We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Indonesian President Joko Widodo (R) hands over the G-20 presidency gavel to India's PM Narendra Modi (L) at the G-20 summit in Bali.
India's Modi seeks to burnish his legacy with G-20 presidency
On Dec. 1, India will assume the year-long rotating presidency of the G-20, a grouping that brings together representatives of the world’s largest economies to coordinate responses to the leading problems of the day. Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants to make the Indian presidency one to remember. In fact, he asked Indonesia to take India’s place in the scheduled G-20 rotation last year because he felt the country was behind on preparations that include rebuilding a portion of New Delhi, India’s capital city.
We asked Eurasia Group expert Pramit Pal Chaudhuri to explain why Modi is making such a big bet on the G-20 presidency and how he hopes to address some of the world’s challenges.
Is Modi expecting some sort of political gain?
India will be gearing up next year for national elections in early 2024. So, when Modi unveiled a logo for the G-20 presidency that included the lotus flower — which is both India's national flower and the symbol of the ruling BJP party — the opposition immediately accused him of exploiting the occasion for electoral purposes.
Modi is likely betting that the international attention generated by the G-20 meetings will elevate the profile of the BJP in the eyes of voters. Events will be held throughout the country, including in Kashmir, which is claimed by neighboring Pakistan. (China, an ally of Pakistan, has already refused to participate in those events.)
But beyond the short-term electoral considerations, Modi is thinking about his legacy. The 72-year-old leader is hoping to advance global solutions to problems such as climate change during his time at the helm of the G-20.
But the G-20 is very divided. How will Modi manage the geopolitical tensions?
Yes, it’s true that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the intensifying rivalry between the US and China have created divisions. And India has problems of its own with China — relations have been in a deep freeze since a Himalayan border clash in 2020. But Modi has been working to unfreeze them.
After two years of zero contact, Modi shared a podium with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in September and followed it up with a handshake and a brief chat at the G-20 leaders’ summit earlier this month in Indonesia. That will likely pave the way for Xi to come to the same event next September in New Delhi.
Meanwhile, India has been working to bridge the divide over Ukraine. Many countries in the developing world – including India and China – have either opposed or been reluctant to go along with the West’s campaign to punish Russia for its actions. At the G-20 summit earlier this month, Indian diplomats worked overtime to get all sides to agree to language in the summit communique that condemned the war but recognized differing views among members.
What will be the main focus of India’s G-20 presidency?
Amitabh Kant, India’s G-20 sherpa (lead negotiator), recently said that trying to reinvigorate the world economy will be at the top of the agenda: "By the time we take over ... many parts of the world will go into recession… almost 70 countries will be impacted by global debt." India has already got traction on a proposal for developed country central banks to offer currency swaps to countries in the Global South to help them secure the supplies of foreign currencies they need to pay off debt and pay for imports.
Modi himself, however, has suggested that much of the agenda will focus on climate issues. For example, Indian officials want to discuss ways to direct global capital to emerging-market countries to help them fund transitions to less-polluting forms of energy. One idea, they say, is to get multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank to become more proactive in financing projects in this space. Another is to create a new multilateral program to underwrite private investment in green energy projects.
Are there other items of note on the agenda?
The Modi government is trying to get the G-20 members to consider a coordinated global regulatory response to cryptocurrency, given the ease with which it crosses borders and transactions are shifted to offshore sites. It will also press the demands of emerging market countries for a greater share of the votes at institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. Indian officials say they don't want to clutter the agenda with too many items, preferring to keep the focus mostly on growth and climate.Families torn apart by Partition.
The endless anguish of Partition: India and Pakistan at 75
Seventy-five years ago this week, two of the most powerful countries in Asia were born in a bloodbath. At the stroke of midnight that separated Aug. 14 from Aug. 15, 1947, British India was divided — along an inexpertly drawn line — into a sprawling, Hindu-majority India, and a smaller, Muslim-majority Pakistan.
The event, known as “Partition,” tore apart families, villages, and whole regions, sparking violence that left millions dead and displaced. It also laid the groundwork for sectarian conflicts and enmity between India and Pakistan that have lasted to this day.
To learn more about why Partition happened, and how it continues to shape the troubled relationship between these two countries, we sat down with Akhil Bery, a former analyst at Eurasia Group who is now Director of South Asia Initiatives at the Asia Society Policy Institute.
Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Alex Kliment: Let's start at the beginning, Akhil – what was Partition, and why did it happen?
Akhil Bery: Under the British Empire, Muslims were the largest religious minority in India, accounting for about 25% of the population. And due to their minority status, they were guaranteed a certain amount of representation in various legislative bodies.
As the calls for independence from the British grew louder, there was a fear that Muslims would lose these protections, especially in a Hindu-dominated India, and so there were calls for a separate Muslim state. There's some debate about whether that was an actual goal or whether it was just a negotiating tactic. But that sort of became the rallying cry for Muslims.
Then in 1947, after World War Two, Lord Mountbatten came to India as the new viceroy, and his mandate was to end the British Raj. He charged a prominent lawyer, Cyril Radcliffe, with partitioning India along sectarian lines: a Hindu-majority India on one side, and Pakistan, for Muslims, on the other.
And let me guess, this imperial Englishman didn’t draw such a great map?
Well, Radcliffe had been to India – once. But he did all of this from England, using outdated census information.
So it was just a mess, villages were split in half and so on. You had mobs burning villages, attacking people. You had Hindus and Sikhs versus Muslims, and vice versa.
It was a small percentage of the population who engaged in these things, of course – most people were bystanders. But when the dust settled in 1948, some 15 million people had been displaced from their homes, and the conservative estimate is that at least 2 million people died. That history of violence is what gave birth to India and Pakistan.
Why was it so violent?
Until the mid 1940s, British India was a multi-ethnic, multicultural country. I mean, you had Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, for the most part coexisting peacefully.
But the British had long practiced a deliberate policy of divide and rule, selectively playing sectarian groups off each other as a way to undermine any anti-British movements in India.
So as the British departure from Indian territories became more likely, those divisions provided fertile ground for more ideological ideas of nationhood: you had Muslims for a Muslim-majority Pakistan, and Hindus in India who believed that because you were going to have a Muslim-majority Pakistan, then India should also be a Hindu majority country.
And of course, when Partition arrived, you had fanatics on both sides taking advantage of the situation to carry out violence.
You are from India – are there any Partition stories that you grew up hearing or that you remember from your family?
Every family has some sort of story of the Partition or of the terrorism and violence that came after. My grandfather was born in Lahore [today’s Pakistan] and my grandmother was in Amritsar, which is in Punjab, in today’s India. They used to be able to travel freely between those two cities, and there was even visa free travel between the two countries until the late 1960s.
But for my grandmother, as a newlywed young mother, some of her earliest memories of that time were of hosting Partition refugees from Pakistan in Delhi.
How has Partition shaped sectarian attitudes in the two countries?
It’s still unresolved today. If you look at how both India and Pakistan deal with religious minorities, neither of them has a good track record on that. Look at India right now with the growth of the BJP, you've seen an increase of violence against Muslims.
And in Pakistan, an Islamization of the country that goes back to when General Zia [ul-Haq] was in charge in the 1970s, and he kind of promoted the Islamization of Pakistan, which ended up supporting the Taliban, and passing anti-blasphemy laws and so on.
So, I mean, this idea of a hard line, religious, almost fanaticism is prevalent in both India and Pakistan now.
On top of those internal tensions, did Partition leave flashpoints between India and Pakistan directly?
Yes, in Kashmir. The conflict over Kashmir is a legacy of Partition. At the time, you had a Muslim-majority state with a Hindu king who signed an “Instrument of Accession” (which ceded the area to India).
But this is where the history gets dicey because Pakistan believes that as a Muslim majority it naturally belonged to Pakistan, and there is disagreement about whether the king even wanted to sign the document.
India, meanwhile, believes that because the king signed the agreement Jammu and Kashmir should be a part of India.
And this conflict over Kashmir is really what prevents India and Pakistan from finding peace with one another. There have been numerous attempts, but it's just never a great combination of people on both sides and it's been a bloody history throughout. They’ve fought three wars over this. There have been terrorist attacks from Pakistan into India. There've been terrorist attacks from India into Pakistan. These are two nuclear armed neighbors who don't get along because of Kashmir, so that’s one big, unfulfilled legacy of Partition.
Where does the Kashmir issue stand now?
Until India’s decision to abrogate Article 370 (a law that had given Kashmir a measure of autonomy) in 2019, Jammu and Kashmir was India's only Muslim majority state. Now its status has been downgraded to a union territory. And because of that, it has hardened minds. India and Pakistan don't have trade relations. The border is still militarized. There is a ceasefire in effect on the line of control. But there isn't really a path forward right now.
How is Partition remembered today – and is it seen differently in India and Pakistan?
The generation that survived Partition is slowly dying out. It's been 75 years. New generations don’t have those same stories, and yet the wounds of Partition are still there and it's still a political cudgel, so you are seeing more competing hardline views.
In India last year, they designated August 14, which is Pakistan's independence day, as “Partition Horrors Remembrance Day.”
And you've got Hindu nationalist groups, for example, that espouse this idea of “Akhand Bharat,” or “unified India”, who believe that India should unite the continent, basically. And it's not just Pakistan they want – they want Bangladesh, Nepal, Tibet, Myanmar, and so on.
There's also a view in India that Partition was a mistake because, due to the wastage of resources on security (in the standoff with Pakistan), an undivided India could have spent more on health and education to achieve better development outcomes.
And then, of course, there is the view that India should just be an overtly Hindu state, since Pakistan is a Muslim state. And that view has come into prominence more and more, especially with the decline of India’s Congress Party as a relevant opposition party, and the rise of the BJP, which is a very unabashedly pro-Hindu party.
And how is it seen in Pakistan?
In Pakistan, meanwhile, with the rise of the BJP and the Hindu nationalism across the border in India, it's seen as incredible foresight by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (the founding father of Pakistan) to predict that this would come to pass and that this is why you needed a separate Muslim homeland in the first place. So Partition is a good thing in that view.
What would it take to put to rest the ghost of Partition?
Right now you've got a government in India that doesn't see the benefit of negotiating with Pakistan, and you've got Pakistan in the midst of an economic and political crisis.
And for India, the top geopolitical issue right now is China, and that also hampers things because India does not get along with China, but China has a very, very strong relationship with Pakistan.
So, yes, you have a ceasefire holding along the line of control (in Kashmir), but will it last? All it takes is one more terrorist attack, and things will get dicey again. Remember that in 2019, suicide bombers from Pakistan killed 40 Indian soldiers. Modi escalated by sending planes over into Pakistan for the first time since 1972. And Pakistan right now is dealing with a surge in terrorism in its border regions.
But if there are these kind of confidence building measures, like no firing on the line of control, no terrorist attacks, maybe some steps to normalize trade, then there is a future.
Sounds like there’s not much light at the end of the tunnel at the moment – do you think India and Pakistan will ever bury the hatchet?
I personally think you need more economic engagement and more people-to-people ties. There needs to be a realization that the other side is not the enemy. The Indians and Pakistanis have shown an ability to come to agreements in the past. Diplomacy is very helpful. And I think there is a role that international actors have to play there.
The rise of India's relations with the Middle East, I think, is a net positive because Middle Easterners typically had strong relations with Pakistan. So as the US influence in the region ebbs, I think there’s space for Middle Eastern countries to use the leverage that they have to say like, ‘okay, we get that you're not going to have peace with one another, but at least let's try to normalize some aspects of the relationship.’
What We’re Watching: Iran nuke talks resume, Myanmar massacres civilians, Ukraine laughs it all off, Taliban confusion continues, Kashmir gerrymandering
Iran nuclear talks are back on. After a brief holiday break, negotiations to end Iran's nuclear program in exchange for removing economic sanctions against Tehran resume on Monday in Vienna. What are the prospects? About as dim as the last time we wrote about this. Western powers say time is running out because the Iranians are slow-walking the talks so they can continue to enrich uranium well beyond the limits in the original agreement, while the Iranians are playing hardball by demanding that all sanctions be lifted first. Iran also wants a guarantee that the US won't ditch a new deal the way Donald Trump did with the old one in 2018. If Iran keeps enriching uranium at the current pace, the current terms being discussed could soon be obsolete. However, should the talks fail in the end, the US says it has military options to prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb.
Massacre of civilians in Myanmar. Myanmar experienced its worst single case of state-sponsored violence since the February coup on Christmas Eve, when the army gunned down more than 30 civilians — including women and children — and torched their vehicles in Kayah state. Several people are still missing, including two aid workers from Save the Children. It's unclear what prompted the attack, but it took place amid heavy fighting between the military and armed resistance groups in the area. Two weeks ago, soldiers had 11 civilians burned alive because they were suspected of belonging to an anti-junta guerrilla army. Both massacres show that the generals are not backing down in their campaign to wipe out those who oppose their takeover, which ended Myanmar's brief experiment with democracy after decades of military rule. The fighting has also recently intensified along the border with Thailand, whose hardline PM is one of the junta's few foreign friends but doesn't want a refugee crisis on his doorstep (and has already sent back thousands of migrants).
Ukraine's comedian cabinet. As Russia threatens to invade, Ukraine's president is looking to defend his homeland... with a bit of humor. In recent months Volodymyr Zelenskiy — who was a famous comedian before he entered politics, and even played the role of president in a TV series before his 2019 election — has hired members of his old comedy troupe to occupy top positions in his government, including intelligence chief. Zelenskiy is known to crack jokes in moments of extreme tension, and last summer mocked Vladimir Putin for writing a long essay describing Russia and Ukraine as a fraternal single nation. While supporters say Ukraine's president wants his former buddies because they'll be loyal, critics argue that the bad optics of a government being run by comedians who may be out of their depth when faced with a master political strategist like Vladimir Putin. With 100,000 Russian troops at their border, the last thing the Ukrainians need is a bad joke, or even worse an amateur mistake that Putin can use to his advantage.
Will the real Taliban please stand up? The Taliban seem to be adopting a classic one-step-forward-two-steps-back approach to governance. Last week, at a conference attended by dozens of foreign ministers from across the Islamic world, their top diplomat claimed that all government departments had resumed operations. But on Sunday, the new rulers of Afghanistan announced the shutdown of the main election commissions and the ministries of parliamentary affairs and peace, calling them “unnecessary.” Confusion ensues: evacuee flights have been stalled, but the passport office has been reopened. In addition, every day turns up new bizarre and oppressive regulations, such as women not being allowed to travel alone over 45 miles in a cab, which must be driven by a driver with a beard. And there is evidence that the Taliban continue to both attract jihadists and threaten regional peace. At the same time, they are also engaging officially with Iran, despite their anti-Shia stance, and have even set up a WhatsApp hotline to fight pollution. Which Taliban are running Afghanistan? Are they at all?
India (further) dividing Kashmir. You've probably heard about Democrats and Republicans tweaking US congressional districts to ensure easy wins, yet make the electoral map overall less competitive. Now India is doing something similar to favor Hindus over Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, a region long disputed with Pakistan. Majority-Muslim Kashmir — besides being the title of Led Zeppelin’s third greatest song — is bigger, has more natural resources, and has been the center of much of the decades-old insurgency against Delhi. But smaller Jammu has a slim Hindu majority, which PM Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government wants to give more parliamentary power than their official population merits by redrawing electoral maps. This has triggered a new communal divide in a historically tense area, which two years ago was stripped of its autonomy by Modi. Since then Kashmir has “welcomed” over half a million Indian troops and imprisoned more politicians than ever before, but gerrymandering could be a step too far. Even Kashmiri officials who have historically sided with Delhi are speaking against the measures, warning of further unrest if such divisive policies are implemented.
Paramilitary soldiers patrol along a road during a day-long strike called by Separatists All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) and Bar Associations to protest against the recent civilian killings by Indian government forces in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India, on November 19, 2021.
What We're Watching: Kashmir gerrymandering
India (further) dividing Kashmir. You've probably heard about Democrats and Republicans tweaking US congressional districts to ensure easy wins, yet make the electoral map overall less competitive. Now India is doing something similar to favor Hindus over Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir, a region long disputed with Pakistan. Majority-Muslim Kashmir — besides being the title of Led Zeppelin’s third greatest song — is bigger, has more natural resources, and has been the center of much of the decades-old insurgency against Delhi. But smaller Jammu has a slim Hindu majority, which PM Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government wants to give more parliamentary power than their official population merits by redrawing electoral maps. This has triggered a new communal divide in a historically tense area, which two years ago was stripped of its autonomy by Modi. Since then Kashmir has “welcomed” over half a million Indian troops and imprisoned more politicians than ever before, but gerrymandering could be a step too far. Even Kashmiri officials who have historically sided with Delhi are speaking against the measures, warning of further unrest if such divisive policies are implemented.
A protester is seen wearing a face mask with a sticker reading "Chase Prayuth" and raising a three finger salute during a demonstration against the Thai prime minister.
What We’re Watching: Thais protest against PM, Taliban government, India (again) shutters Kashmir, Suga out
Thai PM under pressure: Thousands of Thais took to the streets of Bangkok on Thursday to call for the resignation of embattled PM Prayuth Chan-ocha, who faces a no-confidence vote — his third in 18 months — on Saturday. For over a year, the retired general and 2014 coup leader — who's popular among older Thais, cozy with the business elite, and ultra-loyal to the king — has stared down a youth-led movement demanding broad democratic reforms, including, for the first time ever, curbing the powers of the monarchy. Now, the protesters want Prayuth out because Thailand has been badly hit by COVID while barely 11 percent of the population has been fully vaccinated — perhaps because the government is relying heavily on domestic jab production by a company owned by the royal family that has no previous experience in manufacturing vaccines. Prayuth will survive because he has enough votes in parliament, but the pressure on him from Thailand's emboldened youth won't go away.
Can the Taliban govern? Two weeks after taking over Afghanistan, the Taliban are preparing to announce their new government, with Sheikh Haibatullah Akhundzada as the supreme leader. But as we've written before, it's easy for gun-toting fundamentalists to take over city after city; it's much harder to actually govern the country. Perhaps realizing this, the Taliban have asked civil servants to stay in their posts to keep the government up and running. Some have agreed, while others, particularly high-level officials, have already fled the country, or do not want to work for the Taliban because they deeply mistrust them. Moreover, the Taliban do not seem to have a plan for dealing with the country's financial crunch, given that most US-held assets and foreign aid remain frozen. As the currency plunges and food prices surge, former central bank chief Ajmal Ahmady told GZERO Media the Taliban could soon run out of money. What's more, the group has still not fully consolidated power, battling rebels loyal to a former mujahideen commander in the Panjshir Valley (though that pocket of resistance will likely be quashed soon). The Taliban will project confidence when they announce a new cabinet in the coming days, but many of their biggest challenges are just beginning.
India locks down Kashmir after separatist leader's death: Although Kashmir's separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani passed away of natural causes on Wednesday, the Indian government is taking no chances with the possibility of unrest in the wake of his death: Delhi has cut internet access, imposed a lockdown, and deployed troops around the Muslim-majority region, which for decades has chafed against Indian rule. Authorities evidently forbade Geelani's family from burying him in a prominent martyrs' graveyard. For decades, Geelani was a combative and charismatic advocate of Kashmiri self-determination, whose hardline rejection of dialogue with India often alienated more moderate forces. His death comes at a sensitive time — last month marked two years since the Indian government of Hindu nationalist PM Narendra Modi stripped Kashmir of the autonomy that the region had enjoyed for decades.
Suga steps down: Japan's PM Yoshihide Suga announced early on Friday that he will not seek re-election as head of the governing Liberal Democratic Party. The announcement abruptly ends his controversy-plagued premiership after just one year, which has seen Suga's approval ratings plummet. Suga took over in September 2020 from his longtime boss, the charismatic Shinzo Abe, who resigned due to health reasons. In a time of continuing COVID emergency in Japan, we'll be watching the upcoming race to succeed him as both LDP leader and prime minister. The LDP will vote on party leadership on September 29. A general election will follow later in the year.
What We’re Watching: China vs Australia, Kashmir talks, EU’s Putin FOMO
China-Australia trade row continues: In the newest installment of the deepening row between China and Australia, Beijing has launched a complaint against Canberra at the World Trade Organization over tariffs placed on three Chinese exports: wind towers, railway wheels and stainless-steel sinks. Australia says it was caught off-guard by China's suit — the tariffs have been in place since 2014, 2015, and 2019 — and that Beijing didn't go through the regular WTO channels nor pursue bilateral talks before filing the complaint. It's the latest move in a game of tit-for-tat: last year, Beijing slapped tariffs on Australian products like wine and barley, a massive blow to Australia's export-reliant economy. Since the Chinese crackdown on Australian wine, sales have fallen from AU$1.1 billion ($840 million) to just AU$20 million, prompting Australia to recently challenge Beijing's move at the WTO. China-Australia relations have become increasingly fraught over a range of issues including trade, Chinese spying, 5G, and Australia's call for a global probe into the origins of the pandemic.
Is India going to change tack on Kashmir? Leaders of pro-India political parties in Kashmir are meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the first time since India revoked Kashmir's autonomy almost two years ago. The talks are a sign that Modi may be open to partially restoring the special self-governing status of India's only Muslim-majority territory, which since August 2019 has been ruled directly from Delhi. But, why now? Foreign considerations play a big role. First, restoring Kashmir's autonomy would help to continue a wider India-Pakistan thaw. The two sides recently signed a ceasefire agreement in Kashmir, a territory that they've fought three wars over. Second, the looming US withdrawal from Afghanistan is making India nervous: if, as expected, the Taliban take power again, they could provide haven for Kashmiri separatists eager to attack India.
The EU has Putin FOMO: Joe Biden's summit with Vladimir Putin last week went well enough that now European leaders want to have a go of their own. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday proposed a direct EU meeting with the Russian president for the first time in more than seven years, while also threatening more sanctions if Russia continues to challenge European interests and values. The EU is much closer, both geographically and economically, to Russia than the US is, so there's lots to talk about. But the proposal, which evidently blindsided other EU leaders, has exposed divisions within the bloc. Some EU member states — in particular perennial Russia-hawks Poland and the Baltic states — oppose giving Putin the pleasure of a meeting while Russia still occupies Crimea, harbors cybercriminals, spreads disinformation, and stifles dissent. Others, echoing Biden's reasoning, say it's better to speak directly and frankly than not. Can Merkel and Macron get enough of their fellow EU leaders to agree? Putin is watching, and so are we.
A Pakistani ranger stands near Indian and Pakistani flags during a fair in Chamliyal in the northern Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.
What We're Watching: India-Pakistan talk water, Saudis float Yemen ceasefire, Polish writer in peril
India and Pakistan break bread over... water? Representatives from India and Pakistan are meeting this week to discuss water-sharing in the Indus River for the first time since the two countries severed relations following India's suspension of autonomy for Kashmir almost three years ago. It's a big deal — especially for the Pakistanis, whose farmers get 80 percent of the water they need to irrigate their crops from the Indus. Even more importantly, the meeting is also the latest sign of an apparent thaw in Indo-Pakistani ties, starting with last month's ceasefire agreement on Kashmir. A recently released readout of the secret talks that preceded that truce shows unusual impetus by both sides to make progress, and was followed up by rare conciliatory messages between Delhi and Islamabad. Given the long history of animosity between the two nuclear-armed nations -- they have gone to war three times since 1948 -- it's hard to be optimistic, but let's see if these water talks can move things along further.
Saudis propose ceasefire, Houthis launch drone. Well, that's one way to answer a proposal — just a day after Saudi Arabia floated a new ceasefire plan in Yemen, the Houthi rebels whom Riyadh is fighting there launched a drone strike on a Saudi airport. The Saudi ceasefire initiative envisions fresh peace talks between the warring sides: that is, the Houthis who have taken over much of Yemen and the Saudi-backed government that still controls a small sliver of it. But perhaps of greater immediate significance, it would lift a Saudi blockade that has contributed to a humanitarian crisis in the country. The Houthis, for their part, say Saudi Arabia should lift the blockade with no preconditions on humanitarian grounds. The six-year war has so far killed more than 100,000 people, including a large number of civilians, and displaced some 4 million. The UN has called it "the world's worst humanitarian crisis."
A moronic situation in the heart of Europe. A prominent writer is currently facing a prison term for calling the president of his country a schoolyard insult. Is it in Russia? China? North Korea? No, in fact this is happening in an EU member state. Poland to be exact, where popular screenwriter Jakub Żulczyk has been charged with "an act of public insult" for calling president Andrzej Duda a "moron." Żulczyk let fly the insult on Facebook last November after Duda, a right-winger who was close to US President Donald Trump, said that he wouldn't congratulate Joe Biden on victory in the 2020 US election until the electoral college had officially named him the winner. Pretty tame stuff on both sides, but Poland's famously strict defamation laws (which among other things now include penalties for suggesting Polish complicity in the Holocaust) could land Żulczyk in jail for up to three years.When strongmen move from push to shove
Over the past few years, we've seen three major emerging powers take bold action to right what they say are historical wrongs.
First came Crimea. When the Kremlin decided in 2014 that Western powers were working against Russian interests in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian troops to seize the Crimean Peninsula, which was then part of Ukraine. Moscow claimed that Crimea and its ethnic Russian majority had been part of the Russian Empire for centuries until a shameful deal in 1954 made Crimea part of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic. Americans and Europeans imposed sanctions on Russia. But Ukraine is not part of NATO or the EU, and no further action was taken.
Then came Kashmir. Kashmir has long been divided into Indian- and Pakistani-administered sections separated by a "line of control." The two countries have come to blows over Kashmir several times, and some Kashmiris want independence from both. Indian-administered Kashmir has the only Muslim-majority population on Indian territory, and to manage the resulting tensions, Article 370 of India's constitution gave the territory its own constitution and flag — and the right to make its own laws in areas that don't concern India's defense or foreign policy. After years of periodic unrest and insurgency in the province, Prime Minister Narendra Modi ordered Indian troops into the province in August 2019, and India formally revoked Kashmir's autonomy.
Now comes Hong Kong. When Hong Kong passed from British to Chinese authority in 1997, Beijing agreed to respect a plan known as "one country two systems," which allowed the territory to make its own laws, in areas that don't affect China's defense or foreign policy, and to keep its own police force. Freedoms of speech and the media remained in place. After a proposed law that would allow Hong Kongers to be extradited to face trial on the mainland triggered a tidal wave of unrest across the city, Beijing imposed a new security law that undermines basic freedoms in Hong Kong, and would make it illegal for literally anyone on Earth to promote democracy for its people. Without sending in troops, Beijing effectively ended Hong Kong's autonomy.
These three cases have something basic in common, despite their dozens of differences. All involve powerful emerging states — Russia, India, and China — with nationalist leaders who used historical claims to seize control of territory they believed rightfully belonged to their countries. And all did so secure in the knowledge that no outside power, or alliance of powers, would be willing and able to stop them.
So, who's next? Successive Chinese leaders, including current president Xi Jinping, have made clear that they believe Taiwan is part of China and will one day return to Beijing's control.
In 1996, China fired ballistic missiles into the sea to intimidate Taiwan, and President Bill Clinton responded by ordering two US aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait to send Beijing a message. China backed down. That was 24 years ago. Since then, China has spent trillions to modernize its military and to equip it with 21st century weapons. In Asia, at least, the military balance of power has changed.
Taiwan isn't Crimea, Kashmir or Hong Kong. It's a wealthy country of 24 million people, that is very well armed (by the US).
But if China fired missiles toward Taiwan today, how would outsiders respond? If the US president flexed America's military muscle, would China's leaders back down? What if they didn't?
And for how much longer will this question remain hypothetical?