Latest news with #Non-AlignedMovement
Daily News Egypt
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily News Egypt
Serbian PM calls trade deal a ‘new page' in Egypt ties
Serbian Prime Minister Guro Macut has described a new free trade agreement with Egypt as a 'new page' in bilateral relations, stating that both countries are working to implement its terms to boost trade and investment. Speaking at the Egyptian-Serbian Business Forum in Egypt's New Administrative Capital, Macut said the agreement aims to 'achieve the optimal exploitation of possible opportunities to increase trade exchange and push investments' for the economic growth of both nations. He said the efforts to enhance bilateral cooperation have become tangible thanks to the support of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi and Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, which paves the way for stronger ties. Macut highlighted the long-standing ties between the two nations, which he noted were founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement and are celebrating 117 years of diplomatic relations. He said the strategic partnership was established during Sisi's 2022 visit to Belgrade and reaffirmed when the draft free trade deal was signed during Vučić's visit to Cairo in July 2024. While noting that economic exchange currently stands at approximately $122m, the prime minister asserted that there is potential to increase it significantly. He added that around 40 Egyptian-owned companies operate in Serbia and that joint manufacturing projects have already begun in the Egyptian market. He presented Serbia as an economically stable and safe investment destination, citing its strategic geographical location, government support, skilled workforce, and attractiveness for the software industry. Macut also mentioned Serbia's efforts to advance the 'Open Balkan' initiative to create a common market for the free movement of goods in the Western Balkans. Macut extended a specific invitation for Egyptian participation in the Belgrade Expo 2027, encouraging a large number of investors to attend to explore cooperation opportunities and create a platform to enhance trade. He also expressed hope that Serbian companies and products would find their place in the Egyptian market. 'We look forward to a new partnership and more cooperation,' he concluded.
Time of India
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'Should China-Nehru link be investigated?': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey slams Rahul Gandhi; asks if 1962 war was 'imposed'
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey (left) and Rahul Gandhi/ File photos NEW DELHI: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on Monday intensified his criticism of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi , calling for a probe into the alleged historic links between the Nehru-Gandhi family and China. His demand stemmed from what he described as "revelations" found in declassified documents from the 1961 Belgrade Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). In a sharply worded X post shared on Monday, Dubey took aim at India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru , questioning his foreign policy choices during the formative years of the Cold War. 'Rahul Baba, do you know that at China's behest, your family's patriarch Nehru ji created the new gimmick of non-aligned countries? Look at the member countries of the first conference in Belgrade in 1961. After isolating India from both Russia and America, did any country come to India's defence during or after the 1962 war with China?' Dubey asked. — nishikant_dubey (@nishikant_dubey) The BJP MP went on to allege that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), championed by Nehru, eventually "benefited" China rather than serving India's strategic interests. Citing the 26th declaration adopted at the Belgrade Summit, Dubey argued that the text revealed Nehru's alignment with Chinese interests. 'Tibet to China, Panchsheel for China, and after making China a permanent member of the United Nations, this conference ordered the UN to recognise China as the sole representative state. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo By siding with China, did your family impose the 1962 war on India or not?' he said. He followed up with a pointed query directed at Rahul Gandhi: 'Should the relationship between China and the Nehru family be investigated?' The 1961 Belgrade Summit was the inaugural meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement — a coalition of states aiming to stay independent from both the Western and Soviet power blocs. Nehru was a key architect in shaping the principles and objectives of the movement. This is not the first time Dubey has targeted the Congress leadership. He previously accused the Nehru-Gandhi family of compromising India's interests in relation to Pakistan, particularly citing the Indus Waters Treaty. He had also flagged India's financial commitments to Pakistan under the treaty, claiming they were the result of Congress-era policies that weakened India diplomatically.
Time of India
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Nishikant Dubey hits out at Rahul Gandhi, asks whether Nehru family "impose" 1962 war on India by supporting China
Synopsis BJP MP Nishikant Dubey has launched a scathing attack on Rahul Gandhi, questioning whether his family's support for China led to the 1962 war. Dubey accused Jawaharlal Nehru of isolating India through the Non-Aligned Movement, preventing aid from the US and Russia during the conflict.
The Sun
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Shangri-La Dialogue Criticised for Bias, Limited Impact
NOTHNG new came out from the Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore recently. This comes as no surprise as the event, touted as a platform for bringing together defence ministers, heads of ministries and military leaders from Asia-Pacific states, has achieved little since its inception more than 20 years ago. Initiated by a think-tank and wannabe influencer in regional geopolitics with an Anglo-Saxon lens, its stated objective – 'to cultivate a sense of community among the most important policymakers in the defence and security community in the region' – appears more distant than ever. Countries alleged by the West as belligerent or disruptive to the Western-defined international order were either absent or appeared to dismiss the dialogue as a hollow spectacle. In reality, the much-hyped event has proven to be largely inconsequential in delivering positive security outcomes. International Institute for Strategic Studies Take, for example, the exclusion of North Korea shows the inability of the organisers to break free from the ideological partiality that has characterised its agenda and activities right from the beginning. Although South Korea has been a participant since the forum's inception, North Korea – regarded as an existential threat by the US and West from the outset – has been treated as if it counts for nothing in the region's security and geopolitical landscape. Today the staunchly independent nation – once nicknamed 'the hermit kingdom' – is a formidable power with its nuclear capabilities. Despite attempts by the US to deny North Korea its legitimate position in the international community, the fact is that the country is recognised globally. It holds membership in the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement, Group of 77 and the Asean Regional Forum – the latter being an intergovernmental forum focused on security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. The exclusionary policy applied to North Korea stands in stark contrast to the stated purpose of an open and impartial forum that brings together countries of the region. Surprisingly, the forum also includes countries from outside the region – such as Germany, France, Canada and the UK – that have little or no legitimate credentials in deliberating on the region's security issues. This exposes the partisan operations of the private company, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which is registered in the UK, as a charity but in reality is a profit-making enterprise and the main driver behind the dialogue event. Western media coverage As expected, Western media covering the dialogue have also focused on the presentations by the representatives of the US and its allies. In contrast, there has been little or no attention given to the perspectives of representatives and private sector voices from countries that are less or not aligned with American and Anglo-Saxon foreign policy. In his widely reported speech, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth – a former Fox News talk show host now hoping to retain his job after bungling on the Signal-leaked chat scandal involving a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen – initially paid effusive praise to President Donald Trump for 'restoring the warrior ethos' so that 'we (the US) remain the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world'. He then claimed that 'we are not here to pressure other countries to embrace and adopt our politics or ideology; we are not here to preach to you about climate change or cultural issues; and we are not here to impose our will on you'. His unsurprising main submission highlighted by Western media was the singling out of China as the common enemy in Asia-Pacific and calling on countries to open their treasuries to invest more in the defence and security of the region. This crass salesmanship pitch duplicates the demand that the Trump administration has made to the European Union although there is no war being fought in the region to justify the alarmist call. The identification of China as the regional and increasingly global threat to peace by the US is nothing new. It continues a trend in global geopolitics following the shift in American policy responding to China's rapid socioeconomic development and increasing prominence on the regional and global stage. Beginning in 2017, when the US officially designated China as a 'long-term strategic competitor' in its national defence strategy, US policy has moved from the previous friendly and engagement-focused approach to an antagonistic one, framing the relationship as one of 'great power competition'. To take China down in this great power rivalry, the US has employed a multifront strategy involving demonisation of China on human rights, democracy and a host of other issues; restrictions on Chinese businesses; technology transfer sanctions and other forms of economic warfare; and including a trade war most recently. Building up military assets Exaggerating the threat from China to manipulate the foreign policy insecurities of countries in the region – while indirectly soliciting procurement for the armament manufacturers of the US and its allies that dominate military markets – Hegseth claimed that Beijing is 'preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, including building its capabilities to invade Taiwan' and is 'rehearsing for the real deal'. This latest instance of crying wolf over China's security actions and intentions – while reiterating the US commitment to peace, stability and prosperity in the region – has little support or resonance among non-aligned governments, who see the US through unblinkered eyes and are working on strategic autonomy. Most countries in the region are more likely to pinpoint the US, rather than China, as the source of regional tension and instability. It is unlikely that the pressure exerted by the US for regional countries to share the military burden in alliance with the US will improve the prospects for peace. On the contrary, it could prove to be a double-edged sword if it generates a more dangerous arms race. American policymakers should also bear in mind that countries now have the choice to buy Chinese military systems that are cheaper and equally or even more lethal than the ones that Hegseth boasted about in his presentation. Western and other analysts should realise that increases in the defence budgets of the region will not bring easy victories or peace for any side. Singapore's role in regional security building Perhaps this belated recognition can be a major focus for the 2026 dialogue event. For that to happen, the Singapore government, which serves as host and organiser, needs to get out of its sleeping partner status and assert control over the programme agenda and discussions which are far from neutral, open and candid or intended to help bridge divides as claimed by the event propaganda. Finally, the primary purpose of the dialogue, which has regressed into one deliberating on how to counter and contain China, should be balanced with one focusing on how Asia-Pacific countries, including Asean, should be dealing with the US – which under Trump's administration is more intent on asserting American hegemony and making the countries of the region more subservient. This and the inclusion of North Korea in the next forum will help bring some credibility to Singapore's claim to be a proactive (and hopefully honest) mediator facilitating discussions on balancing deterrence and diplomacy. Lim Teck Ghee's Another Take is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy. Comments: letters@
The Sun
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Selling insecurity and militarisation
NOTHNG new came out from the Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore recently. This comes as no surprise as the event, touted as a platform for bringing together defence ministers, heads of ministries and military leaders from Asia-Pacific states, has achieved little since its inception more than 20 years ago. Initiated by a think-tank and wannabe influencer in regional geopolitics with an Anglo-Saxon lens, its stated objective – 'to cultivate a sense of community among the most important policymakers in the defence and security community in the region' – appears more distant than ever. Countries alleged by the West as belligerent or disruptive to the Western-defined international order were either absent or appeared to dismiss the dialogue as a hollow spectacle. In reality, the much-hyped event has proven to be largely inconsequential in delivering positive security outcomes. International Institute for Strategic Studies Take, for example, the exclusion of North Korea shows the inability of the organisers to break free from the ideological partiality that has characterised its agenda and activities right from the beginning. Although South Korea has been a participant since the forum's inception, North Korea – regarded as an existential threat by the US and West from the outset – has been treated as if it counts for nothing in the region's security and geopolitical landscape. Today the staunchly independent nation – once nicknamed 'the hermit kingdom' – is a formidable power with its nuclear capabilities. Despite attempts by the US to deny North Korea its legitimate position in the international community, the fact is that the country is recognised globally. It holds membership in the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement, Group of 77 and the Asean Regional Forum – the latter being an intergovernmental forum focused on security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. The exclusionary policy applied to North Korea stands in stark contrast to the stated purpose of an open and impartial forum that brings together countries of the region. Surprisingly, the forum also includes countries from outside the region – such as Germany, France, Canada and the UK – that have little or no legitimate credentials in deliberating on the region's security issues. This exposes the partisan operations of the private company, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which is registered in the UK, as a charity but in reality is a profit-making enterprise and the main driver behind the dialogue event. Western media coverage As expected, Western media covering the dialogue have also focused on the presentations by the representatives of the US and its allies. In contrast, there has been little or no attention given to the perspectives of representatives and private sector voices from countries that are less or not aligned with American and Anglo-Saxon foreign policy. In his widely reported speech, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth – a former Fox News talk show host now hoping to retain his job after bungling on the Signal-leaked chat scandal involving a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen – initially paid effusive praise to President Donald Trump for 'restoring the warrior ethos' so that 'we (the US) remain the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world'. He then claimed that 'we are not here to pressure other countries to embrace and adopt our politics or ideology; we are not here to preach to you about climate change or cultural issues; and we are not here to impose our will on you'. His unsurprising main submission highlighted by Western media was the singling out of China as the common enemy in Asia-Pacific and calling on countries to open their treasuries to invest more in the defence and security of the region. This crass salesmanship pitch duplicates the demand that the Trump administration has made to the European Union although there is no war being fought in the region to justify the alarmist call. The identification of China as the regional and increasingly global threat to peace by the US is nothing new. It continues a trend in global geopolitics following the shift in American policy responding to China's rapid socioeconomic development and increasing prominence on the regional and global stage. Beginning in 2017, when the US officially designated China as a 'long-term strategic competitor' in its national defence strategy, US policy has moved from the previous friendly and engagement-focused approach to an antagonistic one, framing the relationship as one of 'great power competition'. To take China down in this great power rivalry, the US has employed a multifront strategy involving demonisation of China on human rights, democracy and a host of other issues; restrictions on Chinese businesses; technology transfer sanctions and other forms of economic warfare; and including a trade war most recently. Building up military assets Exaggerating the threat from China to manipulate the foreign policy insecurities of countries in the region – while indirectly soliciting procurement for the armament manufacturers of the US and its allies that dominate military markets – Hegseth claimed that Beijing is 'preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, including building its capabilities to invade Taiwan' and is 'rehearsing for the real deal'. This latest instance of crying wolf over China's security actions and intentions – while reiterating the US commitment to peace, stability and prosperity in the region – has little support or resonance among non-aligned governments, who see the US through unblinkered eyes and are working on strategic autonomy. Most countries in the region are more likely to pinpoint the US, rather than China, as the source of regional tension and instability. It is unlikely that the pressure exerted by the US for regional countries to share the military burden in alliance with the US will improve the prospects for peace. On the contrary, it could prove to be a double-edged sword if it generates a more dangerous arms race. American policymakers should also bear in mind that countries now have the choice to buy Chinese military systems that are cheaper and equally or even more lethal than the ones that Hegseth boasted about in his presentation. Western and other analysts should realise that increases in the defence budgets of the region will not bring easy victories or peace for any side. Singapore's role in regional security building Perhaps this belated recognition can be a major focus for the 2026 dialogue event. For that to happen, the Singapore government, which serves as host and organiser, needs to get out of its sleeping partner status and assert control over the programme agenda and discussions which are far from neutral, open and candid or intended to help bridge divides as claimed by the event propaganda. Finally, the primary purpose of the dialogue, which has regressed into one deliberating on how to counter and contain China, should be balanced with one focusing on how Asia-Pacific countries, including Asean, should be dealing with the US – which under Trump's administration is more intent on asserting American hegemony and making the countries of the region more subservient. This and the inclusion of North Korea in the next forum will help bring some credibility to Singapore's claim to be a proactive (and hopefully honest) mediator facilitating discussions on balancing deterrence and diplomacy.
