continued receiving preferential treatment through Houthi waters.
This calculated ambiguity extends to social media, where Chinese users openly celebrate Houthi attacks on Western interests, with one boldly stating: “I want to see news of American and British warships being blown up,” sentiments mirroring earlier support for forces opposing Western interests in Ukraine and Gaza.
China’s approach is strategically precise: Beijing doesn’t want Houthi forces to either triumph completely or collapse. It needs them to be active and disruptive, just enough to keep US naval resources tied up while Chinese ships sail through relatively unimpeded. Every Houthi missile that doesn’t target a Chinese vessel becomes a tax on American presence, a stress test for global shipping, and a demonstration of how much disruption Western powers can absorb before retreating or escalating.
The Russia-China-Iran nexus
This alignment is now formalized through strategic coordination. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s strategic visits to Moscow and Beijing ahead of each US negotiation round in April 2025 reveal a deliberate synchronization of diplomatic positions. Their March 2025 trilateral talks in Beijing produced a unified stance against Western pressure, with China proposing alternatives directly challenging US positions.
Beyond diplomacy, Russia could potentially take custody of Iran’s highly-enriched uranium in future deals, providing technical cover for Iran’s nuclear program. Meanwhile, Chinese firms supply the dual-use technologies empowering Iran’s proxies, including the Houthis. The same drone components documented in Houthi arsenals have appeared in Ukraine, following an identical playbook of low-cost attrition, proxy warfare, and Western hesitation.
This alliance continues to deepen, as evidenced by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent twenty-year strategic partnership with Iran in April 2025. While China supplies technology and Iran manages proxies, Russia provides diplomatic cover and international legitimacy, creating a sophisticated system for reshaping regional power dynamics without direct confrontation, while securing preferential maritime passage for Chinese vessels.
Business first, influence follows
Beijing’s approach to the Houthis represents calculated and deliberate statecraft, not opportunistic coincidence. The Houthi movement now operates with Chinese satellite technology that they could never independently develop, and launches strikes using guidance systems built from Chinese electronics. Washington can sanction individual companies, but unless it confronts the triangulated relationship between China, Iran, and regional proxies, it will always be playing catch-up as Chinese vessels continue to navigate contested waters with relative security.
If Washington truly wants to win its economic competition with China, it should focus less on tariffs and more on territorial contestation, pushing China out of strategic regions like the Red Sea, where physical presence, not paper restrictions, determines the future of markets. This requires building stronger strategic relationships with European allies, who are being courted now by China against the United States, who are suffering the economic consequences of this crisis, and who have shared interests in preserving free navigation through vital maritime corridors.
Equally important is engaging with the Yemeni people themselves, who are tired of being manipulated by international powers and feel unheard in discussions about their country’s future. Any sustainable solution must address their legitimate grievances rather than treating Yemen merely as a venue for great power competition.
Ultimately, Washington must understand that Yemen is no longer a peripheral conflict. It is a live demonstration of how China converts commercial access into strategic leverage, curating conflict, denying responsibility, and watching as US power is bled by a thousand proxy cuts. Meanwhile, while American policymakers debate whether the Houthis are even worth worrying about, Beijing is busy carving safe lanes for its ships and weaponizing instability to tilt global trade in its favor. And as Chinese netizens jubilantly salute the Houthis online, Beijing’s calculated gambit in the Red Sea will continue to yield dividends that no trade negotiation could ever deliver.
“Salute to the Houthis!” This nationalist cheering appeared across Chinese social media as Western commercial vessels ran a gauntlet of drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea against ships they claimed were traveling to Israel. Meanwhile, ships marked “Chinese Vessel & Crew” sail through these same waters relatively untouched. It’s not a coincidence. Maritime tracking data now confirms what Houthi officials have been openly sharing: Chinese ships receive special treatment in a conflict zone that has become a crucible of hostility toward US interests.
This preferential treatment is no accident, but rather the result of careful diplomatic choreography. Recent US Treasury sanctions reveal that Houthi leaders, including Mohamed Ali al-Houthi of the Supreme Political Council, coordinated directly with Chinese officials to guarantee their vessels would not be targeted. This informal pact was formalized during diplomatic talks in Oman, culminating in explicit safe passage guarantees, even as drone and missile strikes against US and other Western shipping escalated. While Houthi officials publicly claim to discriminate between Western and Chinese vessels, their targeting systems remain rudimentary and prone to error, occasionally resulting in mistaken attacks on Chinese ships traversing the narrow Bab el-Mandeb strait, but have shown progress in improving their accuracy, thanks to Chinese technology.
For Beijing, its real battle starts on the economic front via the Islamic Republic proxies, where control of vital maritime corridors potentially yields greater advantages than any negotiated trade agreement.
This strategic calculation is reflected in China’s official messaging. Xinhua News Agency portrays the crisis as revealing “United States’ impotence” against “non-traditional opponents like the Houthis” while claiming US military intervention has “only triggered more resistance” and exposed “the decline of US economic influence and the gradual disintegration of its alliance system.” Behind this rhetoric lies a clear economic imperative: transit the Red Sea. For Beijing, preserving freedom of movement in this corridor is non-negotiable. While overall shipping traffic through the Red Sea has plunged by nearly 70 percent since attacks began, the proportion of China-linked tonnage has surged, a silent testament to the effectiveness of the arrangement.
The impact on European economies has been severe. Major European shipping companies have been forced to reroute vessels around the Cape of Good Hope. This creates an artificial competitive advantage for Chinese goods, which continue to flow unimpeded through the Red Sea corridor while European competitors face delays and higher expenses. German and French manufacturers are already reporting supply chain disruptions and lost market share to Chinese competitors, a tangible economic victory for Beijing, which was achieved primarily through proxy conflict rather than direct trade competition with the United States.
This arrangement goes beyond short-term tactical cooperation. US sanctions against Chinese satellite and shipping firms provide evidence that Beijing’s technological and logistical support has strengthened Houthi capabilities and created advantages for Chinese maritime interests. Multiple Chinese companies, including Shenzhen Boyu Imports and Exports among others, have been sanctioned for supplying dual-use components that bolster the Houthis’ missile and UAV capabilities. Beijing may not be firing missiles, but it supplies the parts, the software, and the satellite eyes that help aim them.
China’s technological and diplomatic support network
In April 2025, the United States sanctioned Chang Guang Satellite Technology Co. Ltd. (CGSTL) for providing satellite imagery to Yemen’s Houthis that enabled precise strikes on US naval assets in the Red Sea. CGSTL had previously been sanctioned in 2023 for providing battlefield intelligence during its military operations in Ukraine, establishing a pattern of the company acting as a de facto intelligence asset for US adversaries. But CGSTL is no ordinary company, embedded within the Chinese Academy of Sciences and backed by Jilin’s provincial government, it exemplifies China’s military-civil fusion policy, functioning more as an extension of Beijing’s intelligence apparatus than an independent enterprise. Despite Washington’s repeated warnings, Beijing has maintained a posture of strategic denial: providing the tools of war while feigning neutrality and taking no visible corrective action.
The technology pipeline from China to the Houthi forces represents a sophisticated approach to proxy warfare. The New York Times documented Chinese-origin hydrogen fuel cells recovered from Houthi drones used in shipping attacks, which extended flight range and reduced detectability. Perhaps most damning was the interception of 800 drone propellers with Chinese identifiers at the Omani border, the same model identified in UAVs used by the Houthis, Iranian-aligned militias in Iraq, and Russian-backed forces in Ukraine. Rather than shipping complete weapons systems, China exports the critical components, guidance modules, propulsion systems, and power supplies, allowing non-state actors to wage asymmetric warfare while Beijing maintains plausible deniability through intermediaries like online vendors operating through Chinese e-commerce platforms.
Iran gains leverage, China gains reach
China’s support for Iran strategically allows Beijing to reach its objectives without direct involvement or accountability. In January 2025, two Iranian ships carried over one thousand tons of sodium perchlorate from China to Iran’s Bandar Abbas port, an essential ingredient for solid missile fuel. That’s enough to manufacture around 260 medium-range missiles. While China has supplied missile technology to Iran for decades, the scale and visibility of these shipments signal a strategic expansion in the partnership despite China’s denial of involvement.
The implications ripple across the region. As Iran’s missile program grows, so does its capacity to arm and sustain proxy groups like the Houthis in Yemen. These groups don’t need long-range missiles; they need enhanced UAVs, better targeting systems, and reliable supply chains, all of which have visibly improved. China doesn’t have to arm the Houthis directly. Strengthening Iran enables a regional network that quietly serves Chinese interests by keeping the United States entangled in costly, low-return conflicts.
The quiet alignment between Beijing and Tehran came into sharper focus on April 26, 2025, when a large explosion hit the Bandar Abbas port. While Iranian officials denied importing missile fuel, private security company Ambrey confirmed the port had received these chemicals from China in March. Around the same time as the satellite company sanctions, Washington also targeted companies involved with the Tinos I, a Panama-flagged tanker that secretly carried Iranian oil to China. This operation was backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, creating a two-way street: Iran gets money for its oil, and China gets both fuel and influence.
China’s strategic ambiguity and dual narrative
Beijing has perfected a two-track approach to the Red Sea crisis. Publicly, Chinese officials initially avoided condemning Houthi attacks, instead calling vaguely for “relevant parties” to play “constructive” roles in maintaining stability. Only as international pressure mounted did China’s United Nations representatives acknowledge Houthi disruption of trade, while Chinese vessels continued receiving preferential treatment through Houthi waters.
This calculated ambiguity extends to social media, where Chinese users openly celebrate Houthi attacks on Western interests, with one boldly stating: “I want to see news of American and British warships being blown up,” sentiments mirroring earlier support for forces opposing Western interests in Ukraine and Gaza.
China’s approach is strategically precise: Beijing doesn’t want Houthi forces to either triumph completely or collapse. It needs them to be active and disruptive, just enough to keep US naval resources tied up while Chinese ships sail through relatively unimpeded. Every Houthi missile that doesn’t target a Chinese vessel becomes a tax on American presence, a stress test for global shipping, and a demonstration of how much disruption Western powers can absorb before retreating or escalating.
The Russia-China-Iran nexus
This alignment is now formalized through strategic coordination. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s strategic visits to Moscow and Beijing ahead of each US negotiation round in April 2025 reveal a deliberate synchronization of diplomatic positions. Their March 2025 trilateral talks in Beijing produced a unified stance against Western pressure, with China proposing alternatives directly challenging US positions.
Beyond diplomacy, Russia could potentially take custody of Iran’s highly-enriched uranium in future deals, providing technical cover for Iran’s nuclear program. Meanwhile, Chinese firms supply the dual-use technologies empowering Iran’s proxies, including the Houthis. The same drone components documented in Houthi arsenals have appeared in Ukraine, following an identical playbook of low-cost attrition, proxy warfare, and Western hesitation.
This alliance continues to deepen, as evidenced by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent twenty-year strategic partnership with Iran in April 2025. While China supplies technology and Iran manages proxies, Russia provides diplomatic cover and international legitimacy, creating a sophisticated system for reshaping regional power dynamics without direct confrontation, while securing preferential maritime passage for Chinese vessels.
Business first, influence follows
Beijing’s approach to the Houthis represents calculated and deliberate statecraft, not opportunistic coincidence. The Houthi movement now operates with Chinese satellite technology that they could never independently develop, and launches strikes using guidance systems built from Chinese electronics. Washington can sanction individual companies, but unless it confronts the triangulated relationship between China, Iran, and regional proxies, it will always be playing catch-up as Chinese vessels continue to navigate contested waters with relative security.
If Washington truly wants to win its economic competition with China, it should focus less on tariffs and more on territorial contestation, pushing China out of strategic regions like the Red Sea, where physical presence, not paper restrictions, determines the future of markets. This requires building stronger strategic relationships with European allies, who are being courted now by China against the United States, who are suffering the economic consequences of this crisis, and who have shared interests in preserving free navigation through vital maritime corridors.
Equally important is engaging with the Yemeni people themselves, who are tired of being manipulated by international powers and feel unheard in discussions about their country’s future. Any sustainable solution must address their legitimate grievances rather than treating Yemen merely as a venue for great power competition.
Ultimately, Washington must understand that Yemen is no longer a peripheral conflict. It is a live demonstration of how China converts commercial access into strategic leverage, curating conflict, denying responsibility, and watching as US power is bled by a thousand proxy cuts. Meanwhile, while American policymakers debate whether the Houthis are even worth worrying about, Beijing is busy carving safe lanes for its ships and weaponizing instability to tilt global trade in its favor. And as Chinese netizens jubilantly salute the Houthis online, Beijing’s calculated gambit in the Red Sea will continue to yield dividends that no trade negotiation could ever deliver.

A dramatic day of high stakes diplomacy at the United Nations has exposed growing cracks in the transatlantic alliance since President Donald Trump returned to the global stage and massively shifted US foreign policy.
When Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, Europe had no stronger partner than the United States.
A dramatic day of high stakes diplomacy at the United Nations has exposed growing cracks in the transatlantic alliance since President Donald Trump returned to the global stage and massively shifted US foreign policy.
When Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, Europe had no stronger partner than the United States.
But this week, in the halls of the General Assembly and at the Security Council, the US worked against its closest allies and sided with Russia, Belarus and North Korea to pass resolutions on the conflict in Ukraine.
To mark the third anniversary of Moscow's invasion, Ukraine sought a symbolic General Assembly resolution that would require the 193-member body to reaffirm Kyiv's territorial integrity and call for Russia to withdraw its forces in line with the UN charter.
That resolution did pass on Monday, but with less support than in past years. Many members abstained to avoid a tricky tension created by the US.
Washington's diplomats had urged other countries to vote against the measure and to instead support their "forward looking resolution" that was only three short paragraphs. It took a neutral stance on the war, without blaming Russia, and called for a swift end with a lasting peace to follow.
Washington not only introduced their measure in the General Assembly where every nation's vote is equal, but also in the more powerful Security Council. Resolutions there are legally binding - though sometimes hard to enforce - and there had never been council action on Ukraine because of Russia's veto power as a permanent member.
The move caught Europe off guard. One European diplomat told the BBC that the US behaved like a bully and did not take into account their stance on their continent's security.
Another who sits on the Security Council, Slovenia's ambassador Samuel Zbogar, told the BBC that Europe is struggling to adjust to the 180-degree change in the US position - and the speed at which Washington is moving.
He said the European Union will need to do some reflecting at the body's council meeting next week.
"Leaders will have to develop a plan on how the EU can actively be involved in finding peace, rather than reacting to what others are doing. It's up to us now in Europe to come forward," he told the BBC.
There were plenty of reactions in the halls of UN headquarters in New York, as European leaders worked to reconcile with the latest US position.
A dramatic day of high stakes diplomacy at the United Nations has exposed growing cracks in the transatlantic alliance since President Donald Trump returned to the global stage and massively shifted US foreign policy.
When Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, Europe had no stronger partner than the United States.
But this week, in the halls of the General Assembly and at the Security Council, the US worked against its closest allies and sided with Russia, Belarus and North Korea to pass resolutions on the conflict in Ukraine.
To mark the third anniversary of Moscow's invasion, Ukraine sought a symbolic General Assembly resolution that would require the 193-member body to reaffirm Kyiv's territorial integrity and call for Russia to withdraw its forces in line with the UN charter.
That resolution did pass on Monday, but with less support than in past years. Many members abstained to avoid a tricky tension created by the US.
Washington's diplomats had urged other countries to vote against the measure and to instead support their "forward looking resolution" that was only three short paragraphs. It took a neutral stance on the war, without blaming Russia, and called for a swift end with a lasting peace to follow.
Washington not only introduced their measure in the General Assembly where every nation's vote is equal, but also in the more powerful Security Council. Resolutions there are legally binding - though sometimes hard to enforce - and there had never been council action on Ukraine because of Russia's veto power as a permanent member.
The move caught Europe off guard. One European diplomat told the BBC that the US behaved like a bully and did not take into account their stance on their continent's security.
Another who sits on the Security Council, Slovenia's ambassador Samuel Zbogar, told the BBC that Europe is struggling to adjust to the 180-degree change in the US position - and the speed at which Washington is moving.
He said the European Union will need to do some reflecting at the body's council meeting next week.
"Leaders will have to develop a plan on how the EU can actively be involved in finding peace, rather than reacting to what others are doing. It's up to us now in Europe to come forward," he told the BBC.
There were plenty of reactions in the halls of UN headquarters in New York, as European leaders worked to reconcile with the latest US position.

Southeast Asian countries need to hedge and expand trade and security alliances to navigate changing increased protectionism and changing geopolitics under the second term of US President Donald Trump, an online forum heard on Feb 12.
Southeast Asian countries need to hedge and expand trade and security alliances to navigate changing increased protectionism and changing geopolitics under the second term of US President Donald Trump, an online forum heard on Feb 12.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) may not be a key priority in Trump's foreign policy, but what is significant is how individual ASEAN countries deal with the United States and other major powers, according to the experts who participated in the webinar "Asia and Trump 2.0: Geopolitical Outlooks". The webinar is organized by the Asian Center (AC), University of the Philippines.
Experts have noted how Trump's policy of raising tariffs imposed against its major trading partners like China is also affecting ASEAN as the region is also part of the China supply chain. They also cited Trump's directives such as the US withdrawal from the Paris climate pact and the World Health Organization will have repercussions worldwide.
But while ASEAN countries are not major powers, these countries "still have agency" when it comes to international relations, according to Melissa Hubahib Loja, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for European, Comparative, and Constitutional Legal Studies, University of Copenhagen.
"The best way for (non-major powers) to exercise their agency is to adopt a rational approach to real politics," Loja said, noting that balancing, band wagoning and hedging are the "rational strategic options" for small states.
Collin Koh Swee Lean, senior fellow at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, cited Singapore as a case study in 6 strategic hedging.
Koh said the city-state, a small and trade-dependent economy, maintains a consistent and principled foreign policy when dealing with major powers like the US and China. Koh said that regional governments like ASEAN are not likely to choose sides and would instead choose to band together to assert their interest on the global stage.
"We are likely going to see greater intra-ASEAN cooperation," he said, adding that he expects ASEAN member states to agree on more vital issues, especially on trade as US tariff hikes threaten their respective economies. Koh also sees "growing participation in regional security" by other non-US regional powers such as those in either the Pacific or Europe.
Maria Thaemar Tana, Japan Foundation Global Japan Studies Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, University of Tokyo, said that while hedging remains ASEAN's "best strategy", its effectiveness is limited by internal divisions, weak enforcement mechanisms and growing external pressures.
Aaron Jed Rabena, assistant professor at the Asian Center, said ASEAN countries and reduce dependence on the US in light of Trump's "unpredictable and volatile" trade and foreign policy. However, Rabena added that the strategy of each ASEAN nation also varies from time to time based on their perceived and actual threats and opportunities.
He said that while most ASEAN countries don't have a dispute with China, this is not the case with the Philippines. The Philippines currently has a defense treaty with the US and has a dispute with China over the South Sea.
"This is quite a challenging strategic environment, but the Philippines really needs to find the right balance in its foreign policy," Rabena said.
For Noel Christian Moratilla, dean of the Asian Center, "neutrality is what is imperative and applicable at this point". He said that this has already happened in the past, with the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961 at the height of the Cold War.
Moratilla said there's no point for the Philippines to antagonize either the US or China and learn from other ASEAN countries "as to how they do it, and also as not to appear very adversarial and very hostile to either one of them".
Irine Hiraswari Gayatri, senior researcher at the Research Center for Politics, National Research and Innovation Agency in Indonesia, said Indonesia is diversifying economic partnerships to reduce reliance on the US market. For example, Gayatri said Indonesia has joined BRICS, demonstrating how is widening alliances.
She said Indonesia "maintains strategic autonomy while regulating partnerships with both China and the US."
Southeast Asian countries need to hedge and expand trade and security alliances to navigate changing increased protectionism and changing geopolitics under the second term of US President Donald Trump, an online forum heard on Feb 12.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) may not be a key priority in Trump's foreign policy, but what is significant is how individual ASEAN countries deal with the United States and other major powers, according to the experts who participated in the webinar "Asia and Trump 2.0: Geopolitical Outlooks". The webinar is organized by the Asian Center (AC), University of the Philippines.
Experts have noted how Trump's policy of raising tariffs imposed against its major trading partners like China is also affecting ASEAN as the region is also part of the China supply chain. They also cited Trump's directives such as the US withdrawal from the Paris climate pact and the World Health Organization will have repercussions worldwide.
But while ASEAN countries are not major powers, these countries "still have agency" when it comes to international relations, according to Melissa Hubahib Loja, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for European, Comparative, and Constitutional Legal Studies, University of Copenhagen.
"The best way for (non-major powers) to exercise their agency is to adopt a rational approach to real politics," Loja said, noting that balancing, band wagoning and hedging are the "rational strategic options" for small states.
Collin Koh Swee Lean, senior fellow at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, cited Singapore as a case study in 6 strategic hedging.
Koh said the city-state, a small and trade-dependent economy, maintains a consistent and principled foreign policy when dealing with major powers like the US and China. Koh said that regional governments like ASEAN are not likely to choose sides and would instead choose to band together to assert their interest on the global stage.
"We are likely going to see greater intra-ASEAN cooperation," he said, adding that he expects ASEAN member states to agree on more vital issues, especially on trade as US tariff hikes threaten their respective economies. Koh also sees "growing participation in regional security" by other non-US regional powers such as those in either the Pacific or Europe.
Maria Thaemar Tana, Japan Foundation Global Japan Studies Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, University of Tokyo, said that while hedging remains ASEAN's "best strategy", its effectiveness is limited by internal divisions, weak enforcement mechanisms and growing external pressures.
Aaron Jed Rabena, assistant professor at the Asian Center, said ASEAN countries and reduce dependence on the US in light of Trump's "unpredictable and volatile" trade and foreign policy. However, Rabena added that the strategy of each ASEAN nation also varies from time to time based on their perceived and actual threats and opportunities.
He said that while most ASEAN countries don't have a dispute with China, this is not the case with the Philippines. The Philippines currently has a defense treaty with the US and has a dispute with China over the South Sea.
"This is quite a challenging strategic environment, but the Philippines really needs to find the right balance in its foreign policy," Rabena said.
For Noel Christian Moratilla, dean of the Asian Center, "neutrality is what is imperative and applicable at this point". He said that this has already happened in the past, with the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961 at the height of the Cold War.
Moratilla said there's no point for the Philippines to antagonize either the US or China and learn from other ASEAN countries "as to how they do it, and also as not to appear very adversarial and very hostile to either one of them".
Irine Hiraswari Gayatri, senior researcher at the Research Center for Politics, National Research and Innovation Agency in Indonesia, said Indonesia is diversifying economic partnerships to reduce reliance on the US market. For example, Gayatri said Indonesia has joined BRICS, demonstrating how is widening alliances.
She said Indonesia "maintains strategic autonomy while regulating partnerships with both China and the US."