Ƶ

Frankly Speaking: What a Trump foreign policy might look like

Short Url
Updated 11 November 2024

Frankly Speaking: What a Trump foreign policy might look like

Frankly Speaking: What a Trump foreign policy might look like
  • FormerUS ambassador and current senior fellow at the Middle East Institute outlined his expectations for the Middle East and beyond
  • Robert Ford appeared on the “Frankly Speaking” show as Republican President-elect Donald Trump prepared to take the reins of power

DUBAI:Donald Trump’s imminent return to the White House after a resounding victory in the Nov. 5 election is set to reshape America’s foreign policy. Since it comes at a time of unprecedented tension and uncertainty in the Middle East, regional actors are closely watching for signs of how a new Republican administration might wield influence and power.

In a wide-ranging interview, Robert Ford, a veteran American diplomat with extensive Arab region experience, outlined his expectations for the Middle East and beyond, indicating that it is important to set expectations for what can be achieved.

Middle East conflicts, especially those in Gaza and Lebanon, have dominated the international conversation since a deadly Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7 last year sparked a devastating Israeli military retaliation. “With respect to President-elect Trump’s promises to end wars, I don’t think he can end a war in a day,” Ford said on “Frankly Speaking,” the weekly Arab News current affairs show.

“I don’t think he can end a war in a week, but he can push for negotiations on the Ukraine war. And with respect to the war in Gaza and the war in Lebanon, he has an ability to influence events. (But) I am not sure he will use that ability.”

Ford noted that there is little support within the Republican Party for a two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, making it unlikely that the incoming Trump administration will pressure Israel on this issue.




Robert Ford, a veteran American diplomat with extensive Middle East experience, outlined to Frankly Speaking host Katie Jensen his expectations for the Middle East and beyond following the election of Donald Trump as US President. (AN Photo)

“The American Republican Party, in particular, has evinced little support for the establishment of a Palestinian state over the past 15 years. There is no (faction) in the Republican Party exerting pressure for that,” he said.

In fact, he pointed out, “there are many in the Republican Party who back harder line Israeli politicians who reject the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

In the current political climate, when there is strong Arab-Islamic unity over the Israeli invasion of Gaza and the consequent high civilian death toll, recognition of a Palestinian state has become a matter of priority for regional actors. Ƶ has been leading efforts to boost international cooperation to reach a two-state solution. In September, the Kingdom’s government formed a global alliance to lead efforts aimed at establishing a Palestinian state.

Ford, who isa current senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, believes that any push for progress on this issue will likely come from Gulf leaders. “The only people who will have influence with President Trump personally on this are in fact leaders in the Gulf. And if they make Palestine a priority, perhaps he will reconsider, and I emphasize the word ‘perhaps’,” he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is keen on normalizing ties with Ƶ, but the Kingdom has made it very clear that normalization will be off the table unless it sees the recognition of a Palestinian state.

“The first thing is I would imagine that the incoming Trump administration will ask the Saudi government whether or not it is still insistent on a Palestinian state — or at least concrete measures toward a Palestinian state — as part of a package deal involving a US-Saudi defense agreement,” Ford told Katie Jensen, the host of “Frankly Speaking.”

“I think the Trump people would rather not have any kind of Saudi conditionality regarding Palestine as part of that agreement, because, in large part, the Israelis won’t accept it.”

The US has long been the largest arms supplier to Israel. Last year, after Israel began its assault on Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups, it asked the US for $10 billion in emergency military aid, according to a New York Times report.The Council on Foreign Relations, an independent US-based think tank, estimates that the US has provided at least $12.5 billion in military aid to Israel since last October.

Trump has reportedly told Netanyahu that he wants the war in Gaza, which so far has claimed more than 43,400 Palestinian lives, most of them civilians, to finish by the time he takes office in January. Does that mean a Trump administration will put pressure on the Israeli leader to wrap up the war?




Trump waves as he walks with former first lady Melania Trump at an election night watch party at the Palm Beach Convention Center, Wednesday, Nov. 6. (AP)

Ford ruled out the possibility of a reduction in US supply of weapons to Israel. “It’s extremely unlikely that, especially in 2025, President Trump and his team will impose an arms embargo on Israel,” he said.

Ford expects Trump’s well-known disdain for foreign aid to affect US assistance for Israel in the long term, but without the use of reductions as a threat.

“I do think that President Trump does not particularly like foreign aid. He views foreign aid as an expenditure of American money and resources that he would rather keep in the US,” he said.

“So, over the long term, and I stress the word ‘long term,’ I could imagine that President Trump might look for ways to begin to reduce the annual American assistance to Israel, which is over $4 billion in total.

“But I don’t think he would do that in a way that is used as a threat against Israel. It’s much more likely it would be part of a Trump measure to reduce foreign aid to a lot of countries, not only Israel.”

The Middle East’s second major conflict, between Israel and Hezbollah, has been raging for 13 months now in Lebanon, taking a toll of 3,000 lives, including combatants, and displacing 1.2 million people from the country’s south. In Israel, 72 people, including 30 soldiers, have been killed by Hezbollah attacks and 60,000 people have been displaced during the same period.

The war shows no signs of ending: Israel says it is carrying out new operations targeting Hezbollah infrastructure across Lebanon and in parts of Syria, while Hezbollah continues to launch dozens of rockets into northern Israel.

Ford sees potential for early US involvement in discussions on Lebanon “fairly early in the administration,”adding that the engagement would begin through a family connection between Trump and Lebanon.

Although he does not think Lebanon is high on the incoming administration’s agenda, he finds “it is interesting that there is a family connection between President-elect Trump and Lebanon.”

“The husband of one of his daughters is connected to Lebanon, and his daughter’s father-in-law,”Ford, said referring to Massad Boulos, a Lebanese-American businessman whose son Michael married Tiffany Trump two years ago and who acted as a Trump emissary to the Arab American community during the election campaign.

“Because Trump operates very much with family, and we saw that in the first administration — first Trump administration — supposedly this Lebanese American gentleman, businessman, may be involved in some discussions.”

Ford also noted that “Israeli success against Hezbollah and against Iran has made the Hezbollah and Iranian side more flexible in their positions,” adding that “it might be easier to reach an agreement on ending the war in Lebanon than, for example, it will be in Gaza.”

Moving on to Syria, Ford, who served as the US ambassador in Damascus from 2011 to 2014, said while the country “is very low on President Trump’s priority list,” Trump might pull the remaining American troops out.

The US is reported to have a military presence of approximately 900 personnel in eastern Syria and 2,500 in Iraq as part of the international coalition against Daesh. The troops in Syria serve various purposes: helping prevent the resurgence of Daesh, supporting Washington’s Kurdish allies and containing the influence of Iran and Russia — both of which also have a military presence in Syria.

“I think it more likely than not that President Trump will withdraw the remaining American forces in Syria, which numbers somewhere around 1,000,” Ford said, adding that the president-elect might also “withdraw the American forces that are now in Iraq as part of the international coalition against Daesh.”

He added that Trump “may, perhaps, accept a bilateral relationship, military relationship with Iraq afterward,” but Syria remains “low on his priority list.”

Ford also thinks it is “impossible” for Syrian President Bashar Assad to abandon his alliance with Iran, against which the new Trump administration is expected to reapply “maximum pressure.”

“The Iranians really saved him (Assad) from the Syrian armed opposition in 2013 and 2014 and 2015,” he said. “There is no alternative for President Assad to a continued close military relationship with Iran.”

He added: “I’m sure President Assad is uncomfortable with some of the things which Iran is doing in Syria and which are triggering substantial Israeli airstrikes. But to abandon Iran? No, that’s difficult for me to imagine.”

He said to expect the Syrian leader to trust Gulf Arab governments more than he would trust the Iranians would be “a big ask.”

When it comes to US policy toward Iran, Ford expects the new Trump administration to return to the “maximum pressure” policy. “For a long time, the Biden administration ignored Iranian sales of petroleum to Chinese companies. ... But the Trump administration is certainly going to take more aggressive action against Chinese companies that import Iranian oil and other countries,” he said.




Demonstration by the families of the hostages taken captive in the Gaza Strip by Hamas militants during the Oct. 7 attacks, calling for action to release the hostages, outside the Israeli Prime Minister's residence in Azza (Gaza) Street in central Jerusalem last month. (AFP)

“It’s highly unlikely that the Trump administration is going to accept that Iraq imports and pays for Iranian energy products, such as electricity and natural gas.”

Ford sees the Trump team as split into two camps: the extreme conservatives, who want regime change in Tehran, and the isolationists, who oppose the US entering a war with Iran.

“There is a camp of extreme conservatives, many of whom actually do favor attempting regime change in Iran. They won’t use the words ‘regime change’ because the words have a bad air, a bad connotation in the US now, but they are, in effect, calling for regime change in Iran,” he said.

“I should hasten to add that they don’t know what would replace the Islamic Republic in terms of a government.”

According to Ford, the second camp “is a more, in some ways, isolationist camp. J.D. Vance, the vice president-elect, would be in this camp; so would American media personality Tucker Carlson, who’s a very strong Trump supporter and who has influence with Trump.

“They do not want to send in the American military into a new war in the Middle East, and they don’t advocate for a war against Iran.”

Ford’s own sense of Trump, from his first administration and from recent statements, is that “he, too, is very cautious about sending the US military to fight Iran.”

Similarly, the Trump team is divided when it comes to the Ukraine war, according to Ford, so it will take some time “for Trump himself to make a definitive policy decision.”

“There are some, such as former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who are very firm supporters of the Ukrainian effort against Russia. Others, like Vance, are not.”

The second reality regarding Ukraine, Ford said, is that Trump himself is skeptical about the value of NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

“I cannot imagine that he will be enthusiastic in any way about Ukraine joining NATO. That will at least address one of Moscow’s big concerns,” he said. “The third point I would make: The Americans may propose ideas. But the American ideas about, for example, an autonomous region in eastern Ukraine or freezing the battle lines.”

He added: “I’m not sure that (Ukrainian President Volodymyr) Zelensky is going to be enthusiastic about accepting them. I’m not sure the Europeans will be enthusiastic about accepting them. And therefore, again, the negotiation process could take a long time.”

On who might advise Trump on Middle East policy after he moves into the White House in January, now that Jared Kushner, the former senior adviser and Trump’s son-in-law, has announced he does not plan to join the administration this time, Ford said Trump places a very high regard on loyalty to him personally.

“People such as Richard Grenell, who was his acting director of national intelligence, and Pompeo pass that kind of loyalty test,” he said. (On Sunday, Trump announced he would not ask Pompeo or former primary opponent Nikki Haley to join his second administration.)

“Trump’s agenda this time is massive change in the Washington federal departments among the employees. And he will trust loyalists … to implement those deep changes — the firing of thousands of employees,” Ford said. “We will see a very different kind of Trump foreign policy establishment by the time we arrive in the year 2026-2027.”


11 candidates vie to unseat president in Cameroon election

11 candidates vie to unseat president in Cameroon election
Updated 31 sec ago

11 candidates vie to unseat president in Cameroon election

11 candidates vie to unseat president in Cameroon election
  • Cameroon has seen just two leaders since independence in 1960

LIBREVILLE: Eleven candidates face off against Cameroon’s incumbent president, Paul Biya, in elections on Sunday, with the divided opposition having failed to unite behind a joint contender.
The 92-year-old head of state, who has spent 43 years in power, made his first public appearance of the campaign on Tuesday just five days before the vote.
Four candidates among the crowded lineup of presidential hopefuls have drawn attention: Two former ministers and 2 fierce government adversaries.
Biya is seeking an eighth term in office in a single-round presidential election, in which 8.2 million Cameroonians are registered to vote.
He first became president in 1982 following the resignation of his predecessor, Ahmadou Ahidjo, and has ruled since then. 
He was declared the winner of seven subsequent elections. 
Cameroon has seen just two leaders since independence in 1960. Most Cameroonians heading to the polls on Sunday have known only one president in their lifetime.
But days before the vote, young people appeared torn between hope and resignation as Biya seeks another term.
Few anticipated anything other than another victory for Biya, with a fragmented opposition and his fiercest rival, Maurice Kamto, excluded from running.
“No young person, whether they are a graduate or not, will be left behind,” Biya promised at his election campaign in the northern city of Maroua.
In Cameroon, nearly everyone is under 20, and unemployment rates can reach 35 percent in major cities, according to the National Employment Fund.
Some of the youth “are calling for the departure of the elderly,” said Aristide Mono, a political sociology professor and chief of staff at the Cameroon Society for Intelligence and Research.
“But they are very poorly organised and divided,” he added, citing “tribalism” as a key factor.

“Given the way things are going here, I think the election has been decided in advance,” said Sylvie, a 20-year-old student from Douala
“But I would like to have a new president. To have more opportunities and for us students to quickly find jobs.
“A president of his age in power is bad for the country. He should leave and make way for young people. There’s so much to be done: roads, education, and unemployment.
“I have no intention of going anywhere. I have hope in my country. But the old people in power need to step aside and let today’s youth take over.”
Giovanni, 20, another student from Douala, said:  “Some believe he should leave office. But I think Paul Biya still has things to offer.
“Even though some promises haven’t been fulfilled, I am counting on him; he’s wise. I don’t look at his age or health, but at his experience and track record.
“I want a president with a good vision for us as future workers. Candidates like Cabral Libii and Hiram Iyodi, who are also young, have good programs, but I remain convinced of the idea of a new term for Paul Biya.”
Boris, 26, a computer engineer in Buea, said: “I can’t wait for the vote to happen. I believe in change, and it can only come about through an election.


DR Congo president calls on Rwanda’s Kagame to ‘make peace’

DR Congo president calls on Rwanda’s Kagame to ‘make peace’
Updated 4 min 3 sec ago

DR Congo president calls on Rwanda’s Kagame to ‘make peace’

DR Congo president calls on Rwanda’s Kagame to ‘make peace’

BRUSSELS: DR Congo President Felix Tshisekedi appealed to his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame to stop supporting insurgents in the DRC at a Brussels event attended by both leaders on Thursday, drawing a rebuke from Kigali that he was “completely mistaken” about the roots of the conflict.
Tshisekedi, 62, issued the call as he took the podium after Kagame at the Global Gateway Forum, an investment conference organized by the EU in the Belgian capital.
“I call this forum as witness, and through it the entire world, to reach out my hand to you, Mr. President, so that we may make peace,” Tshisekedi said.
“This requires you to order the M23 troops supported by your country to stop this escalation, which has already caused enough deaths,” he said.
Kagame had not addressed the conflict directly in his speech, though he referred to an earlier statement by South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, who said he could “feel the energy for making peace” upon seeing the Rwandan and Congolese leaders.
“Some of us also felt the same. We felt the positive energy about business, investment, peace,” Kagame said.
Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe later responded directly to the Congolese president on X, saying: “You are completely mistaken. The only one who can stop this escalation is President Tshisekedi, and he alone.” Tshisekedi must end “this ridiculous political comedy that consists of abusing the platform of an important economic partnership summit, like the Global Gateway Forum, to launch accusations and shameless lies against a head of state, before posing as a victim of a conflict that he himself provoked,” said Nduhungirehe.
The eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, a region bordering Rwanda with abundant natural resources but plagued by non-state armed groups, has suffered extreme violence for more than three decades.
The M23 armed group, which resumed fighting at the end of 2021, has seized swaths of land in the region with Rwanda’s backing, triggering a spiralling humanitarian crisis.
According to the UN, clashes since January have caused thousands of deaths and forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes. The Congolese government and the M23 signed a declaration of principles on July 19 that included a “permanent ceasefire” to halt the conflict.
It followed a separate US-brokered peace deal between the Congolese and Rwandan governments signed in Washington in June, but it has proved slow to take effect on the ground.
“Africa needs to move on, President Paul Kagame, and we are capable of doing so,” Tshisekedi said, adding he would shelve a call for international sanctions on Rwanda to give talks a chance.
But Rwanda’s foreign minister accused his government of widespread abuses in eastern DRC, including “daily bombings by his fighter jets and attack drones.”
Rwanda has long accused Kinshasa of supporting a militia, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, drawn from the remnants of Hutu fighters who carried out the 1994 Rwandan genocide.


Senegal records 17 deaths in rare major outbreak of Rift Valley Fever

Senegal records 17 deaths in rare major outbreak of Rift Valley Fever
Updated 11 min 19 sec ago

Senegal records 17 deaths in rare major outbreak of Rift Valley Fever

Senegal records 17 deaths in rare major outbreak of Rift Valley Fever
  • “This is the first time Senegal has counted so many people affected,” Diop told local media
  • RVF is a viral disease that mainly affects livestock

DAKAR: Senegal has recorded 17 deaths from Rift Valley Fever, RVF, a health ministry official said Thursday, in a rare major outbreak of the viral disease in the West African country.
With 119 cases reported so far, mostly in northern Senegal’s livestock-producing region, the outbreak is raising concerns about further spread, said Dr. Boly Diop, head of RVF surveillance at the health ministry.
“This is the first time Senegal has counted so many people affected,” Diop told local media.
RVF is a viral disease that mainly affects livestock. Humans typically become infected through mosquito bites or contact with infected animals.
While most human cases are mild or show no symptoms, severe cases can cause eye damage, brain swelling or hemorrhagic fever, which can be fatal, according to the World Health Organization.
Transmission to humans usually occurs during slaughter, births or veterinary work, putting herders, farmers and slaughterhouse workers at a higher risk, the WHO says.
The current outbreak in Senegal was declared on Sept. 21.
Senegal’s last major outbreak dates back to the late 1980s, when it killed more than 200 people in the country and neighboring Mauritania.
RVF outbreaks have also previously occurred in other African countries, including in Kenya and Somalia in 1998 when it killed over 470 people. In 2000, the virus spread to Ƶ and Yemen — its first cases outside Africa — killing over 200 people and raising concerns of wider spread to Asia and Europe.
Preventing animal outbreaks through vaccination and reducing mosquito exposure are key to controlling the disease, the WHO says.
RVF has been endemic in northern Senegal since the 1980s and is becoming more frequent across Africa due to climate change, Dr. Merawi Aragaw Tegegne, an epidemiologist with the Africa Center for Disease Control and Prevention, told a news conference Thursday.
“If you see torrential rain with quick floods, then sunny days, expect RVF in the coming days with favorable conditions for the vectors,” Tegegne said.


Have reports of the UN Security Council’s death been grossly exaggerated?

Have reports of the UN Security Council’s death been grossly exaggerated?
Updated 50 min 26 sec ago

Have reports of the UN Security Council’s death been grossly exaggerated?

Have reports of the UN Security Council’s death been grossly exaggerated?
  • Critics say the council’s veto-bound structure leaves conflicts unresolved, reforms stalled, and credibility eroding
  • Despite calls for reform, the council’s five permanent members resist changes that might dilute their authority

LONDON: The persistence of wars and conflicts, despite humanity’s best endeavors to eradicate them, is one of the most frustrating and costly aspects of international affairs and human existence.

After the Second World War, the establishment of the UN, and especially the Security Council, its centerpiece for ensuring peace and security, was intended to provide the ultimate answer to war prevention, or at least its quick resolution.

Even if the UN has not entirely failed, it has only partially served its intended purpose. This failure is due to the inherent structure of the international system, of which the primary building block is the nation state, which is reluctant to cede certain aspects of its security to a global collective security body.

A view of the United Nations headquarters in New York City. (Shutterstock)

It is also the structure and mandate of the UN, particularly the Security Council and its exclusive club of five permanent members with the right of veto, that hinder its effectiveness in preventing and resolving conflicts.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter sets the vision and imperative for all members to refrain from the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The Security Council was established as the primary universal mechanism to achieve this objective.

The UN founding fathers set themselves a very high bar for norms of behavior in the international arena, aiming to radically reform how political units, mainly states, engage with one another — through diplomacy rather than the use of force or any other act of aggression, which had been the norm from the dawn of history.

To achieve this, states needed to recognize that their national interest is best served through the collective interest of all member states.

However, this lesson has never been learned, and the UN, throughout its existence, has not managed to change that deep-seated modus operandi. As a collective security tool, it is reactive, and crucially, very slow.

In this photo taken during a UN Security Council meeting on February 25, 2022, Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia (C) votes on a draft resolution that would condemn his country for invading Ukraine. Under the UN charter, any one of the five permanent council members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the US —  can single-handedly kill a resolution with a veto. (AFP file photo)

The design of the Security Council reflects both the hopeful sentiment prevailing in the aftermath of the Second World War and the prevailing power structure of the time.

The Security Council has five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the UK and the US — collectively known as the P5. Any one of them has the power to veto any resolution brought in front of it.

This privileged status was bestowed on the leading victorious powers of the war and their allies, who reshaped the postwar international order, but it is now widely regarded as archaic and in desperate need of change.

The General Assembly elects the other ten Security Council members for a term of two years, distributed based on geographical rotation, but they are not afforded veto power.

Annalena Baerbock, president of the 80th General Assembly, speaks during the General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters in New York City on September 23, 2025. (AFP)

The Security Council’s presidency rotates monthly, enabling the ten non-permanent members, which are elected by a two-thirds vote of the UN General Assembly, to have a say in setting the agenda of this body.

Under the UN Charter, the Security Council was given extensive powers, including the authority to investigate any dispute or situation that might lead to international friction and to recommend methods to resolve or at least mitigate such disputes.

It can also formulate plans to regulate armaments and call on member states to apply economic sanctions and measures, including military action to stop aggression.

One of the Security Council’s main powers is mandating peacekeeping missions with the aim of promoting reconciliation, assisting with the implementation of peace agreements, or performing mediation and good offices, as well as more forceful actions authorized by the charter.

Since its inception, the UN has conducted 38 peacekeeping missions, 11 of which are currently operational in various locations, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Western Sahara, and Jammu and Kashmir, where they observe the ceasefire, promote security and stability in Kosovo, and are deployed along the Israeli borders with Syria and Lebanon.

A patrol unit of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is stationed in the southernmost Lebanese town of Naqura by the border with Israel, as talks on maritime borders between the two countries, still technically at war, are set to resume under UN and US auspices, on May 4, 2021. (AFP)

Beyond these relative successes of peacekeeping operations, there have been marked failures. Most notoriously, UN peacekeeping operations failed to prevent the Rwandan genocide in 1994, as well as the one occurring in the town of Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia in 1995.

In most cases, due to the limited mandate of these operations, their successes or failures depend on the will of the antagonistic sides to maintain the peace or, at the very least, not to renew hostilities.

Criticism has been directed at the Security Council in particular for its failure to prevent conflicts or bring them to an immediate end and for the lack of agility to take the necessary actions in resolving long-running conflicts.

Such examples include the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which, despite numerous resolutions, continues due to the non-compliance of the main protagonists and lack of enforcement by the international community.

In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is the US which blocks most resolutions that are critical of Israel, such as a call for a ceasefire in the current war in Gaza, or the recognition of a Palestinian state.

Ambassador Robert Wood, alternate representative of the US in the UN, raises his hands to veto a draft resolution during a United Nations Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question at the UN headquarters on November 20, 2024 in New York City. (AFP file photo)

The act of aggression by a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia, against its Ukrainian neighbor came as a particularly hard blow to the credibility of this institution and a clear illustration of how the veto power has been abused.

Also on issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic or climate change, the Security Council has been found wanting in providing answers to urgent global challenges.

Despite these failures, neither the UN nor its Security Council has been adequately reformed. As a result, it is increasingly seen as anachronistic, with hierarchical structures represented by the non-democratic powers of the permanent members’ ability to veto.

Indeed, this can hardly be justified in an organization whose charter promotes the principles of “equal rights” and “sovereign equality” when at the same time it maintains the power of the Global North and marginalizes the Global South.

Years of criticism led the General Assembly in 2007 to establish what is known as the “intergovernmental negotiations” to advance the question of equitable representation, increase the membership of the Security Council, and to ensure more accountability and transparency.

Despite endless rounds of negotiations, the membership issue remains unresolved as the P5 oppose losing their privileged position.

The odds of a meaningful reform of the Security Council are slim because amending the UN Charter requires the support of the General Assembly, followed by ratification by two-thirds of UN member states, in addition to the consent of all the Security Council’s permanent members.

Hence, the main reforms focus on increasing transparency and procedural matters.

For now, the Security Council remains the main UN organ for discussing issues of peace and security, and the robust debates and resolutions that emerge are affecting how individual countries behave in their bilateral and multilateral engagements, including the exertion of their influence.

Yet, the criticism of not adding more members from Africa, Asia and Latin America, as well as the overuse of the veto power, need to be addressed.

If the Security Council is to remain relevant and fulfil its mission as set out in the UN Charter in the 21st century, these issues cannot be ignored, and would not be impossible to achieve.
 

 


Russia accuses Ukraine of blowing up ammonia pipeline

Russia accuses Ukraine of blowing up ammonia pipeline
Updated 47 min 22 sec ago

Russia accuses Ukraine of blowing up ammonia pipeline

Russia accuses Ukraine of blowing up ammonia pipeline
  • The incident took place near the frontline village of Rusin Yar in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region
  • “The pipeline was blown up, resulting in the release of ammonia residues through the damaged section,” the Russian defense ministry said

MOSCOW: Russia accused Ukraine on Thursday of rupturing a now defunct pipeline used to transport Russian ammonia into Ukraine for export, releasing toxic gas into the air.
The incident took place near the frontline village of Rusin Yar in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region, Russia said.
“During Ukraine’s retreat from the area at around 1:05 p.m. (1005 GMT) on October 9, 2025, the pipeline was blown up, resulting in the release of ammonia residues through the damaged section,” the Russian defense ministry said, accusing Kyiv of trying to slow its advances.


It posted a video showing what appeared to be clouds of a chemical compound spewing out from a source in the ground.
The military administration in Ukraine’s Donetsk region confirmed on Telegram that the pipeline had been “damaged” without indicating the reason.
The authorities said the incident did not present a “menace to the lives of people” living nearby.
Ammonia is used to make fertilizer.
Before the war, the Tolyatti-Odesa pipeline transported millions of tons of the chemical compound from the Russian city of Tolyatti to Black Sea ports in Ukraine.
It ceased operations shortly after Moscow launched its 2022 offensive.
Both Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of rupturing the pipeline before, in 2023.