- On Monday, Chinese and Indian troops engaged in a violent confrontation along a disputed border that left at least 20 Indian troops dead. Chinese officials have confirmed that there were casualties on their side but refused to say how many.
- The incident is the most serious military confrontation between the two nuclear powers in nearly 40 years.
- India and China have been fighting over the disputed boundary for decades.
- Both countries claim to control huge sections of each other’s territories, and the border has never been formalized despite more than a dozen negotiations.
Indian and Chinese Troops Face-Off
The Indian government has said that at least 20 of its soldiers died in a violent altercation with Chinese military forces after fighting broke out Monday along a disputed border between the two countries, marking the most serious military confrontation between the two nuclear powers in decades.
It is unclear exactly what happened as both sides have given different accounts. Most of the details currently being reported have come from the Indian side. Chinese officials have largely remained tight-lipped and Chinese media has downplayed the incident.
However, according to most accounts, the two sides engaged in hand-to-hand combat using rocks, iron rods, and their fists to fight for several hours. Several people fell to their deaths, but neither side fired shots or used guns at any point.
Indian officials said that three of their soldiers were killed during the standoff, and 17 others died after succumbing to injuries in the sub-zero temperatures.
Indian officials also said that there had been casualties on the Chinese side, a fact that Chinese officials did eventually confirm Wednesday after skirting the question, though they did not say how many people died.
As for what started the stand-off, both sides blame each other for instigating. Indian officials say that Chinese forces crossed into the area under their control where they set up tents and guard posts and ignored verbal warnings to leave, which set off shouting matches, stones being thrown, and fist-fights.
Chinese officials say that Indian soldiers crossed the border into the area they control and “provoked and attacked Chinese personnel.”
While Monday’s events represent a serious escalation, these kinds of confrontations are not a new occurrence.
Just since last month, there have been a number of similar conflicts along the border, though no deaths have been reported. After those initial brawls, which reportedly started after both countries moved thousands of additional troops to the border, senior leaders from the Indian and Chinese militaries held meetings and agreed to disengage.
But the situation goes a lot deeper than that. In fact, India and China have been fighting over this disputed border for decades and decades.
In 1962, the two fought a full-scale war over the border which ended with a truce and the creation of a sort of de facto border called the Line of Actual Control (LAC), aroughly 2,000-mile boundary that runs along the Himalayas and the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region.
However, the LAC is and always has been a very rough boundary. Over the years, there have been more than a dozen rounds of talks and negotiations, but an actual border has never been formally decided.
As a result, India and China have competing views of where the line is, and both claim significant chunks of the other’s territory. Both sides patrol up to where they believe the border is, but because it is contested, that has led to frequent accusations of one side crossing the LAC which has resulted in numerous clashes.
Despite the frequency of these skirmishes, Monday’s incident has been described as the most violent and serious confrontation since a series of battles in 1967, as well as the first altercation that resulted in reported fatalities since 1975.
Notably, the two sides have worked together to try and keep the peace. In the early 1990s, they agreed to a set of protocols to contain the disputes and prevent escalation.
Those procedures included agreements for where troops would patrol, what weapons they could carry, where military installation would be built, and how close weapons and airplanes could be to the disputed areas.
But tensions have grown over the last few years. Many recent standoffs have been the result of both countries building infrastructure including roads, airstrips, and arms installations, which has resulted in the area becoming much more militarized.
China, in general, has been more assertive in building up its infrastructure, but in recent years, India has been strengthening its border infrastructure and upgrading its military installations— a move that experts say has angered China.
There is also a broader geopolitical element too. China has additionally been upset by India’s growing political and military relationship with the United States. Last year, China strongly condemned India for revoking the autonomous status of Kashmir— the disputed area claimed by both India and Pakistan— and placing it under the direct control of the central government.
On the other side, India is also worried that China is trying to slowly take over more of the disputed territory along the LAC, a concern that has grown as China continues to push forward with more bold, expansionist actions.
“China has pressed other controversial territorial disputes in recent years, stoking anxiety among its neighbors by building military installations in the South China Sea, extending control over Hong Kong and moving to deny Taiwan, which it sees as part of China, legitimacy and participation in international forums,” journalist Rajesh Roy explained in the Wall Street Journal.
As for the current situation, both India and China have said they want peace. In a short televised speech Wednesday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterated that call, while also warning China that India will retaliate if provoked.
“The sacrifice of our soldiers will not be in vain,” he said. “The sovereignty and integrity of India is supreme, and nobody can stop us in defending that. India wants peace, but if provoked India is capable of giving a befitting reply.”
China’s Foreign Ministry has also said it does not want more clashes, and in a call today, both the foreign ministers of both agreed to “cool down” and said they favor peaceful diplomacy and dialogue.
It has also been reported that military leaders in the region are “talking to diffuse the tension.”
See what others are saying: (The Wall Street Journal) (The Guardian) (Al Jazeera)
Israel Relaxes Abortion Restrictions in Response to U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
The reforms follow similar moves by France and Germany as leaders across the political spectrum denounce the court’s decision.
Health Minister Makes Announcement
Israel is easing access to abortion in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s repeal of Roe v. Wade, Nitzan Horowitz, the country’s health minister and head of the small left-wing Meretz party, announced Monday.
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s move to deny a woman the right to abortion is a dark move,” he said in the announcement, “oppressing women and returning the leader of the free and liberal world a hundred years backward.”
The new rules, approved by a majority in the parliamentary committee, grant women access to abortion pills through the universal health system. Women will be able to obtain the pills at local health centers rather than only hospitals and surgical clinics.
The new policy also removes the decades-old requirement for women to physically appear before a special committee that must grant approval to terminate a pregnancy.
While women will still need to get approval, the process will become digitized, the application form will be simplified, and the requirement to meet a social worker will become optional.
The committee will only conduct hearings in the rare case it initially denies the abortion procedure.
Israel’s 1977 abortion law stipulates four criteria for termination of pregnancy: If the woman is under 18 or over 40, if the fetus is in danger, if the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or an “illicit union,” including extramarital affairs, and if the woman’s mental or physical health is at risk.
All of the changes will take effect over the next three months.
The World Reacts
Politicians across the political spectrum from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision since it was announced Friday.
On Saturday, French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne expressed support for a bill proposed by parliament that would enshrine the right to an abortion in the country’s constitution.
“For all women, for human rights, we must set this gain in stone,” she wrote on Twitter. “Parliament must be able to unite overwhelmingly over this text.”
Germany scrapped a Nazi-era law prohibiting the promotion of abortion Friday, just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
In Israel, abortion is a far less controversial issue than it is for Americans. Around 98% of people who apply for an abortion get one, according to the country’s Central Bureau of Statistics.
Part of the reason for Israel’s relatively easy access to abortion is that many residents interpret Jewish law to condone, or at least not prohibit, the procedure.
In the United States, several Jewish organizations including the American Jewish Committee, Hillel International, and the Women’s Rabbinic Network have expressed opposition to the court ruling, and some Jews have protested it as a violation of their religious freedom.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (ABC News) (The Guardian)
Flight Deporting Refugees From U.K. to Rwanda Canceled at Last Hour
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said the U.K.’s asylum policy sets a “catastrophic” precedent.
Saved By The Bell
The inaugural flight in the U.K. government’s plan to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda was canceled about an hour and a half before it was supposed to take off Tuesday evening.
A last-minute legal intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) halted the flight. Tuesday’s flight originally included 37 people, but after a string of legal challenges that number dwindled to just seven.
In its ruling for one of the seven passengers, a 54-year-old Iraqi man, the court said he cannot be deported until three weeks after the delivery of the final domestic decision in his ongoing judicial review proceedings.
Another asylum seeker, a 26-year-old Albanian man, told The Guardian he was in a “very bad mental state” and did not want to go to Rwanda, a country he knows nothing about.
“I was exploited by traffickers in Albania for six months,” he said. “They trafficked me to France. I did not know which country I was being taken to.”
A final domestic effort to block the flight in the Court of Appeals failed on Monday. The High Court will make a ruling on the asylum policy next month.
Britains Divided by Controversial Policy
U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel spoke to lawmakers after the flight was canceled, defending the asylum policy and saying preparations for the next flight will begin immediately.
“We cannot keep on spending nearly £5 million a day on accommodation including that of hotels,” she said. “We cannot accept this intolerable pressure on public services and local communities.”
“It makes us less safe as a nation because those who come here illegally do not have the regularized checks or even the regularized status, and because evil people-smuggling gangs use the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains to fund other appalling crimes that undermine the security of our country,” she continued.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Filippo Grandi, told CBC the policy sets a “catastrophic” precedent.
“We believe that this is all wrong,” he said. “This is all wrong. I mean, saving people from dangerous journeys is great, is absolutely great. But is that the right way to do it? Is that the right, is that the real motivation for this deal to happen? I don’t think so. I think it’s… I don’t know what it is.”
An Iranian asylum seeker in a British detention center who was told to prepare for deportation before being granted a late reprieve was asked by ABC whether he ever thought the U.K. would send him to Africa.
“I thought in the U.K. there were human rights,” he said. “But so far I haven’t seen any evidence.”
The Conservative government’s plan was announced in April, when it said it would resettle some asylum seekers 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, where they can seek permanent refugee status, apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in a safe third country.
The scheme was meant to deter migrants from illegally smuggling themselves into the country by boat or truck.
Migrants have long made the dangerous journey from Northern France across the English Channel, with over 28,000 entering the U.K. in boats last year, up from around 8,500 the year prior. Dozens of people have died making the trek, including 27 who drowned last November when a single boat capsized.
See what others are saying: (BBC) (The Guardian) (CNN)
Ryanair Draws Outrage, Accusations of Racism After Making South Africans Take Test in Afrikaans
Afrikaans, which is only spoken as a first language by around 13% of South Africa, has not been the country’s national language since apartheid came to an end in 1994.
Airline Won’t Explain Discrimination
Ryanair, Europe’s largest airline, has received widespread criticism and accusations of racism after it began requiring South African nationals to complete a test in Afrikaans to prove their passport isn’t fraudulent.
The airline told BBC the new policy was implemented because of “substantially increased cases of fraudulent South African passports being used to enter the U.K.”
Among other questions, the test asks passengers to name South Africa’s president, its capital city, and one national public holiday.
Ryanair has not said why it chose Afrikaans, the Dutch colonial language that many associate with white minority rule, for the test.
There are 11 official languages in South Africa, and Afrikaans ranks third for usage below Zulu and IsiXhosa. Only around 13% of South Africans speak Afrikaans as their first language.
“They’re using this in a manner that is utterly absurd,” Conrad Steenkamp, CEO of the Afrikaans Language Council, told reporters. “Afrikaans, you have roughly 20% of the population of South Africa understand Afrikaans. But the rest don’t, so you’re sitting with roughly 50 million people who do not understand Afrikaans.”
“Ryanair should be careful,” he continued. “Language is a sensitive issue. They may well end up in front of the Human Rights Commission with this.”
Ryanair’s policy only applies to South African passengers flying to the United Kingdom from within Europe, since it does not fly out of South Africa.
The British government has said in a statement that it does not require the test.
Anyone who cannot complete the test will be blocked from traveling and given a refund.
Memories of Apartheid Resurface
“The question requiring a person to name a public holiday is particularly on the nose given that SA has a whole public holiday NEXT WEEK commemorating an historic protest that started in response to language-based discrimination,” one person tweeted.
South African citizen Dinesh Joseph told the BBC that he was “seething” with anger when asked to take the test.
“It was the language of apartheid,” he said, adding that it was a trigger for him.
Officials in the country were also surprised by Ryanair’s decision.
“We are taken aback by the decision of this airline because the Department regularly communicates with all airlines to update them on how to validate South African passports, including the look and feel,” South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs said in a statement.
Any airline found to have flown a passenger with a fake passport to the U.K. faces a fine of £2,000 from authorities there. Ryanair has also not said whether it requires similar tests for any other nationalities.
Many people expressed outrage at Ryanair’s policy and some told stories of being declined service because they did not pass the test.