Tag: politics

Uncategorized

The US military aggression in Venezuela and the abduction of Maduro: global reactions and Western ambivalence

On January 3, 2026, US President Trump announced via his social media account that a special operation ‘captured’ ( a euphemism for abducted) President Maduro of Venezuela and his wife and flew them over to the United States to face criminal charges for engaging in ‘narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the US’. The opening hearing took place on 5th January at a US Federal Court, with both Maduro and his wife defiantly claiming that they were kidnapped and not guilty, and that he remains the President of Venezuela. One can foresee a protracted legal battle ahead.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/03/world/americas/maduro-photo-trump.html

Trump was candid about his real intentions. The US administration would ‘run’ Venezuela until a viable and peaceful transfer of power to local authorities took place. Venezuela, which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, would become, proclaimed Trump, the beneficiary of US technical and engineering prowess as leading energy companies embark on fixing the country’s dilapidated oil infrastructure. Wishful thinking? Probably.

Note that Trump left the Maduro regime intact, with the Vice President now constitutionally mandated to become acting President in the absence of Maduro. Trump also dismissed the possibility of the Nobel Prize-winning Machado leading the transition process, while failing to mention González, the Presidential candidate. This begs the question. What transition?

How has the global community reacted to these stunning developments? One does not need to be a legal expert to realize that the US military aggression in Venezuela that led to the abduction of Maduro and his wife is a brazen violation of international law and the UN charter. It also left at least 40 Venezuelans dead, including significant damage to private property and infrastructure. Yet, European leaders – supposedly the champions of international law and a rules-based global order have, once again, generally failed to acknowledge that in an unambiguous fashion. They are petrified to upset Trump and sought refuge in mealy-mouthed statements and carefully crafted obfuscation. Here are some notable examples, starting with the UK, which claims to enjoy a ‘special relationship’ with the USA.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK will discuss the “evolving situation” in Venezuela with U.S. counterparts while noting Britain will “shed no tears” about the demise of Maduro’s “regime”. This interview with Starmer from the British TV channel ITV is riveting to watch.

The EU expressed concern at the developments and urged respect for international law, even as it noted that Maduro “lacks legitimacy.”

French President Emmanuel Macron called for 2004 presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia to lead a political transition. On the other hand, France said the U.S. operation undermined international law, and no solution to Venezuela’s crisis can be imposed externally.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Maduro had “led his country to ruin,” but called the U.S. action legally “complex.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was the only major European leader to side with the U.S., arguing its military action in Venezuela was “legitimate” and “defensive.”

What about Canada? Well…

Prime Minister Mark Carney said on X that, “Canada has not recognized Maduro’s illegitimate regime since the 2018 electoral fraud. The Canadian government welcomes the opportunity now available to the Venezuelan people to access freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity.”

He added, “True to its longstanding commitment to the rule of law, sovereignty, and human rights, Canada calls on all parties to respect international law. We support the sovereign right of the Venezuelan people to decide and build their own future in a peaceful and democratic society.”

And Australia?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has responded to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces. “The Australian government is monitoring the situation and will provide assistance to any Australians in Venezuela,” Mr Albanese said. “We urge all parties to support dialogue and diplomacy to secure regional stability and prevent escalation. “We continue to support international law.”

These mild and conditional utterances by Western leaders on what is clearly a breach of international law contrast sharply with what China and Russia had to say.

China delivered a strongly worded message to the United States on Monday (5th January) at an “emergency” meeting of the UN Security Council, calling on Washington to abide by international law, end its illusion that it is the world’s police force and court, and immediately release Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Russia’s United Nations ambassador Vasily Nebenzya denounced US actions in Venezuela and urged the immediate release of detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during a United Nations Security Council session in New York on Monday, January 5.

India, on the other hand, appeared to adopt the Western strategy of obfuscation. Thus:

India broke its silence on the US capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro with a carefully worded statement that expressed “deep concern” but conspicuously avoided naming Washington or condemning the military strikes that seized the Latin American leader.

What about Venezuela’s regional neighbours? As expected, regional divisions emerged and reflected the ideological proclivities of different countries.

Argentine President Javier Milei, Trump’s ideological soulmate, characterized (the USA) as supporting “democracy, the defense of life, freedom, and property.”

“On the other side,” …are those accomplices of a narco-terrorist and bloody dictatorship that has been a cancer for our region.”

Other right-wing leaders in South America similarly seized on Maduro’s ouster to declare their ideological affinity with Trump.

In Ecuador, conservative President Daniel Noboa issued a stern warning for all followers of Hugo Chávez, Maduro’s mentor and the founder of the Bolivarian revolution: “Your structure will completely collapse across the entire continent.”

In Chile, where a presidential election last month marked by fears over Venezuelan immigration brought down the leftist government, far-right President-elect José Antonio Kast hailed the U.S. raid as “great news for the region.”

Left-wing presidents in Latin America — including Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, Chile’s Gabriel Boric, and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro — expressed grave concerns over what they saw as U.S. bullying.

Lula said the raid set “an extremely dangerous precedent.” Sheinbaum warned it “jeopardizes regional stability.” Boric said it “violated an essential pillar of international law.” Petro called it “aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America.”

In sum, global reaction to Maduro’s abduction by the US has been quite diverse, but one is struck by the muted response of Europe and other leaders from the West. They will face a stern test if Trump follows through on his threat to invade Greenland and forcibly take it away from Denmark. Certainly, the Danish intelligence service, traditionally a close American ally within the framework of NATO, is so worried that it has officially designated the United States as a ‘security risk’.  

Uncategorized

Mamdani wears the ‘bad Muslim’ badge as a badge of honour and scores a famous electoral victory

Zohran Mamdani prevailed over Andrew Cuomo in the mayoral election of New York City (NYC) held on November 4. Cuomo, a former governor of New York state and, more importantly, a scion of the Democratic Party establishment, was easily beaten by someone who was virtually unknown a year ago. A third Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, became a rather distant third.

Young, energetic, and infused with a great deal of personal charm and charisma, Mamdani demonstrated an exceptionally high degree of oratorical skills.  He has an uncanny ability to connect with a diverse constituency.

Mandani’s election victory is as improbable as it is memorable. He is indeed destined for the history books. At 34, he is the youngest NYC mayor in over a century and the first one since 1969 to get over a million votes. Cuomo, despite being disgraced by allegations of multiple instances of sexual misconduct, decided to run for the mayoral election as a Democratic nominee, only to find that it was the unknown Mamdani who ousted him in the primaries. Cuomo, driven by pure ambition and a sense of entitlement, decided to run as an independent only to be defeated, yet again, by a seemingly upstart politician.

Mamdani is also the first-ever Muslim mayor of the largest city in the United States. He was born in Uganda to parents with Indian heritage. His mother, Mira Nair, is a globally well-known filmmaker. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a distinguished political scientist and anthropologist who teaches at Columbia University in his capacity as a Professorial Chair.

Mira Nair

Mahmood Mamdani

Mamdani used his religious identity like a badge of honour that reflects both his political acumen and a deep commitment to fighting Islamophobia that has become rampant in US and Western political discourse. In doing so, Zohran Mamdani seems to have been inspired by one of his father’s provocative scholarly contributions, where the author makes a distinction between ‘bad’ Muslims and ‘good Muslims’.

‘Bad Muslims’ are seen as inherently anti-American and antisemitic. They are both despised and feared as ‘Jihadists’ who reject Western hegemony. They are prepared to fight an interminable war, through acts of terrorism, against both Israel and its Western allies. ‘Good Muslims’, on the other hand, are supposed to be secular and westernised and fully prepared to accept Western hegemony. They lead quiescent lives as law-abiding citizens in both the Western and Muslim worlds. They seek to remain, as Zohran Mamdani put it, ‘in the shadows.’

In the official ‘war on terror’ that was launched by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, the underlying premise is that good Muslims need to be separated from bad Muslims through a combination of coercion and co-option. This is how anti-Americanism and antisemitism can be durably defanged. Hence, the rise of ‘Homeland Security’ (with a current budget of US$411 billion +) and a high surveillance society primarily targeting Muslims in the US-led West. Islamophobia became the norm rather than the exception.

Zohran Mamdani is certainly secular and ‘Westernised’ in the sense that he was largely educated in the United States. Still, he is prepared to step out of ‘the shadows’ by embracing the anti-establishment ethos of the ‘bad Muslim’. He openly supports the Palestinian cause and decries the genocide committed in Gaza by Israel. He uses this narrative to reinforce his ‘Democratic Socialist’ credentials where he seeks to improve the living conditions of ordinary New Yorkers through concrete measures, such as affordable rental accommodation, free public transport and universal childcare financed by modestly increased taxation of the top 1 percent of affluent New Yorkers and raising the corporate tax rate to match the rate prevailing in the neighbouring state of New Jersey.

Timorous centrist politicians in the Democratic Party must have regarded Zohran Mamdani as a misguided novice who faced certain political oblivion in a city that had the largest number of Jews outside Israel and the largest number of billionaires (more than 120) in the world in a single city. They would have chortled with derision. How could he spout anti-Israeli rhetoric, seek to tax the rich, and demonstrate his Muslim credentials?

It seems that Zohran Mamdani had the last laugh against his detractors. He read the mood of the electorate much better than his Democratic fellow travellers. More than 30 per cent of Jewish New Yorkers voted for Mamdani – no mean feat for someone painted as a Jew-hating politician. As he observed in his victory speech:

“I am Muslim. I am a democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologise for any of this.”

Of course, Zohran Mamdani has a long journey ahead. His powerful political opponents, including President Trump, will not quietly accept the electoral verdict. After all, multiple billionaires poured more than US$40 million into Andrew Cuomo’s campaign coffers. The pro-Israeli lobby will not wither away. Anti-Mamdani forces will be relentless in discrediting and vilifying a politician who is both a ‘socialist’ and a ‘bad Muslim’. Will they prevail? Only time will tell.

Uncategorized

‘From one nobel laureate to another’: the embarrassing naivete of Yunus

Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and currently Chief Adviser of the Bangladesh Interim Government, could not contain his proclivity for both publicity and magnanimity when he learned that a Venezuelan politician, Ms. Maria Corina Machado, had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2025. Bangladesh’s leading English language daily, the Daily Star, reported that Yunus was effusive in his praise of Machado. The congratulatory message that he sent reads as follows.

“I extend my hearty congratulations to María Corina Machado on receiving the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her courageous fight for democracy in her beloved Venezuela,” he said in a congratulatory message.

Machado has faced oppression with steadfast resolve, never wavering in her commitment to a freer and more just future for her country and her people, the message read.

As the Nobel Committee rightly stated: “Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended — with words, with courage, and with determination.”

She has dared to imagine a better world and worked tirelessly to make it so, the message added.

There is, unfortunately, a contentious and even dark side to Machado, the apparently fearless fighter for democracy in Venezuela. She happens to be a pro-Zionist, pro-Trump, far-right politician who is happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with notorious Islamophobic racists, such as Marie le Pen of France and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands. This prompted CAIR – a leading Muslim organization – to issue the following proclamation.

“We strongly disagree with the Nobel Prize committee’s decision to award this year’s peace prize to Maria Corina Machado, a supporter of Israel’s racist Likud Party who earlier this year delivered remarks at a conference of European fascists, including Geert Wilders and Marie Le Pen, which openly called for a new Reconquista, referencing the ethnic cleansing of Spanish Muslims and Jews in the 1500s.

“We call on Ms. Machado to renounce her support for the Likud Party and anti-Muslim fascism in Europe. If she refuses to do so, the Nobel Prize committee should reconsider its decision, which has undermined its own reputation. An anti-Muslim bigot and supporter of European fascism would have no place being mentioned alongside the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other worthy winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.”

“The Nobel Peace Prize committee should instead recognize an honoree who has shown moral consistency by bravely pursuing justice for all people, such as one of the students, journalists, activists, medical professionals who have risked their careers and even their lives to oppose the crime of our time: the genocide in Gaza.”

In her own region of Latin America, the reaction to her winning the award was mixed. As AA reports:

“The Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado on Friday drew mixed reactions in Latin America, with some leaders offering praise, strong condemnation by others, Mexico choosing to remain silent.

The announcement of the award had some pointing to her past rhetoric and actions, which were characterized as violent or supportive of foreign intervention.”

Machado’s Trumpian loyalty became evident when she dedicated her award to “the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause.” At a time when there was feverish speculation and intense lobbying for Trump to get the 2025 Nobel Prize for his ostensible role as global peace maker, Machado – the seemingly surprise winner of 2025 – made sure that Trump noted her subservience.

Given the controversy surrounding Machado, why did Yunus decide to issue such fulsome praise for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner? What was his bevy of advisers doing? Alas, this represents embarrassing naivete on the part of Yunus and dereliction of duty on the part of his advisers. Yunus, given his age, is well past his prime and does not seem to engage in due diligence before making public proclamations on global issues. Sadly, someone who heads the government of a Muslim majority country ends up supporting an anti-Muslim racist. Yunus could have simply kept quiet, just as the President of Mexico did.

Uncategorized

The bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the USA and the ‘vassalization’ of its Western allies

A vassal state is defined as ‘a state with varying degrees of independence in its internal affairs but dominated by another state in its foreign affairs and potentially wholly subject to the dominating state’. Is this what Western allies (Europe, especially the EU, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) have become vis-à-vis the United States, especially under the Trump administration? This appears to be the case following the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States in support of Israel’s ongoing war on Iran.

Eldar Mamedov, from Quincy Institute, laments:

The European Union’s response to the U.S. strikes on Iran Saturday has exposed more than just hypocrisy — it has revealed a vassalization so profound that the European capitals now willingly undermine both international law and their own strategic interests.

Mamedov goes on to say that…

Europe’s leaders …betray international law not for tangible gains, but out of reflexive obedience …

This notion of ‘reflexive obedience’ is manifested in the following statement by the so-called E3 (France, Germany, and the UK) after the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

We have discussed the latest developments in the Middle East earlier today.

We reiterate our commitment to peace and stability for all countries in the region. We affirm our support for the security of Israel.

We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security. 

Earlier today, the United States has conducted targeted military strikes against nuclear facilities in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. Our aim continues to be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program. We stand ready to contribute to that goal in coordination with all parties.

We urge Iran not to take any further action that could destabilize the region.

We will continue our joint diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions and ensure the conflict does not intensify and spread further.

As if to show that Australia must not be left behind in the demonstration of ‘reflexive obedience’ to the US, the Australian Prime Minister (representing the centre-left Labour Party) decided to join the EU chorus. As Reuters reports:

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Monday that Canberra supported the United States strike on Iran and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy.

The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent that,” Albanese told reporters in Canberra on Monday.

What about Canada? More of the same! CBC reports

Prime Minister Mark Carney says U.S. military attacks on Iranian nuclear sites were designed to alleviate the threat of the country’s nuclear program, and he reiterated that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

In the case of New Zealand, the Opposition (Labour and Green) has called ‘…on the Government to denounce the US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites as a breach of international law’. In response, the government observed through the Foreign Minister Winston Peters that New Zealand:

“consistently opposed Iran’s nuclear programme” and the country couldn’t be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

“In that context, we note the United States’ decision to undertake targeted attacks aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” the statement read.

“We also acknowledge the US statement to the UN Security Council that it was acting in collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter.”

At least there is a reference to the UN Charter, albeit this is the self-serving position of the United States and its interpretation of the UN Charter.

One wistfully recalls a time when both France and Germany got together to oppose the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. In Canada, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien ”stated in the House of Commons that Canada would not join the US-led war in Iraq after President George W. Bush gave the UN Security Council (UNSC) a 24-hour ultimatum to approve the resolution to invade Iraq.”

These examples from the recent past show that the Western allies did not always show unconditional support to the USA when it unilaterally undertook major military actions overseas.

Why this has changed remains a topic for further investigation, although some analysts have suggested that the Ukraine war accelerated the process of vassalization of Europe. Meanwhile, the EU and its fellow travellers have not gained any respect or reciprocity from Trump. He considers himself to be the most powerful man in the world, running the most powerful country in the world, and is not beholden to anybody, even if they are credentialled members of the white man’s club.

At the same time, the Western allies of the USA are ceding their moral standing to the Global South, led by China and Russia. For example, in the recent deliberations at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) following the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the US, the representative from the Russian Federation noted that the ’..United States leadership “actually flaunted” and demonstrated “wholesale disregard” for the norms of international law and the UN Charter’. There is a draft resolution co-authored by China, Russia, and Pakistan that condemns the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and calls for an unconditional ceasefire of the current Israel-Iraq war. This draft resolution appears to have been overtaken by the latest statement by Trump that Israel and Iran have now reached a ceasefire agreement. It remains to be seen whether it is another example of Trumpian self-glorification or an enduring agreement.

Once again, Trump has blindsided his Western lackeys. They are hapless onlookers as Trump makes unilateral decisions on the global stage, whether it is bombing a sovereign nation or announcing a ceasefire. The Western allies of the US can only react and endorse meekly whatever decision Trump takes. Pity!

UNSC meets to discuss Israel-Iran war, but Trump has his way>>>

Uncategorized

A world apart: Israel’s attack on Iran and the West vs the Rest

In 1990, the late Charles Krauthammer observed in a much-noted article in Foreign Affairs:

“The most striking feature of the post-Cold War world is its unipolarity. No doubt, multipolarity will come in time. Perhaps another generation or so, there will be great powers coequal with the United States, and the world will, in structure, resemble the pre-World War I era. But we are not there yet, nor will we be for decades. Now is the unipolar moment….

a single pole of world power that consists of the United States at the apex of the industrial West. Perhaps it is more accurate to say the United States and behind it the West, because where the United States does not tread, the alliance does not follow. “

The predictions of Krauthammer turned out to be true in two respects. First, ‘multipolarity’ in some form has arrived within decades – China, Russia, and the global South in general have their distinctive views and voices clearly articulated in international forums.  Second, it is still the case that the so-called ‘industrial West’ follows the United States and dare not tread where the United States will not go. This has happened even though Europe, as the indispensable part of the ‘industrial West’, has been publicly rebuked and humiliated by the Trump administration for depending on the USA for its collective security.

The slavish allegiance of the West to the United States became embarrassingly evident when Israel pre-emptively attacked Iran on June 13. Did the avatars of the ‘rules-based’ condemn Israel and uphold the sanctity of such rules? No! Instead, the G7 offered a moronic proclamation. This statement reflects a predominantly white man’s club, with a history of engaging in genocide of indigenous populations, while, ala Krauthammer, ensuring that it stays closely behind the United States. Collective obedience represents the norm rather than the exception. One cannot upset Israel even with faint criticism because the United States will be upset. As a Guardian columnist observes with considerable dismay: “G7 leaders are paralysed by their fear of upsetting Donald Trump”.

“”The Magnificent Seven.”

June 16, 2025

Kananaskis, Alberta

We, the leaders of the G7, reiterate our commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East.

In this context, we affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel.

We also affirm the importance of the protection of civilians.

Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror.

We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.

We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza.

We will remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability.”

Hmm…Only Israel has the right to defend itself; Iran does not. Indeed, no country has the right to defend itself other than Israel. Such is the perverse logic of this thesis.

The rest of the world can see that the ‘emperor has no clothes’. Hence, 10 member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, led by China, offered the following statement on June 14:

“The member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) express serious concern over the escalating tensions in the Middle East and strongly condemn the military strikes carried out by Israel on the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran on June 13, 2025.

Such aggressive actions against civilian targets, including energy and transport infrastructure, which have resulted in civilian casualties, are a gross violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. They constitute an infringement on Iran’s sovereignty, cause damage to regional and international security, and pose serious risks to global peace and stability.

The SCO member states firmly advocate for the resolution of the situation surrounding Iran’s nuclear program exclusively through peaceful, political, and diplomatic means.

The SCO member states extend their sincere condolences to the people and government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The SCO member states, strictly adhering to the principles and norms of the UN Charter and the SCO Charter, consider any unlawful actions directed against SCO member states unacceptable and reaffirm their unwavering commitment to strengthening international peace and security.”

Reinforcing the SCO collective statement is the proclamation by 21 Arab and Islamic states on June 16, issued in Qatar. Note that some of them (Bahrain and UAE) have entered into so-called ‘Normalization Accords’ with Israel.

Doha – June 16, 2025

“In light of the rapidly evolving regional developments and the unprecedented escalation of tensions in the Middle East, particularly owing to the ongoing military aggression of Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Foreign Ministers of the State of Qatar, People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, the Kingdom of Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, the Republic of Chad, the Union of the Comoros, the Republic of Djibouti, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of Iraq, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the State of Kuwait, the State of Libya, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Republic of the Sudan, the Republic of Türkiye, the Sultanate of Oman, and the United Arab Emirates hereby affirm the following:

•⁠  ⁠The categorical rejection and condemnation of Israel’s recent attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran since the 13th of June 2025, and any actions that contravene international law and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, while emphasizing the necessity of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, adhering to the principles of good neighbourliness, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

•⁠  ⁠The imperative need to halt Israeli hostilities against Iran, which come during a time of increasing tension in the Middle East, and to work towards de-escalation, to achieve a comprehensive ceasefire and restoration of calm, while expressing great concern regarding this dangerous escalation, which threatens to have serious consequences on the peace and stability of the entire region.

•⁠  ⁠The urgent necessity of establishing a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction, which shall apply to all States in the region without exception in line with relevant international resolutions, as well as the urgent need for all countries of the Middle East to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

•⁠  ⁠The paramount importance of refraining from targeting nuclear facilities that are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, in accordance with relevant IAEA resolutions and United Nations Security Council decisions, as such acts constitute a violation of international law and international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

•⁠  ⁠The urgency of a swift return to the path of negotiations as the only viable means to reach a sustainable agreement regarding the Iranian nuclear program.

•⁠  ⁠The importance of safeguarding the freedom of navigation in international waterways per the relevant rules of international law, and refraining from undermining maritime security.

•⁠  ⁠That diplomacy, dialogue, and adherence to the principles of good neighbourliness, in accordance with international law and the UN Charter, remain the only viable path to resolving crises in the region, and that military means cannot bring about a lasting resolution to the ongoing crisis.”

Of course, these statements, however noble, will not safeguard Iran’s security against Israeli aggression. None of the countries, including China and Russia, have, so far, offered material and military support to Iran. It is fighting a nuclear state on its own, and that too a state that is being unconditionally backed by the United States. Nevertheless, the competing statements from the G7, SCO, and the Arab and Islamic countries reveal a world that has drifted apart and is moving toward a more multipolar structure. The G7 can no longer rely on the unipolar moment. No amount of duplicitous manipulation of the notion of ‘rules-based’ international order by the G7 and its cheerleaders will be able to repair its tarnished moral standing. Ironically, countries that are dismissed by the West as authoritarian and autocratic have taken on the responsibility of defending a rules-based global order at the core of which lies UN-led international law.