News from Bharat

[OhOh]

​India to be renamed as 'Bharat'? Govt may bring resolution in Parliament's special session

"The Narendra Modi-led government is likely to bring a resolution for changing India's official name to 'Bharat' during the special session of Parliament, scheduled from September 18-22, reported Times Now on Tuesday.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh also confirmed that the official G20 dinner invitations from the Indian President have been sent under the name of 'President of Bharat' instead of the usual 'President of India'.

So the news is indeed true. Rashtrapati Bhawan has sent out an invite for a G20 dinner on Sept 9th in the name of 'President of Bharat' instead of the usual 'President of India'. Now, Article 1 in the Constitution can read: “Bharat, that was India, shall be a Union of States.” But now even this “Union of States” is under assault," Ramesh said."

india name change: India to be renamed as 'Bharat'? Govt may bring resolution in Parliament's special session - The Economic Times

[spliff]

India woke

[reinvented]

ah, turned out great for the 3rd Reich

[harrybarracuda]

What thrilling news.

[bsnub]

Oh, look who decided to drop the bong and post on TD.

[helge]

Oh, look who decided to drop the bong and post on TD.

Let me guess

'Is it someone who has been to Thailand ?

[OhOh]

G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration

New Delhi, India, 9-10 September 2023

https://mea.gov.in/Images/CPV/G20-Ne...eclaration.pdf

[OhOh]

A discussion around the recent G10 meeting, illustrating differences between the demands the 16% and the offerings from the "BRICS" approach.

[cyrille]

Well nobody will believe that until it's in Indian Punchline.

[OhOh]

^

SEPTEMBER 11, 2023

US stoops to conquer Global South with some Indian help

The impact of the G20 Summit in New Delhi on September 9-10 is to be measured by the consensus reached regarding the conflict in Ukraine.

"There is wide recognition of such an outcome as a remarkable feat that became possible largely due to a perceived climbdown by the US and the Western bloc. This is hugely consequential to international politics.

However, upon closer examination, a tantalizing question also arises: Does the Delhi Declaration’s three sentences on Ukraine, which favor Russia’s position on the conflict, signify a change in the Western approach to the hostilities and, specifically, give a certain nudge to Kiev to negotiate?

Indeed, we are witnessing a strange line-up: both Russia and the US have praised the G20 declaration, while Ukraine has complained “it was nothing to be proud of.”

In the run-up to the Delhi summit as well as during the event, there was nothing of the Russia-bashing or contrived emotional outbursts by Western leaders that they are wont to. Even the EU’s super bureaucrat, Ursula von der Leyen, was patience personified – as if on cue from Washington. The curious incident in the famous Sherlock Holmes story comes to mind: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

In fact, the discernible trend had already set in during US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s atypical two-day visit to Kiev last Wednesday, and the briefing aboard Air Force One by White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan the very next day regarding President Joe Biden’s forthcoming sojourn in Delhi for the G20.

The White House had perhaps given a meaningful clue even earlier on August 22, when its statement announcing Biden’s visit to India underscored that “while in New Delhi, President Biden will also commend Prime Minister Modi’s leadership of the G20 and reaffirm the US commitment to the G20 as the premier forum of economic cooperation, including by hosting it in 2026.”

Suffice to say there is no question that the US wanted the G20 Summit to be a grand success – and to “empower” Indian Prime MinisterNarendra Modi on the geopolitical arena as the group’s leader – once it emerged that Biden had no peer group competing for space at the gathering during his four-day visit to Delhi.

The point is, in the rapidly changing international environment, in the US calculus, the G20 has come to life unexpectedly as the only forum available today for the West (the members of the G7) to “(re)connect” with China and Russia as well as with the Global South. As BRICS began surging in giant leaps, suddenly the specter of extinction was looming over the forum.

One hallmark of the Delhi summit, in fact, is that American diplomacy moved in tandem with the BRICS troika – India, Brazil, and South Africa. The politics of it was projected by the family photo of the troika flanked by Biden on the left and the World Bank president, Ajay Banga, on the right.

Make no mistake, the US is taking an audacious course correction in its approach to the Global South, especially Africa, anchored in the geopolitical reality of the mounting challenge that China and Russia are posing by striving to monopolize that geopolitical space. Certainly, the incipient anti-colonial stirrings in Africa lately also hold dark forebodings, given their profound implications for Europe’s economic prosperity.

Thus, in rapid succession, the manifestations of a pattern of “new thinking” are emerging:

the US-Vietnam “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership for the purposes of peace, cooperation, and sustainable development”;
the new India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (here and here);

the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (comprising the US, European Union, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and the World Bank);
the Lobito Corridor;

“the new initiative with G20 partners to fundamentally reshape and scale up the World Bank to more effectively deliver poverty reduction and inclusive economic growth.”

All of the above unrolled within a space of 48 to 72 hours. The sense of urgency is palpable. The message couldn’t be any louder: the US is seeking a leadership role in the engagement with the Global South and in this paradigm shift, Biden envisages Modi as a key ally.

Of course, this has only become possible thanks to the nascent signals from Delhi in recent months of a willingness to accelerate and cement its strategic partnership with the US as a global ally, which has been at least partly a fallout from India-China tensions and a direct consequence of the Indian assessment that the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy is for real after all, and that it holds seamless potential for serving Indian interests without being confrontational with China.

Considering the huge stakes involved in the launch of this new foreign policy approach to synergize US relations with the Global South, it is not really a big deal that Biden threw Ukraine under the bus during the negotiations over the G20 declaration. He opened a pathway where tactic and strategy could coalesce in Washington’s core interests.

Consider the following:

Ukraine has been a demanding partner all along and all good things must come to an end. Ukraine cannot and should not dictate US foreign policy priorities.

No doubt, the failure of Kiev’s three-month-old “counteroffensive” has been on an industrial scale with around 70,000 killed in the conflict so far, according to Ukraine-favoring Western estimates. The responsibility for it – moral and political – lies largely with the US, something that cannot be hidden from world conscience any longer.

Meanwhile, NATO countries have scrapped the bottom of their barrels for weapons stockpiles. A further pursuit of the path chasing inchoate mirages is futile and meaningless, and can only lethally wound the Indo-Pacific strategy, which can impact the global strategic balance.

In the eyes of Western media, G20 host India is still a dirty colony
The looming Russian offensive must be stalled somehow, as its inevitable consequence will be Ukraine’s “demilitarization” and “denazification” – the conclusive eviction of NATO from Ukrainian soil and the removal of the present viscerally hostile power structure in Kiev, which serves as a proxy of the US and NATO.
The number one priority today, therefore, is to freeze the Ukraine conflict at the present stage where Russia is yet to succeed in fulfilling its original objectives of full control of Donbass and the “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine – plus preventing Ukraine’s future NATO membership – while on the other hand, the Western alliance still retains the option to remain engaged with Kiev regarding the unfinished business of the war from the angle of European security.

These considerations prompted the atypical, unannounced two-day trip to Kiev on September 6-7 by Blinken with a view to transmit Biden’s twofold message that while Washington will continue to strengthen Ukraine militarily, Kiev must engage in dialogue with Moscow – consistent with the American riddle of “nothing without Ukraine.”

No doubt, this is a bitter pill to swallow for the regime in Kiev, weaned on outlandish notions of defeating Russia militarily. But what is the alternative? Ukraine is nothing but a permanent inmate in the Intensive Care Unit of America’s palliative care, and the Russian offensive will mean its asphyxiation.

Surely, there must be a lesson in all this for the G20 troika, BRICS, and the Global South. Biden has started playing hard ball to win the 2024 election."

US stoops to conquer Global South with some Indian help - Indian Punchline

G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration

New Delhi, India, 9-10 September 2023

For the Planet, People, Peace and Prosperity

7. We note with deep concern the immense human suffering and the adverse impact of wars and conflicts around the world.

8. Concerning the war in Ukraine, while recalling the discussion in Bali, we reiterated our national positions and resolutions adopted at the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly (A/RES/ES-11/1 and A/RES/ES-11/6) and underscored that all
states must act in a manner consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter in its entirety. In line with the UN Charter, all states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition against the territorial integrity and
sovereignty or political independence of any state. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.

9. Reaffirming that the G20 is the premier forum for international economic cooperation, and recognizing that while the G20 is not the platform to resolve geopolitical and
security issues, we acknowledge that these issues can have significant consequences for the global economy.

10. We highlighted the human suffering and negative added impacts of the war in Ukraine with regard to global food and energy security, supply chains, macro-financial stability, inflation and growth, which has complicated the policy environment for countries, especially developing and least developed countries which are still recovering from the
COVID-19 pandemic and the economic disruption which has derailed progress towards the SDGs. There were different views and assessments of the situation.

11. We appreciate the efforts of Türkiye and UN-brokered Istanbul Agreements consisting of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Russian Federation and the Secretariat of the United Nations on Promoting Russian Food Products and Fertilizers to the World Markets and the Initiative on the Safe Transportation of Grain and Foodstuffs from Ukrainian Ports (Black Sea Initiative), and call for their full, timely and effective implementation to ensure the immediate and unimpeded deliveries of grain, foodstuffs, and fertilizers/inputs from the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This is necessary to meet the demand in developing and least developed countries, particularly those in Africa.

12. In this context, emphasizing the importance of sustaining food and energy security, we called for the cessation of military destruction or other attacks on relevant infrastructure. We also expressed deep concern about the adverse impact that conflicts have on the security of civilians thereby exacerbating existing socio-economic fragilities and vulnerabilities and hindering an effective humanitarian response.

13. We call on all states to uphold the principles of international law including territorial integrity and sovereignty, international humanitarian law, and the multilateral system
that safeguards peace and stability. The peaceful resolution of conflicts, and efforts to address crises as well as diplomacy and dialogue are critical. We will unite in our endeavour to address the adverse impact of the war on the global economy and welcome all relevant and constructive initiatives that support a comprehensive, just, and durable peace in Ukraine that will uphold all the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter for the promotion of peaceful, friendly, and good neighbourly relations among nations in the spirit of ‘One Earth, One Family, One Future’.

14. Today’s era must not be of war.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

[harrybarracuda]

In line with the UN Charter, all states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition against the territorial integrity and sovereignty or political independence of any state. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.

I'm sure the high heeled war criminal didn't want that in there.

Then again the coward was too scared to turn up, wasn't he?

[OhOh]

10 September 2023 19:14

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions following the G20 Summit, New Delhi, September 10, 2023

1740-10-09-2023

"Colleagues,

You have all had a chance to read the Declaration, so I will keep my opening remarks short.

The G20 Summit was an unqualified success. First and foremost, it was a success of the Indian Chairmanship, but also of all of us. The G20 is undergoing an internal reform. One aspect of this reform is that the member countries representing the Global South have become more proactive, with India leading the way. They have been clear and persistent in ensuring that their interests are included in the agreements negotiated by the G20. As a result, they were included in the Declaration.

They are eager to change the way the G20 is conducted so that the role of the Global South in global governance mechanisms is strengthened to adequately reflect its real weight in world affairs, including in the economic sphere, where BRICS has already surpassed the G7 countries in terms of gross national product.

The Declaration formulates the tasks of reforming the IMF, where, if quotas and votes are divided fairly, the Americans will not have an artificially preserved entitlement to block all others. The summit will give a serious and positive impetus to the efforts to reform the IMF and the WTO (it is also explicitly stated), which are artificially restrained by the Americans and their allies.

In the same vein, there is an emphasis on the need for the West to fulfil its commitments and long-standing promises, which are not being kept, including the transfer of technology. It is firmly stated that developing countries will no longer put up with being presented with a false choice: either to fight poverty or to invest in fighting climate change. This is a false dichotomy. The challenges of economic and social development take centre stage. In that regard, the Declaration also records the need to fulfil long-standing promises to transfer technology to the Global South, not just take their raw materials and then add value and make a profit. It is also stated that the West has long signed up to allocate $100 billion annually to prepare economies to deal with the adverse effects of climate change. None of this has been done.

The Declaration reminds us of everything that needs to be done, in line with long-standing pledges, to ensure a balance of interests in the global economy. The road is not a short one. Nevertheless, this summit was in some ways a watershed in terms of a clear focus on these challenges.

I would also like to note the important role played by the Indian presidency, which, for the first time in the history of the G20, has consolidated its participants that represent the Global South. Our BRICS partners, particularly India, Brazil, and South Africa, were highly active in this regard. This consolidated position adopted by the Global South in defence of its legitimate interests helped thwart the West's attempt to Ukrainianise the agenda at the expense of discussing pressing issues facing developing countries.

Notably, the Ukraine paragraph is part of the agenda and is a subject of consensus, but it is not about Ukraine. Indeed, it mentions the Ukraine crisis, but only in the context of the importance of resolving all existing global conflicts in accordance with UN Charter goals and principles in their entirety and interrelation. This is important because as soon as Ukraine is mentioned, the West tends to avoid intellectual discussions and demands the cessation of Russian aggression and the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Territorial integrity is enshrined in the UN Charter alongside the principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, but it was, in fact, included in the charter at a later date. We explained to our colleagues (we had many discussions about that behind closed doors) that when a state coup took place in Kiev in February 2014, and the coup leaders immediately declared their objective of abolishing the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, it served as a trigger. The residents of Crimea and Donbass were outraged and stated that they did not want to live in such a country. By treating its own citizens in this way, the Kiev regime undermined its own territorial integrity. The UN General Assembly's declaration on Principles of International Law states that territorial integrity of states must be respected if their governments adhere to the principle of self-determination of peoples and represent the entire population residing within the borders of the territories in question. I believe that it is self-evident that the masterminds and perpetrators of the February 2014 coup in Kiev cannot claim to represent the interests of the residents of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So, the Kiev regime destroyed its own territorial integrity and, in full compliance with the UN Charter and international law, the principle of self-determination of peoples came into force. We made this point clear one more time. Clearly, the G20 members have a correct understanding of what is happening. I’m confident that some of our Western colleagues are perfectly clear about this as well, but they are banking on the strategic defeat of the Russian Federation.

Overall, the paragraph deals with geopolitical realities. In addition to the importance of resolving all conflicts around the world based on the UN Charter principles in their entirety and interrelation, it contains important agreements on how to proceed in the sphere of food security. Our position has been made known in full. President Putin has repeatedly conveyed it. It is important (if everyone is interested) to reinstate the Black Sea initiative in full, including both components of the package proposed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, namely, Russian fertiliser and grain, and Ukrainian grain.

In this regard, I would also like to highlight another paragraph in the geopolitical section where the West had to agree to a significant shift in its position, calling for an end to attacks and the destruction of critical energy infrastructure related to agriculture. It does not explicitly mention it, but everyone understands that this covers the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines, the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline, the strikes on the Kakhovka HPP, and the ongoing launches of drones against the Zaporozhye NPP. I believe this is a balanced and, most importantly, realistic paragraph that we supported.

The declaration contains over 80 paragraphs. I’m confident that you have already reviewed it or will do so soon.

The summit’s success has created extra opportunities for continuing work to ensure fairness in the global economy and financial sectors. Following this summit, the Western countries should think again about whether they are capable of and whether it is in their own interests to continue their pursuit of dominance. The West will not be able to maintain its position of hegemon given that new global development, economic growth and financial power centres have objectively emerged and are quickly gaining strength and political influence. I believe the declaration offers a healthy solution in terms of the need to achieve a fair and just balance of interests. The goal is distant, but things have started moving in this direction.

In turn, we will continue to strengthen these positive trends, including during Brazil’s G20 presidency in 2024 and South Africa’s presidency in 2025.

In his closing remarks during today’s final session, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi said he would convene another G20 summit online, via video conferencing, before the end of 2023 (most likely in late November). This will offer another opportunity to see once again how the agreements approved today are being put into practice and to pass the baton more effectively to our Brazilian colleagues.

Question: With regard to the West’s reaction, there was a slight dissonance. Some leaders, such as UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his German counterpart Olaf Scholz, said there was some strong language regarding Russia in the declaration which can be seen as success. Meanwhile, the Western media are calling it a failure in terms of the Ukrainian track. What can you say about this?

Sergey Lavrov: There is not much to say about it. You have read the text. I think that if the Western leaders you mentioned consider everyone to be naive and they explain to everyone that the text condemns Russia, but our country is not mentioned once in the declaration. The declaration mentions things that I have just mentioned that reflect the persistent efforts by India and our other like-minded partners who prevented the entity created to address global economic and financial issues from being turned into a politicised circle.

As for what the media are saying, I have seen a variety of assessments. The Financial Times said it was a failure for the West. On the other hand, according to Reuters, the West coordinated this section of the joint declaration and turned it over to the Russian Federation as an ultimatum. It is laughable. Grown-up people are spreading rumours that cannot be taken seriously.

We once again thanked our Indian friends. They stood their watch with honour and made a substantial contribution to laying the foundation for further work on democratising international economic and financial relations.

Question: I would like to correct you. It did not say ultimatum. It was stated that it was given to the Russian party.

Was there any progress on the grain deal at the G20 summit? Were there meetings with President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other world leaders to deal with the supply issues?

Sergey Lavrov: I just spoke about this. The declaration article speaks for itself. Nobody could object. Both President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President of Russia Vladimir Putin have repeatedly expressed their readiness to resume the Black Sea initiative, but exclusively in both parts: not only the shipment of the Ukrainian grain, but also eliminating all the obstacles regarding the export of Russian fertiliser, wheat and other grains.

There is much talk that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres wrote a letter in my name. Despite the diplomatic ethics, this information and the text of the letter was leaked to the media. But after reading this, it seems to me that yet again, unfortunately, they are trying to use the Secretary-General to promote unilateral approaches. The point of his words is that we should promptly resume the Ukrainian grain deal, and in return they will do something to reconnect some entities to SWIFT within a month and try to get an agreement with Lloyd’s in the next two or three months. As for SWIFT and Rosselkhozbank, this is simply not true. Nobody promised, including Mr Antonio Guterres, that Rosselkhozbank would be reconnected to SWIFT. They are trying to make us agree on a completely unrealistic plan, that the Luxembourg branch of Rosselkhozbank can perform this function. This office does not have a license for banking operations. It has exhausted its resources and will be closed.

As for Lloyd’s, Mr Guterres told me in Jakarta that he coordinated some UN consultations on that platform. We do not know what functions these consultations will have. We appreciate the efforts that the UN Secretary-General is making. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about it many times. I also expressed by appreciation to Mr Guterres for his efforts. But they are futile in a situation where the West only makes promises. This has forced Farhan Haq, Deputy Spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, to say at a recent news conference that in all these efforts, the Secretariat is not violating the sanctions that were illegally imposed against the Russian Federation. That is, even the UN Secretariat is abiding by the American, European and other sanctions. This is telling. I hope that this was a slipup because everything that Mr Guterres was striving for was to remove the sanctions on our exports of fertiliser and food-related commodities.

Europe and the US have only promised to take some steps. For instance, they said (this was also part of the proposals we received) that Russian fertiliser producers will regain their frozen assets. But they still will be banned from bank operations. All proposals are ambiguous like that. Let’s not forget that the official representative of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said openly that Kiev is radically against easing the sanctions pressure on Russia in any form, including in the interests of our fertiliser and food exports. You be the judge, who takes what position, who says the truth and who does not. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said clearly and repeatedly that when every effort is made to eliminate all obstacles for our fertiliser and grain exports, we will return to the collective implementation of the Ukrainian part of the Black Sea initiative on that same day.

Question: In his article for Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi said that the goal of Delhi’s chairmanship of the G20 was to overcome differences, eliminate barriers, and plant the seeds of cooperation that feeds the world. Do you believe that these noble goals were reached under the Indian chairmanship? Can we hope that the next G20 summit under Brazil’s presidency will be simpler and more constructive in terms of the preparations for agreeing on a final documents than this one was?

Sergey Lavrov: I think that everything Prime Minister Narendra Modi said does correspond to the real situation. It marks the beginning of an important trend of a transition from agreeing on some “papers” (that are never really implemented) to the realisation that one must fulfil their obligations.

The developing countries at that summit were much more consolidated and persistent in promoting their just demands. At the same time, nobody says that these demands should be implemented to the detriment of the West. We want the G20 to go on. It is truly a representative structure that comprises countries that account for 80 percent of the global economy. Everyone is interested in working together. But working honestly, looking for a balance of interests and not promoting them at the expense of the interests of others. The motto of the Indian presidency, One Earth, One Family, One Future, emphasises this uniting sentiment. But the most important thing following this summit, given the radical changes in the approaches of the developing world, is that the West should reach the correct conclusions from what we have adopted here and from what it saw in the actions of the developing countries.

Question: President of Russia Vladimir Putin did not attend the G20 summit. Should we expect his visit to India this year?

During the two days of the summit, you had the opportunity to communicate with your Western colleagues. Did you use this opportunity to talk to the American or other Western delegation?

Sergey Lavrov: I did not look for this opportunity and was simply doing my job. Those who wanted to talk to me, did so. Those who put themselves above diplomatic courtesies, made the wrong choice.

As for highest-level contacts between Russia and India, naturally, they will continue. I assure you, when President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi agree on their next meeting, it will be announced not as a response to a journalist’s question, with all due respect to your publication.

Question: We know that the declaration was negotiated for hours. According to Deputy Chief of the Presidential Experts’ Directorate and G20 Sherpa Svetlana Lukash, the process lasted for more than 20 hours. We did not see what it was like. You did. Please tell us how it all went behind the scenes. How difficult was it? Were there maybe any threats or pressure?

Sergey Lavrov: I did not see this. Ninety-nine percent of the proceedings were ahead of the summit. When we got here, there were some details left, which I helped to coordinate, if indirectly. The team that did all that included G20 Sherpa Svetlana Lukash and her co-worker, Sous-Sherpa and Ambassador at Large Marat Berdyev of the Foreign Ministry. As I understand it, they were taken to a location 100 kilometres from New Delhi and locked in a room like the cardinals trying to elect the Pope. There was no smoke, though. The outcome was positive.

I would like to sincerely thank everyone – the sherpas, sous-sherpas, and the G20 experts – for their dedicated work. Incidentally, they communicated quite well (I am answering a question from our Indian colleague). You have no other choice in a pinch.

Question (retranslated into English): I would like to go back to the bilateral agenda. There was much concern about the mechanism for payment transactions between Russia and India. Was there any progress in the discussion on how this will function? Is it true that the next delivery of S-400 systems will not take place until the issue is settled? Will India look for other suppliers of advanced defence technologies in this context? The United States, for one, has them.

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t know where you got this information from. There was no time for bilateral meetings on the sidelines of this summit. But in Jakarta, where we attended ASEAN’s East Asia Summit, we met with Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and discussed bilateral issues. Yes, this problem exists. In the current situation, there is a backlog of many billions of rupees that are yet to be used. Our Indian friends have assured us that they will identify some promising areas for investment. The rest of our agreements, including those related to military-technical cooperation, remain fully valid.

Question: There is no doubt that the signing of the declaration is Russia’s diplomatic success. Will it open a new quality negotiating tracks to help resolve other problems like the “grain deal,” and particularly a new START treaty?

Sergey Lavrov: Isn’t that a sharp transition?

I feel that this summit was a turning-point. The developing countries will work to achieve justice in a much more insistent and closely-knit manner. But I cannot speak about any specific opportunities for implementing specific items with a call for action. The West has repeatedly failed to respect its own promises and commitments. As for the “grain deal,” it is absolutely clear that everything needs to be done simultaneously. If a certain party has the desire and this certain party honestly agrees to our needs, then we could get started.

As for the START treaty, I see no connection. This is a Russian-American agreement that was signed under totally different international conditions in relations between Moscow and Washington than those we are working under now because of the war the West has declared on Russia through Ukraine in order to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. Under these circumstances, there is no possibility for talks on implementing the current treaty or for talks on a new strategic stability treaty. But, as we have announced, we will abide by the parameters of the START-3 treaty until its expiry, that is, the numerical limits on the specified arms.

Now let me go back to the issue of who is ready to implement what. The section saying that all international conflicts should be settled by peaceful means in keeping with the principles of the UN Charter, and that no conflict should sink into oblivion is by and large a strong signal. It reflects the revulsion towards the West’s protracted attempts to Ukraine-ise every discussion and format to the detriment of efforts to address the developing world’s problems, which have remained unattended for decades.

The African countries have raised this issue. The UNGA decolonisation resolutions have yet to be implemented. France is unwilling to withdraw from all the territories on the Comoro Islands; the UK has still failed to leave the Chagos Archipelago, even though the UN General Assembly has adopted several resolutions on all these issues. The principle that there is no conflict that everyone will focus on because the West peddles these ideas, while other differences should not receive much attention, this approach is changing. Now the West will have no argument (although they could invent something) for sweeping under the rug all the proposals on the Palestinian issue, the Syrian problem, and many other areas, where they play a negative role by delaying the attainment of any positive progress.

Question: The Western media speculated about the absence of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping at the summit this year, which gives the Western states and, above all the European Union, a unique chance to get closer to the African countries and demonstrate their decisive intentions to “reboot” their relations with the African continent despite their colonial past. You said they failed to do this, but did they try to use this opportunity? Were there attempts made by the European countries to reach African leaders?

Sergey Lavrov: If they want to improve their relations with the African countries, they have to end their colonialist tendencies. Neither Vladimir Putin nor Xi Jinping prohibit the West from communicating with the African countries at various events. What is the connection with the fact that the delegations are not led by the Presidents of Russia and China but other representatives of Moscow and Beijing?

So, the African countries are always ready to communicate. It is a different thing that if this communication consists of a pat on the shoulder and a dismissive attitude towards their immediate needs, then probably nothing will come of it. They will communicate politely, but will demand more than verbal promises; they will need actual results. Especially regarding what I said about technology transfer.

We heard this message clearly at the Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg in late July and at the BRICS summit in Johannesburg. The African countries do not want to continue to supply raw materials to the Western countries, where they are processed, value is added, and then all this is resold for a much larger profit, none of which ends up in the countries where these raw materials come from. That is why the Africans tell us that we should not constantly offer to sell them something. They want technology. They are able to provide for themselves, and they can also export finished products.

Africa is a rich continent. We do not prohibit anyone from communicating in any way. The West is running all over the world demanding that no one meet with us. They fail, but they continue running around, making demands. When communicating with our partners, we state our position and leave it to their discretion how they will relate to our actions. The West does the same, but they also demand that everyone does what they want. Who would like that? So, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have nothing to do with it. The West needs to look at itself, as our fabulist Ivan Krylov wrote.

Question: Yerevan has announced joint military exercises with the United States, which will take place in the Republic of Armenia. Let me ask you: How does Russia feel about this move by Armenia given media reports that the country may withdraw from the CSTO? Do the upcoming exercises cause serious concern for Russia, given that they will take place near Russia's borders?

Sergey Lavrov: The Kremlin commented on this situation earlier. Of course, we see nothing good in the fact that an aggressive NATO country is trying to make its way into the South Caucasus. I don't think this is good for anyone, including Armenia.

Wherever the Americans appear (they have hundreds of military bases around the world), it does not do anyone any good. At best, they sit there quietly. However, quite often they try to assume control over everything, including political processes.

We deplore Armenia’s actions. We have said this. You mentioned the CSTO. Of course, the announced agreement about joint Armenian-American exercises looks all the more unusual since Armenia has been refusing to participate in CSTO exercises for two years now. They explain this by saying that if the CSTO, as a union with Armenia as part of it, denounced Azerbaijan, then Armenia would “work” with it. When asked why they are talking to the Americans and the Europeans, who do not condemn Azerbaijan, and they answer that they are not their allies, and we are the ones who are supposed to condemn Azerbaijan. This appears to be a rather strange and simplistic logic. But I hope very much that the allied obligations that exist between us and which we value will prevail in Armenia's foreign policy.

With regard to Armenia threatening to withdraw from the CSTO, there are quite a few politicians in Armenia who come up with quite arrogant statements towards Russia. We see that. This did not start yesterday. But we also remember that when Mr Pashinyan had yet to gain political power and was rallying the Armenian people around him, one of his slogans was on withdrawal from the CSTO and the EAEU. Many people thought it was just a part of the election campaign to win votes. Mr Pashinyan did not express any such thoughts afterwards, including during the CSTO summit in Yerevan in 2022 where, at the ministerial level, we agreed on the mandate of the CSTO mission on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Everything was signed. However, come morning, our Armenian colleagues decided to put this issue off.

Before accusing us, they should assess their own actions. A political figure in Armenia, I think, the speaker of the parliament, said something along the lines that Russia “gave” Karabakh to Azerbaijan. It is hard to imagine a more incorrect and disingenuous statement. He referred to the fact that Russia gave Karabakh to Azerbaijan when President Putin, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan signed the first trilateral agreement on November 10, 2020. This is not what happened in reality. It says nothing at all about the status of Karabakh. At that time, all three leaders were operating on the premise that there would be additional talks on this matter. But later in Prague, where both the President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia were invited, they both signed a statement saying that they recognise the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration. Case closed. The President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia signed a document according to which the then Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was part of Azerbaijan. Accusing us that we allegedly “gave” Karabakh to Azerbaijan on November 10, 2020 makes no sense. There is no need to accuse us of “giving away” Karabakh back in November 10, 2020. He should answer for that to his own people.

Question: President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Council Michel, and representatives of the EU member states are all speaking on behalf of the EU. It’s like some kind of a hundred-headed serpent. No one represented BRICS. The African Union was adopted only recently. Why is that?

Sergey Lavrov: Not really a “hundred-headed” one. If we assess this summit, it is a two-headed serpent.

We have been thinking about this for quite a long time. When the issue about the African Union’s full membership arose at the last summit, we strongly supported the idea. It was approved by consensus. Since this summit, the Chairman of the African Union and President of the Union of the Comoros, Mr Assoumani, has been fully participating in the G20 activities.

Your question is indicative of an ongoing trend. An idea has been floated that not only the African Union, but regional structures such as LAS and CELAC should be included in the G20 as well. I think that at some point the EAEU will also be considered a regional and structural participant. The EU should be transferred to this group. Frankly, it all looks out of proportion: the leading EU countries, the leadership of the European Council and the European Commission. There are questions. Time will tell.

Question: You have already said that your employees actively worked during the talks. We’d like to understand if there was a political level reach out from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of India, as well as from other countries – China, South Africa, Brazil, who worked together on this joint committee. Thank you.

Sergey Lavrov: My Indian colleague Subrahmanyam Jaishankar always keeps in touch. We also talked in Jakarta.

The majority of the work was done by the sherpas and experts. When there were certain issues that required attention at the political level, we spoke by telephone or met if it was the same event. This is how it was when the preparations for the summit were underway. This is normal practice for two friendly countries.

Question: How were the G20 countries able to reach consensus on the final declaration?

Sergey Lavrov: The decisive role was played by the Indian chairmanship. Other countries of the Global South decided to make sure that the G20 worked on an equal basis and promoted agreements that would be based on an honest balance of interests, both within the Bretton Woods system and the World Trade Organisation, and at all platforms where issues of the global economy are discussed. It was the main thing that ensured the success of the summit.

I would like to note that the Western countries (and I hope this is a trend) agreed on the formulas that outline the future efforts of the G20. This is an advance payment on their side. By agreeing on them, they will have to fulfil them. There have been too many agreements that the West has ignored.

Question: The Delhi declaration speaks a lot about the impact of the Ukrainian conflict on the logistics chains, food security, but it does not mention sanctions. Did you discuss the responsibility of countries that impose sanctions and the fact that it affects mostly poor countries? Were the ways to minimise this impact discussed?

Sergey Lavrov: Like creating a court martial?

The Declaration says that the Ukrainian crisis has added negative factors, first of all, the sanctions. The wording of the Declaration explicitly does not allow those imposing them to evade responsibility."

In other sections of the Declaration, it is spelled out what lies at the foundation of the current hardships in the global economy. It clearly explains it. Due to the fact that this is a diplomatic document, and a compromise in many ways, its wording might be vague. But still it says that the West has created a multitude of problems in the global economy, and tried awkwardly over many years to push its climate policy, which has turned out to be a failure, to the foreground.

The West fails to fulfil its promises, including on allocating $100 billion per year for the developing countries as part of the green transition. All of this is included in the declaration. It is not the case of “if you know, you will understand.” Naturally, consensus documents contain a compromise. In this case, it is important that the West has officially agreed on a compromise on the terms that are more favourable for the developing countries than in the previous years."

https://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/video/view/1903728/

TBC.

[OhOh]

didn't want that in there

Au contraire.

As stated above:

G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration

And as the The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation suggests:

"The declaration contains over 80 paragraphs. I’m confident that you have already reviewed it or will do so soon."

When you have digested both the "G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration" and and The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation initial replies come back and enlighten us again.

"Notably, the Ukraine paragraph is part of the agenda and is a subject of consensus, but it is not about Ukraine. Indeed, it mentions the Ukraine crisis, but only in the context of the importance of resolving all existing global conflicts in accordance with UN Charter goals and principles in their entirety and interrelation. This is important because as soon as Ukraine is mentioned, the West tends to avoid intellectual discussions and demands the cessation of Russian aggression and the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Territorial integrity is enshrined in the UN Charter alongside the principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, but it was, in fact, included in the charter at a later date. We explained to our colleagues (we had many discussions about that behind closed doors) that when a state coup took place in Kiev in February 2014, and the coup leaders immediately declared their objective of abolishing the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, it served as a trigger. The residents of Crimea and Donbass were outraged and stated that they did not want to live in such a country. By treating its own citizens in this way, the Kiev regime undermined its own territorial integrity. The UN General Assembly's declaration on Principles of International Law states that territorial integrity of states must be respected if their governments adhere to the principle of self-determination of peoples and represent the entire population residing within the borders of the territories in question. I believe that it is self-evident that the masterminds and perpetrators of the February 2014 coup in Kiev cannot claim to represent the interests of the residents of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So, the Kiev regime destroyed its own territorial integrity and, in full compliance with the UN Charter and international law, the principle of self-determination of peoples came into force. We made this point clear one more time. Clearly, the G20 members have a correct understanding of what is happening. I’m confident that some of our Western colleagues are perfectly clear about this as well, but they are banking on the strategic defeat of the Russian Federation.

Overall, the paragraph deals with geopolitical realities. In addition to the importance of resolving all conflicts around the world based on the UN Charter principles in their entirety and interrelation, it contains important agreements on how to proceed in the sphere of food security. Our position has been made known in full. President Putin has repeatedly conveyed it. It is important (if everyone is interested) to reinstate the Black Sea initiative in full, including both components of the package proposed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, namely, Russian fertiliser and grain, and Ukrainian grain.

In this regard, I would also like to highlight another paragraph in the geopolitical section where the West had to agree to a significant shift in its position, calling for an end to attacks and the destruction of critical energy infrastructure related to agriculture. It does not explicitly mention it, but everyone understands that this covers the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines, the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline, the strikes on the Kakhovka HPP, and the ongoing launches of drones against the Zaporozhye NPP. I believe this is a balanced and, most importantly, realistic paragraph that we supported.

The declaration contains over 80 paragraphs. I’m confident that you have already reviewed it or will do so soon."

[helge]

Good posts

[harrybarracuda]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers

Like I said, the cowardly high-heeled war criminal didn't turn up.

And he wouldn't have been happy to read what was clearly aimed in his direction.

In line with the UN Charter, all states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition against the territorial integrity and sovereignty or political independence of any state. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.

Au contraire.

Unless you have pictures of the spineless, transvestite scumbag in New Delhi, you're talking shit as usual.

[helge]

The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.

I thought that it was the whole idea behind the nukes, to use them as a threat

[Neverna]

I thought that it was the whole idea behind the nukes, to use them as a threat

The ambiguity of a nuclear threat sometimes goes something like this: “We rule nothing out and nothing in”.

[harrybarracuda]

I thought that it was the whole idea behind the nukes, to use them as a threat

I thought it was the concept of "mutual assured destruction" which in theory precludes their use. This is talking about the high-heeled war criminal and his lackeys threatening to use them in a conventional war if Ukraine takes its land back.

Of course they won't use them, because (i) the high-heeled war criminal is a fucking coward and (ii) even if he went looney enough, his generals would stop him.

[helge]

"mutual assured destruction"

In Israel's case the threat seems to do the trick

[harrybarracuda]

In Israel's case the threat seems to do the trick

Until Iran gets nukes and persuades some Lebo that he'll get the 72 virgins if he goes and detonates one in Haifa.

[OhOh]

OCTOBER 9, 2023 BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR


10 reasons why India’s stance on Gaza is unsustainable.

"The Indian reaction to the massive eruption of violence between Hamas and Israel on Saturday belies ground realities and ignores the geopolitical environment in that region and globally in which this cataclysmic event merits careful appraisal. It will prove to be unsustainable and can damage the country’s interests and standing globally.

One, Indian policy has blatantly tilted toward Israel. What has been a matter of speculation assumed habitation and a name when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tweet on Saturday underscored India’s “solidarity” with Israel.

The resonant expression signifies a historic departure from India’s consistent stance on the Palestine issue, which followed, quintessentially, the footfalls of Gandhiji who had the prescience and vision to oppose the creation of Israel on Palestinian homelands in the cruel manner in which the Western powers imposed that geopolitical construct on West Asia.

What prompted this radical shift on an issue where angels fear to tread remains a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Two, Delhi had the benefit of a “preview” of what is to follow in Gaza in the coming weeks or months. Prime Minister Benjamin proclaimed that the “enemy will pay an unprecedented price” and promised that Israel would “return fire of a magnitude that the enemy has not known.” He declared war on Gaza.

Netanyahu’s capacity for mindless violence is a legion. Yet, Delhi rushed in to react at an emotional, subjective level.

Three, the possibility of a ground offensive and even occupation of Gaza is real. Simply put, India’s patented mantra that ‘this is not an era of wars’ obliges it to mark distance from Netanyahu. But instead, India risks taking a virtual partisan in the carnage that is to follow — politically, morally, diplomatically.

At such a crucial juncture, at the very least, our government being a ‘Vishwa Guru’ who tirelessly propagates the notion of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakaam (The World is One Family), gets exposed, warts and all. India’s role should be of a unifier rather than divider.

Four, India’s reaction is clearly at odds with the sentiments of the Global South. For, other than the ‘collective West’, India becomes a lone ranger in the Global Majority that stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel. Empathy with victims of violence is one thing, but political support for the collective West (which is what this entails, in reality, in the prevailing climate in world politics) is another thing.

Two days after Vladimir Putin praised Modi’s India sky-high as a stellar example of a civilisation state role model in a multipolar world in a landmark speech addressing an elite audience, distinguishing it from the predatory neo-colonial Western powers, India negated his thesis.

There is no question that the Indian stance exposes the paradox of its self-appointed claim to be the leader of the Global South. When the crunch time came, Indian elites showed their true colours.

Five, Israel’s reaction, which is already under way, is expected to be massive, unremitting and ruthless. An Israeli occupation of Gaza is a high probability, howsoever foolish that might eventually turn out to be. Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant’s chilling words vowing to “change the reality in Gaza” will mean that increasingly, it will become difficult for the countries of the region and the Global South —and even the ‘friends of Israel’ in the US and Europe — to remain passive.

India has dug itself a foxhole from where it will be difficult to come out saving face and battered reputation and credibility.

Six, troubling questions arise in regard of India’s credentials to be a UN Security Council permanent member. Whose interests, after all, does India represent other than its self-interests? This becomes a daunting question for which there are no easy answers. Succinctly put, the fruits of decades of hard work by successive Indian leaderships and diplomats are being squandered away.

Seven, all wars come to an end through negotiations. But this incoming war will be a long and wide-ranging one. The wily politician in Netanyahu, who is under immense pressure domestically, facing personal legal charges and holding on to power with the help of ultra-nationalist and right-wing partners, will seize the opportunity to salvage his reputation as Israel’s great protector and rally the political and security establishment in his country, which is deeply divided, and shall be in no hurry to sit at the negotiating table with Hamas.

On the other hand, American intention will be to claw its way up the greasy pole of West Asian politics after the Iran-Saudi rapprochement. In a major display of force, a vast armada of warships and planes is slouching toward East Mediterranean. How this force projection will pan out remains to be seen.

The temptation will be there to reimpose US hegemony in West Asia and to project President Biden as a decisive leader at a time when, on the one hand, his re-election bid in the 2024 election is wide open and, on the other hand, the spectre of a humiliating defeat in Ukraine haunts his presidency.

Suffice to say, the political interests of Biden and Netanyahu are coalescing and the stench of Israel’s war will likely touch the heavens and may even engulf other countries in the region as time passes. The Indian leadership will be hard-pressed to demonstrate its friendship and bonhomie with Netanyahu in an apocalyptic scenario.

Eight, Modi government might as well say goodbye to the grand idea of building an Indo-Arab economic corridor to Europe in a foreseeable future. That means, Haifa Port, which was acquired by the Adani Group in a “strategic purchase” at a reported cost of $1.13 billion with Netanyahu’s blessing, will be underperforming. Smart economic diplomacy entailed fostering Arab-Israeli amity.

Nine, Indian government has blithely ignored that Israel is a state sponsoring terrorism. Optics matter in politics and international affairs, and at a time when India’s own credentials are under Western scrutiny, it is doubly important that it is careful in its words and behaviour. There is an old saying, ‘Show me your friends and I will show you your future!’ If the intention is to fly on the wings of the Israeli lobby in North America — or to catch Biden’s eye — it smacks of naïveté, to say the least.

Finally, India should know that in the final analysis, sins are forgotten and forgiven when a political movement that might have had uses of violence in its toolbox commands the overwhelming support of the masses. Indeed, that is how it should be. By that yardstick, Hamas passed the litmus test decades ago, much before the BJP formed a government in 2014.

Hamas today is the unquestioned leader of Palestinian aspirations, towering head and shoulders above peer groups and is a mainstream interlocutor for the regional powers. It even has a representative office in Moscow. Clearly, the Indian reaction, which tends to view the current development as a ‘stand alone’ event of terrorism, is anachronistic.

An enduring Palestinian settlement will have to be inclusive and will include Hamas after the audacity of hope it has displayed. The BJP leadership should educate its provincial leaders with tunnel vision on international affairs that Islamism is not to be equated with terrorism in the global commons, especially the politics of the Muslim Brotherhood to which Hamas belongs."

10 reasons why India’s stance on Gaza is unsustainable - Indian Punchline

[helge]

Good article

[Backspin]

I thought it was the concept of "mutual assured destruction" which in theory precludes their use. This is talking about the high-heeled war criminal and his lackeys threatening to use them in a conventional war if Ukraine takes its land back.

Of course they won't use them, because (i) the high-heeled war criminal is a fucking coward and (ii) even if he went looney enough, his generals would stop him.

Russia has had the naval base in Sevastopol since the 1700's. And it will use fucking nukes before it hands the base over to Nato just because the US managed to illegally bribe politicians in Kiev.