Tensions in the West Philippine Sea: A Struggle for Sovereignty

China’s sweeping claims of sovereignty over the sea—and the sea’s estimated 11 billion
barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—have antagonized competing
claimants Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. As early as the
1970s, countries began to claim islands and various zones in the South China Sea, such as the
Spratly Islands, which possess rich natural resources and fishing areas. The failure of Chinese
and Southeast Asian leaders to resolve the disputes diplomatically could undermine international
laws governing maritime disputes and encourage destabilizing arms buildups.
China maintains [PDF] that, under international law, foreign militaries cannot conduct
intelligence-gathering activities, such as reconnaissance flights, in its exclusive economic zone
(EEZ). According to the United States, claimant countries, under the UN Convention of the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS), should have freedom of navigation through EEZs in the sea and are not
required to notify claimants of military activities. In July 2016, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration at The Hague ruled on a claim brought against China by the Philippines under
UNCLOS, ruling in favor of the Philippines on almost every count. While China is a signatory to
the treaty establishing the tribunal, it refuses to accept the court’s authority. In recent years,
satellite imagery has shown China’s increased efforts to reclaim land in the South China Sea by
physically increasing the islands' size or creating new ones altogether. In addition to piling sand
onto existing reefs, China has constructed ports, military installations, and airstrips—particularly
in the Paracel and Spratly Islands, where it has twenty and seven outposts, respectively. China
has militarized Woody Island by deploying fighter jets, cruise missiles, and a radar system. The
United States, which maintains important interests in ensuring freedom of navigation and
securing sea lines of communication (SLOCs), has expressed support for an agreement on a
binding code of conduct and other confidence-building measures. China’s claims threaten
SLOCs, which are important maritime passages that facilitate trade and the movement of naval
forces. To protect its political, security, and economic interests in the region, the United States
has challenged China’s assertive territorial claims and land reclamation efforts by conducting
freedom of navigation operations and bolstering support for Southeast Asian partners.
Washington’s defense treaty with Manila could draw the United States into a potential China-
Philippines conflict over the substantial natural gas deposits or lucrative fishing grounds in
disputed territory. Also, in response to China’s assertive presence in the disputed territory, Japan
has sold military ships and equipment to the Philippines and Vietnam to improve their maritime
security capacity and to deter Chinese aggression. Recent Developments Upon assuming office
in June 2022, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. rejected the conciliatory stance toward
China adopted by his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte. The Philippines’ most contentious disputes
with China center on the Second Thomas Shoal of the Spratly Islands, which lies within the
Philippines’ 200-mile EEZ. In 1999, the Philippines intentionally grounded a ship to reinforce its
territorial claims to the area which it calls the West Philippine Sea. Since then, the Philippine
Coast Guard has conducted monthly resupply missions to its military contingent on the ship,
known as the BRP Sierra Madre. Chinese Coast Guard vessels began to employ dangerous
tactics to harass Philippine resupply missions in 2023, leading to heightened clashes. Collisions
have become increasingly common, and the Chinese Coast Guard has used a military-grade laser
and repeatedly fired water cannons against Philippine ships. On June 17, a Chinese vessel and a
Philippine supply ship collided near the Second Thomas Shoal; both sides blamed the other for
the incident.
Amid the rise in tensions with China, the Philippines has strengthened its partnerships with other
Indo-Pacific neighbors. Marcos has signed deals to increase base access, joint exercise training,
and weapons transfers with the United States. In March 2024, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd
Austin confirmed that the United States’ Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines extended to
both countries’ armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft in the South China Sea. Meanwhile,
Japan has also stepped up its presence in recent years by selling military equipment to the
Philippines and Vietnam to improve maritime security capacity.
https://cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
 The China-Taiwan Dilemma: A Cross-Strait Conundrum
The Cross-Strait Conundrum: Evaluating the Feasibility of a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan
In the current geopolitical climate, the situation in East Asia has taken center stage, particularly
concerning the potential for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This analysis delves into the strategic
objectives of China, its military preparedness, and the formidable challenges it would encounter
in executing an invasion. While China continues to enhance its military capabilities, Taiwan’s
geographical advantages, strong defense infrastructure, and critical role in global supply chains
make any attempt at invasion a risky and complex endeavor. Additionally, this discussion
addresses the potential reactions from international allies and the broader implications for global
politics. Ultimately, it suggests that preserving the current status quo serves the interests of all
parties involved.
The twenty-first century has brought about significant changes in the geopolitical landscape,
which Williamson Murray characterizes as “uncontrollable, unpredictable, and above all
unforeseeable.” Recent occurrences, such as the unexpected invasion of Ukraine, highlight the
role of surprise in shaping international relations. In East Asia, China’s military preparations for
a possible invasion of Taiwan are generating considerable tension, reshaping the regional
geopolitical dynamics. The ascendance of China as a significant challenger to U.S. influence has
made the “Taiwan question” an inescapable topic of discussion. The strait, once a site of
contention, is now characterized by intense military activities, including fighter jet deployments
and extensive military exercises. Under the leadership of Xi Jinping, whose approach has
become increasingly nationalistic and assertive, concerns arise about the potential for military
confrontation with the United States if China proceeds with an invasion of Taiwan. As the
military balance gradually shifts in favor of China, Chinese defense strategies outline various
scenarios for reclaiming the island, which they regard as a breakaway province. China’s military
doctrine emphasizes “winning local wars under high technology conditions” to thwart Taiwan’s
independence and achieve the long-standing goal of national rejuvenation. Following the visit of
Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, Chinese leaders intensified their efforts to assert dominance in the
region by normalizing incursions across the median line in the Taiwan Strait. The People’s
Liberation Army (PLA) is currently undergoing significant reform and is increasingly focused on
“informatized” warfare, suggesting a belief in its tactical superiority over Taiwan’s military
capabilities. However, the scenario is complicated by Taiwan’s own defense capabilities. Despite
China’s vast military assets, including advanced air defense systems and significant manpower,
an invasion would dramatically alter international relations and disrupt global supply chains.
China faces multiple challenges, including logistical difficulties, the island's unique topography,
and deficiencies in operational strategy. Taiwan’s robust military and the logistical hurdles posed
by the body of water separating it from China create substantial barriers to a successful invasion.
Taiwan serves as a critical barrier against Chinese expansion in the Western Pacific, with some
analysts describing it as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier.” For the United States, Taiwan embodies
significant strategic importance and represents the sole democracy within the Chinese sphere of
influence. The successful capture of Taiwan would allow China to reallocate considerable
military resources and bolster its domestic grand strategy. In light of China’s rising military
might and the distractions faced by the U.S., many observers believe this might be an opportune
moment for Beijing to act on its long-held ambitions. However, any invasion would trigger
international repercussions, leading to severe economic and diplomatic sanctions against China.
As a result, the U.S. and its allies are committed to ensuring that the costs of such an invasion
would far outweigh the benefits, reinforcing the idea that maintaining the status quo is vital. Xi
Jinping's assertive foreign policy marks a departure from the more cautious approaches of his
predecessors, leading analysts to speculate that the era of China’s peaceful rise may be over.
While China’s military capabilities are expanding, a closer examination reveals that launching
an invasion of a developed island like Taiwan is an immensely challenging endeavor, given the
island's strategic significance and military preparedness. The complexities involved in this
potential conflict underscore the high stakes and significant risks associated with a Chinese
invasion of Taiwan.
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/3474929/the-cross-strait-conundrum-
assessing-the-viability-of-a-chinese-invasion-of-tai/
 Divided Korea the Ongoing Conflict Between North and South
For centuries before the division, the peninsula was a single, unified Korea, ruled by
generations of dynastic kingdoms. Occupied by Japan after the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and
formally annexed five years later, Korea chafed under Japanese colonial rule for 35 years—until
the end of World War II, when its division into two nations began.
The catalyzing incident is the decision that was made really, without the Koreans involved
between the Soviet Union and the United States to divide Korea into two occupation zones,” says
Michael Robinson, professor emeritus of East Asian Studies and History at Indiana University,
who has written extensively on both modern Korea and its history. In August 1945, the two allies
“in name only” (as Robinson puts it) divided control over the Korean Peninsula. Over the next
three years (1945-48), the Soviet Army and its proxies set up a communist regime in the area
north of latitude 38˚ N, or the 38th parallel. South of that line, a military government was
formed, supported directly by the United States. While the Soviet policies were widely popular
with the bulk of the North’s laborer and peasant population, most middle-class Koreans fled
south of the 38th parallel, where the majority of the Korean population resides today.
Meanwhile, the U.S.-supported regime in the South clearly favored anti-communist, rightist
elements, according to Robinson. “The ultimate objective was for the Soviet Union and the
United States to leave, and let the Koreans figure it out,” he explains. “The trouble was that the
Cold War intervened….And everything that was tried to create a middle ground or to try to
reunify the peninsula is thwarted by both the Soviet Union and the United States not wanting to
give in to the other.” In 1948, the United States called for a United Nation-sponsored vote for all
Koreans to determine the future of the peninsula. After the North refused to participate, the
South formed its own government in Seoul, led by the strongly anti-communist Syngman Rhee.

The North responded in kind, installing the former communist guerrilla Kim Il Sung as the first
premier of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the capital of Pyongyang.
https://www.history.com/news/north-south-korea-divided-reasons-facts
 India and Pakistan: A Legacy of Conflict
The conflict between India and Pakistan dates back to the Partition of British India in
1947, which created a Muslim-majority Pakistan and a Hindu-majority India. This division gave
regions like Jammu and Kashmir the option to join either country. At the time, the maharaja of
Kashmir initially sought to remain independent due to the region's historical neglect and
oppression. However, he ultimately decided to accede to India in exchange for military
assistance against invading Pakistani forces, sparking the first Indo-Pakistani War from 1947 to
1948. The Karachi Agreement of 1949 temporarily halted hostilities in Jammu and Kashmir by
establishing a cease-fire line (CFL) monitored by a UN truce sub-committee.
Tensions remained high until a border skirmish escalated into war in 1965. A subsequent conflict
arose in 1971 when India intervened in East Pakistan’s struggle for independence, leading to the
formation of Bangladesh. In 1972, the Simla Agreement aimed to improve bilateral relations and
established the Line of Control (LOC), which divided Kashmir into two administrative regions.
The conflict took a critical turn in 1974 when both nations entered a nuclear arms race, following
India’s first nuclear test. Pakistan achieved nuclear capability two decades later. In 1989, as a
resistance movement emerged in Indian-administered Kashmir, Pakistan sought to exploit this
unrest to challenge India’s authority, resulting in years of communal violence. Despite
reaffirming the LOC in 1999, tensions escalated again when Pakistani troops crossed the line,
leading to the Kargil War. Although a fragile cease-fire has persisted since 2003, both countries
frequently exchange fire across the contested border, with each side accusing the other of cease-
fire violations. The situation became particularly dire after the November 26, 2008, terrorist
attacks in Mumbai, which resulted in 166 deaths, including six Americans. India and the United
States attributed the attacks to the Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), believed to
have links to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). However, India opted for diplomatic
engagement, seeking cooperation from Pakistan to hold the attackers accountable. In 2014,
relations briefly improved when India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi invited his Pakistani
counterpart, Nawaz Sharif, to his inauguration. Despite initial optimism, discussions fell apart
later that year after India canceled talks following a meeting between the Pakistani high
commissioner and Kashmiri separatists. Nonetheless, there were efforts to resume dialogue in
2015, including meetings between national security advisors and a surprise visit by Modi to
Lahore. The situation deteriorated again in September 2016 when militants attacked an Indian
Army base in Uri, resulting in 18 casualties. India blamed Jaish-e-Mohammad (Jem) for the
attack and announced “surgical strikes” on terrorist camps in Pakistani-administered Kashmir,
which Pakistan denied. The ensuing months saw an increase in cross-border clashes, resulting in
casualties and the displacement of thousands. In February 2019, an attack by Jem on an Indian
paramilitary convoy in Pulwama killed at least 40 soldiers. India retaliated with airstrikes on
suspected terrorist camps in Pakistan, leading to an aerial confrontation where Pakistan shot
down two Indian aircraft and captured an Indian pilot, who was released shortly after.
In August 2019, the Indian government revoked Article 370, which had granted special status to
Jammu and Kashmir, following the deployment of additional troops to the region. This move
heightened tensions further, as it removed Kashmir’s autonomous governance and brought it
under direct Indian control
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-between-india-and-pakistan
 Russia-Ukraine War: Geopolitical Strife in Eastern Europe
The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has significantly impacted global
geopolitics and international relations, particularly in the Middle East. Countries in this region
have largely adopted a neutral stance toward the conflict, refraining from joining U.S. sanctions
against Russia and instead prioritizing their own national interests. This approach highlights a
growing trend of strategic autonomy among Middle Eastern nations, as they seek to navigate the
complex dynamics between major powers.
Historically, the Middle East has been marked by external dependency and persistent conflict,
heavily reliant on Western support for development. Ongoing conflicts, driven by foreign
intervention and internal strife, have hindered regional stability and cooperation. Since the onset
of the Arab Spring in 2011 and especially in recent years, shifts in power dynamics have
emerged. Although traditional characteristics of conflict and dependency persist, the influence of
external powers, including the U.S., Russia, and Europe, has become more diversified and
balanced. Consequently, Middle Eastern countries are exercising greater autonomy in their
foreign policy decisions, leading to positive changes across the region. The Russia–Ukraine
conflict has not destabilized the Middle East; rather, it has catalyzed a period of increased
independence among its nations. Most Middle Eastern countries have chosen to remain neutral,
reflecting a strategic shift away from traditional alliances. For example, Syria has vocally
supported Russia, while Kuwait has condemned its actions. However, these countries exert
limited influence on the overall regional dynamics. As the conflict continues, countries like
Saudi Arabia and the UAE—key U.S. allies—face mounting pressure from Washington to take a
stronger stance against Russia. Despite this, they have largely resisted calls to participate in
sanctions or to increase oil production, choosing instead to prioritize their national interests and
maintain balanced relations with both the U.S. and Russia. In this context, Arab nations have
typically pursued policies that avoid alignment with either side in the Russia–Ukraine conflict.
Their approach is characterized by two key strategies: first, strengthening diplomatic interactions
with all involved parties to achieve strategic hedging; second, enhancing regional cooperation to
mitigate potential external risks. This stands in stark contrast to the Cold War and post-Cold War
eras, during which Arab countries often aligned with either the U.S. or the Soviet Union. Turkey
has adopted a unique stance in the context of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, balancing its relations
with both Russia and Ukraine while also considering its ties to the U.S. and NATO. Turkey's
diplomatic strategy emphasizes its national interests, exemplified by its mediation efforts
between the conflicting parties. While being a U.S. ally, Turkey has maintained its autonomy by
refusing to fully align with American demands, particularly concerning NATO's expansion.
Instead, it has leveraged its position as a candidate for EU membership and a Black Sea coastal
state to pursue a balanced foreign policy.
Overall, the Russia–Ukraine conflict has reshaped the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East,
fostering a sense of strategic autonomy among its countries. While external pressures from major
powers continue to exist, Middle Eastern nations are increasingly making independent choices
based on their national interests. This emerging pattern reflects a significant shift in the regional
dynamics, as countries navigate the complexities of global power plays while striving for
stability and development in an ever-evolving international system. As the situation unfolds, the
Middle East remains at a critical juncture, with the potential for further changes in its
geopolitical landscape and the implications of these dynamics for global politics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10239536/
 Israel-Palestine: A Longstanding Struggle for Peace
In the hours after Hamas’ attack in southern Israel, shock prevailed in the hearts of many.
And understandably, given the unprecedented scale and logistical-military capabilities
demonstrated by the organisation in launching its ‘Al Aqsa Flood’ operation.
Implicit in an attack of this magnitude is extensive preparation. The Hamas militants did not
improvise: their meticulous plans would have covered military strategy, politics, intelligence—
and the instillation of fear. Yet, Israel, with its advanced security and military systems, seems to
have been unaware, despite its technological surveillance, its informants, the siege it had
imposed on the Gaza strip and its collaboration with Arab nations such as Egypt and the United
Arab Emirates. If the foremost question arising was thus ‘How did all of this go unnoticed?’, the
more profound concern is however just how unforeseen was a sudden surge in intense violence
between Israel, Gaza—which Hamas seized control of in 2007—and the Palestinian population.
Indeed, that very overarching sense of surprise brings to light some concealed truths Focusing on
immediate intelligence and military shortcomings diverts attention from the real failure, which
has been political and ethical. That failure encompasses all parties: Israel, the Palestinian
Authority (PA) in nominal control of the west bank, Arab states, European countries and
institutions as well as the United States. It stems from policies based on a selective historical
perspective on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the belief that peace and security can take root
and thrive even in an environment of injustice. Under the leadership of the most right-wing
government in its history, Israel has pursued short-sighted priorities. Since December of last year
when it was formed, the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has focused domestically on
undermining the judiciary via a political override of unwelcome rulings, leading to massive street
protests, and securing his coalition by making concessions to its hard-right fringes.
Internationally, his priority has been enhancing relations with Saudi Arabia. Palestinians have
not been absent from the government’s agenda. But they were only addressed as an obstacle to
Israeli plans to annex occupied territories in the west bank or to engender a ‘new middle east’.
Not only were Palestinian rights continually violated and their grievances left unaddressed. A
belief also prevailed that the Israel-Palestine conflict had become dormant or was on the brink of
pacification—partly due to the potential expansion of the normalisation between Israel and Arab
nations initiated in 2020. This perception endured despite the escalating and systemic violence in
Jerusalem, the west bank and Gaza. The events of October 7th did thus not only reflect on a
distracted Israeli government. They were the direct result of the occupation and of the
unpreparedness of a state under the illusion that its overwhelming power—assisted by the
subservience of the PA, which has long acted as a security co-ordinator in the occupied west
bank—would suffice to continue disregarding Palestinian rights and guarantee security to
Israelis. The decades-long divide et impera policy adopted by Israel, imposing a territorial,
political, economic, cultural and personal fragmentation on Palestine and Palestinians, sought to
neutralise Palestinian actions that could potentially challenge the controversial bedrock of the
state of Israel. Israel truly believed (and still believes) this would do the trick, and western
countries largely bought into that narrative. This is, politically, what explains the shock in Israeli
society and among western governments, convinced as they were that the security provided by
the armed forces in a context of occupation, fragmentation and oppression would be sustainable.
But the now-clearer truth is that, as long as injustice persists, a stable and secure middle east
remains unattainable and, without recognising Palestinian rights as integral components of the
equation, regional integration is a distant goal For months, discussions about the ‘new’ middle
east revolved around the negotiations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, mediated by the US.
While certainly significant, normalisation between the two non-warring countries has always
been, at best, a sideshow in the greater middle-east picture. The true challenges revolve around
the continuing conflicts, starting with the Israel-Palestine one. This extends to conflicts with
Lebanon and Syria, and it reaches a colossal regional scale with Iran. As evident in these tragic
days, only the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has the destructive power to unleash a wider regional
conflagration. Yet, as during prior international peace initiatives in the middle east, all the media
attention and political, economic and security ‘capital’ have been directed towards placing a
sticking-plaster where there is no wound while failing to dress the gaping lesions, all the while
sustaining the illusion that the real problems would remain dormant.
Responsibility does indeed lie within the region but it also extends to the west. Just a few weeks
ago, the US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, declared that the middle east had not been
so quiet in two decades. Not only macabre in hindsight, those words revealed immense myopia
and hypocrisy. And while the US has not made any significant positive contribution to the
middle east in recent years, Europe has done even less. In Ukraine, Europe understood that
stabilisation would not come through a mere freezing of the conflict. Yet in the middle east the
European Union deluded itself into thinking peace without justice was possible. It let the ‘two
states for two peoples’ solution die amid Israel’s settler colonial hybris, the weakness of the PA,
the cynicism of middle-eastern governments and western hypocrisy. The solution perished into
oblivion, while the problem, as evident in these days of tragic violence, is all too alive. With it,
the rights of Palestinians to a just future and the west’s credibility in countries of the global south
are fading away.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/the-struggle-for-a-just-peace-in-israel-and-palestine
 Sudan’s Turmoi understanding the Ongoing Conflicts

Each year, the International Rescue Committee’s Emergency Watchlist analyzes which
countries are most likely to experience a deteriorating humanitarian crisis. This year, Sudan tops
the list due to escalating conflict, mass displacement, an economic crisis and a near collapse of
health care services.

The power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces
(RSF) erupted into a large-scale conflict in April 2023 and has been driving humanitarian needs
in the country ever since. Conservative estimates say the conflict has killed at least 15,500
people, while some estimates are as high as 150,000, and counting. Before the conflict, Sudan
was already experiencing a severe humanitarian crisis. Long-term political instability and
economic pressures meant that 15.8 million people were in need of humanitarian aid. The
conflict has only exacerbated these conditions, leaving almost 25 million people — more than
half of Sudan’s population — in need. The brutal conflict since April 2023 has forced millions of
people to flee their homes, leaving more than 12 million Sudanese people displaced. The vast
majority—over 10 million people—remain within Sudan, representing the largest displacement
crisis in the world. Amidst mass displacement and reports of mass killings, humanitarian access
has been severely curtailed, making it extremely hard for aid to reach vulnerable communities.
Learn more about this ongoing crisis below. Before the outbreak of conflict, Sudan was already
facing a humanitarian crisis due to extreme weather shocks, social and political unrest, and rising
food prices that continue to drive poverty, hunger and displacement. Donate now Help the IRC
continue to bring critical support to Sudan and other crisis zones around the world. Give today
War continues to rage in Sudan Conflict between the SAF and RSF erupted on April 15, 2023.
While fighting has been chiefly concentrated in the country’s capital, Khartoum, the conflict has
impacted other regions of the country. In Darfur, mass killings and displacement have led to
reports of ethnic cleansing. At least 15,500 people have been killed, with over 10 million
displaced within the country, making it the largest displacement crisis globally. More than 12
million people have fled their homes, taking refuge inside and outside the country, with children
representing about half of the people displaced. Expansion of the conflict into Sudan’s
“breadbasket", Al Jazirah state, has displaced more than 500,000 people and has exacerbated the
country’s food crisis. Meanwhile, the looting of businesses, markets and humanitarian aid
warehouses is further contributing to food shortages. While the conflict in Sudan continues to
spread, humanitarian access has become more limited. Intense violence and movement
restrictions on humanitarian actors have prevented the delivery of aid, especially in the south of
Sudan where needs are highest. ACAPS has rated the constraints on humanitarian access in
Sudan as extreme (5 out of 5). As the conflict continues in the face of floundering diplomatic
efforts, humanitarian needs will continue to rise–and the ability to meet them will fall. Fairuz
stands outside the camp with her grandchildren. The conflict has driven families across borders
to transit centers like this one in Renk, South Sudan. Fairuz Faiz Deng, 60, arrived here in May
2023 with her brother and his family, and her grandchildren. Photo: Fahmo Mohammed for the
IRC A health system on the brink of collapse The conflict in Sudan has decimated the country’s
public infrastructure, including the health system. The health care system is suffering from an
acute lack of staff, funding and medical supplies in addition to repeated attacks, looting and
occupation of medical facilities and hospitals. More than 70 percent of health facilities in
conflict-affected regions of Sudan are inoperable or closed. The virtual collapse of Sudan’s
health care system, among other critical services, threatens not only the lives of many Sudanese
people in the present day, but it also threatens future generations The displacement of civilians
has placed an additional strain on health care resources, as well as water, sanitation and hygiene
(WASH) services. An outbreak of measles has claimed the lives of more than 1,000 children
across Sudan. The country is also grappling with a severe cholera outbreak, with the number of
suspected cases surpassing 11,000, including 292 associated deaths, as of 27 May 2024. With
high rates of malnutrition, a debilitated health system and low levels of immunization, disease
outbreaks will continue to have catastrophic impacts, particularly for children. Economic crisis
exacerbates widespread poverty Prior to the outbreak of conflict, Sudan’s economy was marred
by rampant inflation and shortages of essential goods, leading to protests across the country.
Now, conflict has worsened the economic crisis. Nearly half of Sudan’s population is
unemployed while the Sudanese pound has lost at least 50% of its value. In Khartoum, factories,
banks, shops and markets have been looted or damaged, further reducing the population’s access
to goods, services and cash. People have also been facing pockets of internet and communication
blackouts, leaving millions struggling to contact their families, seek safe zones, access essentials
and use mobile money services. In February 2024, all three of Sudan’s main internet operators
were reported offline, leaving almost 30 million Sudanese without internet or telephone access
for more than a month. Children are at particular risk in Sudan. At least 10,400 schools in
conflict-affected areas are shuttered, leaving an estimated 19 million children without education
and at risk of abuse or exploitation. 18 million people face food insecurity Sudan is facing
extreme levels of food insecurity, with 18 million people—37% of the population—experiencing
severe levels of acute food insecurity. Every day, millions of mothers and fathers are having to
make impossible choices to feed their families, often going days without any food. The
displacement stemming from Sudan’s conflict is driving labor shortages throughout the country.
The cost of fuel is rising, impacting agricultural production, while high food prices and low
purchasing power are driving increased humanitarian needs. A hunger crisis of unimaginable
proportions is not a future concern, but a present reality in certain parts of the country. Intense
fighting in Sudan has driven some 500,000 internally displaced people in the Zamzam camp into
famine conditions. One in five households in this area face an extreme lack of food with little to
no options to feed themselves. “An immediate ceasefire is now more critical than ever to prevent
mass deaths resulting from a hunger crisis that is rapidly spreading across Sudan,” says IRC
country director for Sudan, Eatizaz Yousif Already, more than half of Sudan’s population is now
facing crisis levels of hunger or above, the worst in Sudan’s history. Almas holds her son
Hermon while receiving vital support from an IRC nutrition specialist. Almas, 28, a mother
displaced from the conflict in Khartoum, holds her son Hermon while receiving vital support
from an IRC nutrition specialist in Gedaref, Sudan. Photo: Noory Taha for the IRC Accelerated
displacement throughout Sudan 10 million The number of internally displaced people within
Sudan has surpassed 10 million. Internally displaced people have left their homes to avoid the
effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural
or human-made disasters, and have not crossed an internationally recognized state border. The
conflict in Sudan has already led to extreme levels of displacement, both internally and across
Sudan’s borders. The vast majority of those displaced by the current conflict remain in Sudan
and live with host communities. That brings the total number of those internally displaced in
Sudan to more than 10 million, the largest internal displacement crisis in the world. Meanwhile,
over 2 million people—mostly women and children—have fled Sudan to neighboring countries,
including 600,000 that have arrived in Chad in the last year and nearly 100,000 that arrived in
Libya. In Chad, Libya and other neighboring states, the IRC is providing vital support services to
Sudanese refugees who are arriving with little to no resources. “Our teams have reported that
large numbers of families, along with unaccompanied children and survivors of gender-based
violence, are arriving in Libya,” says Jared Rowell, country director for IRC Libya. “Over the
past six months, we have supported more than 17,000 Sudanese individuals [in Libya], 58% of
whom are women and girls, with medical services through our mobile health teams.” Sudan’s
neighbors are now facing both a growing refugee crisis and risk of active conflict spilling over
their borders. There is significant potential for the crisis in Sudan to develop into a regional one
that engulfs multiple countries and drives catastrophic levels of need. How is the IRC helping in
Sudan? Since the start of the conflict, the IRC has adapted and scaled up our programming in
Sudan to address increased humanitarian needs. We are supporting people who have been
displaced internally through economic empowerment services, health and nutrition, and water,
sanitation and hygiene programs. The IRC also provides protection and empowerment services
for women and children, including for gender-based violence survivors in Blue Nile, Gederef,
Khartoum and South Kordofan states. We have established offices in new regions, including Port
Sudan, and launched an emergency response in White Nile State to deliver cash assistance, safe
water, and sanitation and hygiene services to vulnerable communities. We are also working to
establish a presence in new locations, such as the River Nile and Darfur, to address gaps in
humanitarian coverage and expand our programming in response to the enduring humanitarian
crisis.

Donate today to support the IRC’s work in Sudan and in more than 49 countries around the
world. Zakia, a midwife, points to an informational poster. Zakia Yaqoup (43), a midwife, works
with IRC to offer vital prenatal care and delivery support to displaced women in Gedaref. Photo:
Noory Taha for the IRC How is the IRC helping Sudanese refugees? Over 2 million asylum
seekers have sought refuge in neighboring countries since April 2023. The IRC has expanded our
critical services to support Sudanese refugees, including in Chad, Uganda, Ethiopia and South
Sudan. More than 600,000 people have crossed the border into Chad which already hosted
400,000 Sudanese refugees prior to the outbreak of conflict in April. Ninety percent of people
arriving across the borders are women and children, with one-fifth of young children
experiencing acute malnutrition. “The fact that women and children make up such a large
proportion of the new arrivals in Chad is particularly worrying because they are often the most
vulnerable groups in conflict situations,” explains IRC Chad Country Director, Aleksandra
Roulet-Cimpric. “Women and children are at greater risk of violence, exploitation, and abuse,
and they may also face difficulties accessing basic necessities such as food, water and
healthcare.” In Chad, the IRC is providing drinking water and running mobile health clinics to
attend to the vast health needs of the arriving population. In addition to providing immediate
relief, the IRC has scaled up its support in the areas of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH),
health, and protection. This includes providing access to safe water and sanitation facilities to
prevent the spread of disease. A mother sits in a hospital room with a newborn child in her lap.
Mosquito netting offers a thin veil of the room behind them. Raouda* holds her newborn child,
AbdelIrahim, in the IRC’s health center in Gaga refugee camp, Chad. Raouda was displaced by
the war in Sudan and forced to flee across the border while she was nine months pregnant.

https://www.rescue.org/article/crisis-sudan-what-happening-and-how-help
 Narco Politics in Latin America: Power, Corruption, and Violence

Nearly everyone in today’s Latin America agrees the war on drugs, as pursued over the
last 50 years, has been an abysmal failure. As a result, several key governments including
Mexico seem to be quietly backing off the fight, as I wrote in last week’s column.

Most debate in the region today seems stuck between two opposite, but similarly unrealistic
alternatives: Legalization or Nayib Bukele. Indeed, the most-talked about solution on the
ideological left, and part of the libertarian right, is the legalization or decriminalization of some
or all drugs. This has already happened to some degree over the last decade, with the recreational
use of marijuana now legal in Uruguay, and decriminalized under certain conditions in Mexico.
Chile, Colombia, Argentina and Peru are among the countries that since 2015 have decided to
permit the medical use of cannabis. But let’s be real: The war on drugs today is mostly about
cocaine and fentanyl. That’s what’s driving recent bloodshed in Ecuador, Chile and elsewhere.
And when it comes to softening the rules around so-called “hard drugs,” the politics remain
incredibly toxic almost everywhere you look in Latin America. Early in his term, Colombia’s
President Gustavo Petro proposed flexibilizing some rules around both marijuana and coca, the
raw material used to make cocaine, and used the grand stage of the United Nations to suggest
other countries consider similar steps. Given Colombia is the source of 60% of the world’s coca,
and Petro’s role as the first leftist leader in his country’s modern history, some wondered if this
was a game-changing moment. Barely a year later, though, most of the agenda seems dead.
Colombia’s Senate has repeatedly shelved a bill that would legalize recreational use of
marijuana. Petro says that, while maybe cocaine will be legal “one day,” his country will
continue to conduct seizures of the drug. A big reason: almost 80% of Colombians disapprove of
legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, according to polls – a percentage that has barely budged
over the last decade. Petro’s own approval has now fallen into the 20s, making him something of
a lame duck on a variety of issues.

Several governments are quietly seeking a truce or equilibrium with drug gangs, in which they
try to largely leave them alone in the hope of not stirring violence, as I wrote last week. Others
are advocating a multipronged approach, in which governments address drug use through more
spending on public health, while also taking back control of prisons from gangs, and defending
certain red lines from a law enforcement perspective such as the influence of cartels in politics.
“This is not just a security problem, but a state capacity problem,” the Chilean-Peruvian security
expert Lucía Dammert recently told the Americas Quarterly Podcast. That might not make a
compelling campaign slogan, or speech at the UN. But it’s a problem that continues to defy
simple solutions.
https://acontracorriente.chass.ncsu.edu/index.php/acontracorriente/article/view/2223
 Climate Change the Global Challenge of Our Time

The whole climate of the world is changing regularly because of the increasing global
warming by the natural means and human activities. All the changes have an enormous impact
on the people’s lives and ecosystems. The average global temperature has been raised by 1
degree in the last 30 years.

Climate change poses a significant threat to our environment. It’s happening due to industries
growing quickly, more people on Earth, and pollution. This leads to an increase in the average
temperature of our planet over the past hundred years. It has been reported by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that average global temperature can be
raised by 2 to 8.6 degrees F by 2100. The rate in increasing global temperature is because of the
increasing emissions of heat-trapping gases called green house gases in the atmosphere. Climate
change on the earth is partially takes place by the natural cycles of Earth however currently
human activities are still major source of climate change. Increasing level of greenhouse gases
including carbon dioxide brings more heat to the earth as they have ability to absorb and emit
heat in the atmosphere and thus keep earth warm. Some of the dangerous human activities such
as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, technological inventions, etc., are adding more toxic
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. All the greenhouse gases make temperature of earth to
increase at higher rate which is not in the favour of life of human beings, animal and plants. A
huge level of climate change disturbs the balance of the global ecosystem as well as increases
health risks and more heat-related injuries and deaths. Rising sea levels is a also an example of
climate change due to the global warming which in turn causes flood, drought, promotes danger
of malaria and other parasites. There are many reasons of climate change including natural
cycles of earth however the major contributors of the climate change is global warming. Many
human activities and technological development in the world are forcing the greenhouse gases to
increase and getting collected to the atmosphere which in turn makes the earth surrounding hot
and warm by increasing the temperature of the environment in fast and easy way. Other climate
change like rise sea level causes flood which gives rise to malaria and other parasites, increasing
coastal erosion, destroying people’s homes in coastal states and so many. Higher temperature
causes problems to the existence of life on this planet even many important species of the plants
and animals have been endangered. Longer and severe heat waves of the environment cause
more heat-related injuries and higher atmospheric temperature increase rate of water evaporation
from smaller water bodies. The ever rising temperature has different effects in different regions
like in some areas it raise water levels and in some areas it decrease water levels. Freshwater
availability is declining all over the world which is a vital resource of life on this planet. In such
a hot environment, it is very hard to grow some crops like corn production may reduced by 10 to
30% if the temperature rises by 3.6 degree. Climatic changes have become more prominent now
because of the global warming which is a global concern. Both are hot issues of the current time
and it is the time to analyse causes and prevention methods to prevent the global warming. The
release of various green house gases in the atmosphere by many natural means and human
activities causes increase in atmospheric temperature because such gases have capability to
absorb all the heat of environment from sun, burning coal, etc. Such gases never let sun rays to
go back to the atmosphere however trap heat from them. Increase in atmospheric temperature
causes many climate changes like increase in sea level, flood, drought, weather changes, increase
summer season, decrease winter season, melting glaciers, increase death rate, increase number of
disease, declining ozone layer and other so many climate changes. Fossil fuels burning release
more carbon dioxide which is increasing day by day because of deforestation. Plants are the main
source to utilize carbon dioxide as a food however we are disturbing the natural cycle by cutting
more plants.

Burning coal, oil and natural gases are the main cause of global warming. CO2 gas acts as a
blanket which retains environmental heat and warms the earth’s surface. The level of carbon
dioxide has become increased to a great level in last century. The earth surface has become
successively warmer than ever in the last three decades. Each month is becoming warmer than
ever which we can feel very clearly. This increasing heat affecting the lives of human beings,
plants and animals even many species have been endangered.

http://www.infinitylearn.com/
 Global Inflation: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions

Inflation Erodes Purchasing Power This is inflation's primary and most pervasive effect.
An overall rise in prices over time reduces the purchasing power of consumers because a fixed
amount of money will afford progressively less consumption.

Consumers lose purchasing power regardless of whether the inflation rate is 2% or 4%. They
simply lose it faster at a higher rate. Inflation Impacts Lower-Income Consumers Low-income
consumers tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on necessities than those with
higher incomes. They have less of a cushion against the loss of purchasing power that's inherent
in inflation. Policymakers and financial market participants often focus on core inflation. This
measurement of inflation excludes the prices of food and energy because they tend to be more
volatile and less reflective of longer-term inflation trends. But earners with lower income spend a
relatively large proportion of their weekly or monthly household budgets on food and energy,
commodities that are hard to substitute or go without when prices spike. Inflation Keeps
Deflation at Bay The Fed's target inflation rate is set at 2% over the long run. This allows it to
meet its mandates for stable prices and maximum employment. It focuses on modest inflation
rather than steady prices because a slightly positive inflation rate greases the wheels of
commerce. It provides a margin of error in the event inflation is overestimated and deters
deflation. The overall decline in prices can be much more destabilizing than comparable
inflation. Lenders can charge interest to offset the inflation likely to devalue repayments. It also
helps borrowers to service their debts by allowing them to make future repayments with inflated
currency. But deflation makes it more expensive to service debt in real terms because incomes
would be likely to decline along with prices. One reason modest inflation rather than deflation is
the norm is that wages are sticky to the downside. Workers tend to resist attempts to cut their
wages during an economic downturn. Layoffs become the likeliest alternative for businesses
facing a downturn in demand. A positive inflation rate allows a wage freeze to serve as a cut in
labor costs in real Inflation Raises Interest Rates Governments and central banks have a powerful
incentive to keep inflation in check. A common approach over the past century has been to
manage inflation by using monetary policy. Policymakers can raise the minimum interest rate,
driving borrowing costs higher across the economy, by constraining the money supply when
inflation threatens to exceed a central bank's target. This is typically 2% in developed economies
and 3% to 4% in emerging ones.

Inflation and interest rates tend to move in the same direction as a result. Central banks can
dampen the economy's animal spirits by raising interest rates as inflation rises or risk appetite
and attendant price pressures. The expected monthly payments on that boat or corporate bond
issue for a new expansion project suddenly seem a bit high. The risk-free rate of return available
for newly issued Treasury bonds will meanwhile tend to rise, rewarding savings.
https://www.investopedia.com/