Context: The United States, under the Trump administration, has announced to pull out of the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), by the end of 2026.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Organisation based question on UNESCO, and the UN.
Mains: Shift from Multilateral world order to Unilateralism & Regionalism.
US to Withdraw From UNESCO
The US would withdraw from UNESCO by the end of 2026.
Reasonsfor withdrawal:
Bias against Israel: The US has accused UNESCO of being biased against Israel.
Against the US’s National Interest: The US has accused UNESCO of promoting divisive social and cultural causes and maintaining an outsized focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals for international development at odds with America First foreign policy.
US’s fall out from UNESCO
1984: The US first pulled out of UNESCO, as it viewed the agency as mismanaged, corrupt and used to advance the interests of the Soviet Union. It later rejoined in 2003 during George W. Bush's Presidency.
2011: The US cut down the funding for UNESCO under the Obama administration after the agency included Palestine as a full member.
2017: The US pulled out from UNESCO during President Trump’s first term.
2023: The Biden administration rejoined UNESCO. The decision was motivated by the concern that China is filling the gap left by the US in UNESCO policy making.
2025: The US has announced to pull out from UNESCO.
Impact of the US Withdrawal:
Funding constraints: The decision to pull US funding and participation from UNESCO will deal a blow to its work preserving cultural heritage around the world. The US provides a notable share of the agency's budget (8% of the agency's total budget). Though UNESCO has diversified its funding sources in recent years and the US contribution has decreased.
About UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) is a specialised agency of the United Nations.
Aim: To promote world peace and security through international cooperation in education, arts, sciences and culture.
Members: 194 member states (including US).
Membership of the United Nations carries with it the right to membership of UNESCO. States that are not members of the UN may be admitted to UNESCO, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.
UNESCO gets its funding from contributions by member states, voluntary contributions, fundraising, and other, smaller sources of funding.
Headquarters: Paris, France.
Key Functions of UNESCO:
The agency focuses on promoting international collaboration in education, science and culture.
It works to improve literacy with a special focus on girls in countries hit by war or disasters, promotes sex education, and equality for women.
It is best known for its list of World Heritage Sites (presently has over 1200 World Heritage Sites) which acknowledge places with cultural or natural significance, and preserve heritage around the world. The Rapid Response Facility provides emergency support for natural World Heritage sites during times of crisis.
It also keeps an intangible cultural heritage list of humanity’s most worthy creations.
It also helps to set standards on a range of issues including-
Ocean protection and coordinating climate knowledge.
Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI). UNESCO adopted in 2021- the first global standard-setting instrument on the ethics of AI.
Important Reports by UNESCO:
Global Education Monitoring Report
Global Ocean Science Report
UNESCO Science Report
World Trend in Freedom of Expression and Media Development
United Nations World Water Development Report
UNESCO is the third UN agency that President Trump has pulled out of in 2025, following the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
The latest move is another blow on multilateralism and reflects increasing distrust of international institutions, especially those connected to the United Nations.
Context: Jihadist-turned-President Ahmed al-Sharaa wants to unify Syria after the 14-year civil war. But domestic and external pressures pose a significant challenge.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: About Syrian Civil War.Mains: Global and Regional implications of Syrian Civil War.
Syrian Civil War
The Syrian Civil War began in 2011 during the Arab Spring, with protests against the authoritarian rule of President Bashar al-Assad. The protests were fueled by grievances over corruption, lack of political freedom, and economic hardship.
A brutal crackdown by the government led to full-scale armed conflict quickly escalating into a civil war.
A multi-side conflict involving the Syrian government, various rebel groups (including Free Syrian Army and Islamist factions), Kurdish forces (Syrian Democratic Forces) and ISIS.
Various international actors like Russia and Iran (supported the Syrian government), the US and its allies (backed rebel groups) also got involved.
The Present Situation
Despite the fall of the Assad regime in 2024, localised fighting and insurgencies continue.
In July 2025, clashes between Druze and Sunni Bedouin militias in southern Syria’s Suweida Governorate has left more than 1000 people dead.
The new President Ahmed al-Sharaa has focused on uniting Syria’s diverse communities to enable reconstruction and economic recovery, however he faces challenges from ethnic militias and regional instability.
About President Ahmed al-Sharaa
He is serving as the President of Syria since January 2025. He is a former al-Qaeda leader and a designated US terrorist.
He has been implicated in violence against Syrian minorities during the civil war- and inability/lack of intent to prevent sectarian violence has complicated this effort.
He has faced scrutiny on three fronts: the Alawites, the Kurds, and the Druze.
Ethnic and Sectarian Challenges to National Unity:
1. Alawites:
Country’s largest ethnic minority. Residing primarily along Syria’s Mediterranean coast.
Served as the former President Bashar al-Assad’s principal support base.
Clashes with Syrian security forces in March 2025 led to the death of more than 1500, mostly Alawite civilians and unarmed fighters.
2. Kurds:
The Assad regime in 2012 gave them a semi-autonomous civil administration (Rojava) with an armed wing (Syrian Democratic Forces; SDF) in oil-rich northeastern Syria.
President Sharaa demanded SDF's full integration into the Syrian Army, and bring the region into Syria’s direct control. This led to daily clashes between SDF and Syrian Army, until a conditional agreement in March 2025, in which the Kurds largely agreed to Sharaa’s demands in exchange for specific protections.
However, the Kurds feel betrayed as the new Syrian interim Constitution does not guarantee Kurdish rights. The Kurds now seek additional time to implement the March Agreement, and oversight from the US and France.
3. Druze:
Around 500,000 Druze live in Syria, mainly in Suweida, and have rejected the interim constitution that seeks to disarm their militias.
Israel, home to 150,000 Druze, opposes Sharaa’s control over Suweida. Israel uses Druze protection as justification for expanding its hold over southern Syria, especially the Golan Heights.
Clashes between Druze and Bedouin militias, allegedly backed by Syria, led to intensified Israeli airstrikes in Syria, until a US-brokered ceasefire on July 19, 2025.
Regional and Global Stakes
Syria’s Arab neighbours and Turkey have supported Sharaa’s attempts at rebuilding Syria.
Gulf states have repaid Syria’s $15.5 million debt to the World Bank, convinced the Trump administration to lift American sanctions on Syria, and have committed vast sums of money for Syria’s reconstruction.
This is fuelled both by their common interests in preventing an Iranian resurgence in the region, another factor that has driven Sharaa to negotiate with Israel and hope for a more stable neighbourhood. However, Israel’s independent interests in Syria hinder this regional effort.
Hence, strong ethnic and sectarian tensions continue to tug at Syria’s peripheries while its political core in the country struggles with enforcing National Unity.
Context: Recently, the United States has designated The Resistance Front (TRF) as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about The Resistance Front (TRF); 1267 Sanctions Committee.
The Resistance Front
The Resistance Front (TRF) is a proxy of Pakistan-based UN-designated terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
Founded by Muhammad Abbas Sheikh (now deceased) in 2019, in the aftermath of the abrogation of Article 370. It is currently headed by designated terrorist Sheikh Sajjad Gul. As per Indian security agencies, the outfit was floated to evade international sanctions against Pakistan.
TRF has carried out several terror attacks in Jammu & Kashmir’s Keran (2020), Handwara, Sopore, Shopian, Anantnag, and Reasi with the latest one in Baisaran meadows of Pahalgam (2025).
TRF usually focused on security forces and political figures, but late 2024 onwards it started to target infrastructure projects and civilians (including non-locals) in J&K.
The Indian government has designated the outfit as a terror organisation under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in 2023.
The move intensifies global pressure on Pakistan to rein in terror groups operating from its territory.
The designation will help India’s case in designating the TRF under the 1267 Committee for sanctions at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and imposing sanctions and travel bans on its members.
The 1267 Sanctions Committee
The 1267 Sanctions Committee, also known as the ISIS and Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee, was established under the UNSC Resolution in 1999.
It is one of the most important UN subsidiary bodies working towards combating terrorism, particularly in relation to ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and associated individuals, groups and entities.
The committee decides on sanctions and travel bans for individuals and entities associated with these terror organisations and ensures the enforcement of these measures under UNSC resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), and 2253 (2015).
Pakistan, a non-permanent member of the UNSC, has been protecting TRF at UNSC with support from China.
Context: There is a growing global consensus that Israel's conduct in Gaza meets the legal threshold for genocide. While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued binding provisional measures, Israel’s non-compliance and continued assault raise doubts about the credibility of the rules-based international order.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Key facts about Genocide Convention; International Court of Justice.
Mains: Crimes against Humanity: Efforts, Institutions and Limitations.
What is Genocide?
Genocide was formally recognised as a crime under international law by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 1946.
In the aftermath of the horrors of the Holocaust (Germany), the UNGA unanimously adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in 1948.
The Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Genocide is considered the gravest of international crimes, and its prohibition constitutes a non-derogable peremptory norm(jus cogens) of international law. This means:
Prohibition of Genocide is absolute and universal- All countries must follow it. It cannot be ignored, suspended, or violated, even during war, emergency or with mutual agreement.
Any treaty or law that allows genocide is automatically invalid.
Because of its status as a jus cogens norm, the duty to prevent and punish genocide gives rise to an erga omnes obligation (one owed to the international community as a whole). This means that all states, regardless of their direct involvement in a conflict, are legally bound to act against genocide wherever it occurs.
Genocide Convention
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) emerged as an international treaty in the aftermath of World War II.
The convention is the first-ever legal instrument to define and criminalise genocide as an international crime, and a binding treaty to prevent and punish such acts.
It was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.
The Convention came into force in 1951, and has 153 state parties till 2024. India ratified the Genocide Convention in 1959.
The Genocide Convention defines genocide through five acts:
Killing members of a group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life to bring about physical destruction
Imposing measures to prevent births
Forcibly transferring children to another group with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
The definition of genocide given by the Convention has been adopted by various international and hybrid tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), and has been incorporated into the domestic laws of several countries.
Being an erga omnes obligation, South Africa, technically unrelated to the conflict in Gaza, claims standing to bring the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
South Africa moves to ICJ against Israel:
South Africa moves to ICJ: In January 2024, South Africa initiated proceedings against Israel at the ICJ, alleging that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza amounted to genocide.
Interim order by ICJ: As of July 2025, ICJ has not yet ruled on the merits of the charge, however, it has issued a series of binding provisional measures, including repeated directives to ensure the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza. These interim orders reflect ICJ’s preliminary assessment that a plausible risk of genocide exists.
Humanitarian crisis in Gaza:
The Gaza Strip is experiencing a humanitarian crisis as a result of the Gaza war (since October 2023).
Since March 2025, Israel has begun a complete blockade of all food and supplies going into Gaza. The blockage has been partially eased since May 2025 with limited aid distribution. This has resulted in significant shortages of fuel, food, medication, water, and essential medical supplies, with almost half a million people facing starvation.
Global consensus: As the humanitarian crisis worsens, a global consensus is emerging. Heads of state, senior United Nations officials, and leading international jurists are increasingly characterising Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocidal.
Establishing Genocidal Intent is Difficult:
Proving that genocide has occurred requires establishing two essential elements: the act itself and the intent behind it.
Establishing the Act: The first step is to establish the commitment of one or more of the five specific acts (specified in the Genocide Convention) against a protected group.
Establishing the Intent behind the Act:
Even more difficult is to establish the specific intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part. This rare intent is what sets genocide apart from other mass atrocities.
It is just not enough to show that the crimes were committed; rather the prosecutors must prove that the individuals as members of a group were targeted to annihilate the group’s capacity to survive or reconstitute itself as a political, social, or cultural entity.
Scale of Destruction in Gaza: Evidence of Plausible Genocide:
In June 2025, a UN Commission of Inquiry found that Israeli air strikes, shelling, burning and controlled demolitions had destroyed more than 90% of schools and university buildings across the Gaza Strip.
Investigative Reports in Gaza points out systematic destruction not only of residential areas but also of critical infrastructure, including hospitals, universities, mosques, water systems, agricultural zones, and cultural heritage sites, as evidence of a policy aimed at making Palestinian life in Gaza unsustainable.
As per the local health authorities:
Over 58,000 people have been killed, including more than 17,000 children.
Gaza now reportedly has the highest per capita number of amputee children in the world.
As the starvation crisis deepens, civilians have reportedly been shot while waiting in queues for food and essential supplies.
The scale of destruction in Gaza lend further credence to these claims that Israel had crossed the threshold for committing genocide. Israel has maintained that its military campaign targets Hamas and not civilians, who it claims are affected only as collateral damage.
Limitations of International Court of Justice
ICJ has held that intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the scale and nature of atrocities, patterns of conduct, and dehumanising rhetoric by state officials.
1. Rigid standards to establish Genocide:
However, the ICJ’s evidentiary standard for proving genocidal intent remains stringent and has come under increasing criticism.
In Croatia v. Serbia (2015), the ICJ held that genocidal intent could only be inferred from a pattern of conduct if “this is the only inference that could be reasonably drawn” from the acts in question.
This means that genocidal intent can only be accepted if it is the only possible explanation for the acts committed.
This rigid standard is widely criticised as it dismisses the possibility of genocide if there apperas to be any other plausible motive. Such a restrictive approach risks makes genocide near-impossible to prove.
ICJ needs a balanced approach that weighs all available evidence and discards inferences that are clearly unreasonable.
In other words, the presence of other conceivable motives should not automatically negate a finding of genocidal intent.
This view is consistent with international criminal jurisprudence. Both the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) have recognised that genocidal intent can co-exist with other motives.
2. Diminishing credibility of ICJ and rules-based international order:
Israel’s continued non-compliance with the ICJ’s binding provisional measures are increasingly being seen as a litmus test for the credibility of rules-based international order and undermines the credibility of ICJ.
Absence of decisive Multilateral Action: Within the UN framework, a strong case has emerged for suspending Israel from the UNGA, citing its persistent violations of the UN Charter and binding Security Council (UNSC) resolutions.
Article 6 of the UN Charter permits the expulsion of a member state by the Assembly on the UNSC’s recommendation if it consistently breaches the Charter’s core principles.
In 2024, the UNGA adopted a resolution calling for economic sanctions on Israel, including an arms embargo. The US, in particular, has continued to shield Israel from accountability by repeatedly vetoing most UNSC resolutions.
A final verdict by the ICJ on South Africa’s genocide allegations against Israel is likely to take years, as it must follow extensive hearings on jurisdiction and the merits of the case.
Context: India's voting pattern at the United Nations (UN) is undergoing a marked transformation. Annual share of abstentions in India’s votes at the UN reaches an all-time high.
Relevance of the Topic:Mains: Can be used as an argument to support India’s increasing voice (stature) as a rising Middle power; or India’s non-alignment (NAM) in changing global dynamics.
India's altered Voting Pattern at the United Nations: Key Trends
An analysis of more than 5,500 different resolutions in the UN that India voted on between 1946 and June 2025 shows that:
Late 1950s-late 1960s: India’s voting pattern remained volatile until the late 1960s, with the percentage of annual ‘yes’ votes swinging between 20% and 100%. The percentage of abstentions fluctuated between 0% and 40%.
In the time period in between: The magnitude of this volatility decreased substantially. India’s voting patterns in the UN became stable, with the share of ‘yes’ votes ranging over 75%, and abstentions under 20%.
From 2019 onwards: The proportion of abstentions by India every year has increased, while the ‘yes’ votes have reduced.
Annual percentage of ‘yes’ votes by India has fallen to 56%, the lowest since 1955.
Annual percentage of abstentions has increased to 44%, the highest share in India’s history at the UN.
Reasons behind the shift in India’s Voting Patterns:
India establishes its own independent position: An increasingly polarised world (greater polarisation between major powers in the UN) has led to India to alter its voting strategy at the UN. This rise in the share of abstentions could help India to establish its own independent position on various issues.
Increasing complexities of resolutions: The increase in abstentions is simultaneously a reflection that UN resolutions have become much more complicated (several different aspects and provisions are bundled up on the same resolution). In such situations, rather than jeopardising bilateral relations, abstention allows diplomatic flexibility and future repositioning of the stand.
Abstention provides emerging and middle powers like India the opportunity to express themselves more freely, rather than merely going along with the consensus or voting against it.
Context: A leadership change in Canada under the Prime Minister Mark Carney has led to a strategic reset in India-Canada ties, with both sides working to restore diplomacy and revive trade talks after a two-year standoff.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: India-Canada Ties: Significance and Challenges.
Background of the Canada - India Tensions
India-Canada relationship faced a major setback in September 2023 when former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Indian agents of being involved in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and pro-Khalistan separatist leader. India denied the allegations, calling them “absurd and motivated,” and responded by expelling Canadian diplomats and suspending visa services.
The situation worsened in October 2024, with further diplomatic expulsions amid Canadian investigations into alleged Indian involvement in clandestine operations targeting Sikh separatists.
Recent Strategic Reset Between India-Canada
A shift in Canada’s leadership and a more pragmatic foreign policy under the new Prime Minister have created an opportunity to reset ties with India, focusing on shared priorities and economic cooperation. The improvements in India-Canada Relations is reflected by:
High-Level Engagement: The new Prime Minister of Canada hosted the Indian Prime Minister at the G7 Summit. Calling it his great honor, the Indian counterpart highlighted the need for win-win cooperation, reflecting a positive shift in bilateral intent.
Mutual Cooperation: Both leaders emphasised cooperation on energy transition, artificial intelligence, and countering transnational repression and terrorism.
Revival of Dialogue: India’s External Affairs Ministry confirmed plans to restart senior ministerial and working-level engagements.
Resumption of the Trade talk: Talks on the Canada-India Free Trade Pact, stalled since 2023, are being revived.
Significance of India-Canada Relations
India-Canada bilateral ties are underpinned by shared values of democracy, pluralism, expanding economic engagement and long standing people-to-people ties.
Strategic Economic Partnership:
Bilateral trade stood at $12.4 billion in 2024, with potential for exponential growth.
Canadian investments in India (direct and indirect) now total nearly CA$100 billion, particularly in infrastructure, financial services, and real estate.
India supplies Canada with pharmaceuticals, textiles, gems and jewelry, while Canada exports potash, timber, paper, and mining products to India.
Educational and People-to-People Ties:
India is the largest source of international students in Canada, contributing significantly to its education sector and economy.
Canada is among the top 5 tourist sources for India. A large and politically active Sikh diaspora in Canada, the largest outside India, influences bilateral dynamics.
Geopolitical and Strategic Convergence:
Both countries are part of democratic alliances and share concerns about transnational terrorism, climate change, and emerging technologies like AI and renewable energy.
Trade diversification is a priority for both amid growing concerns over US tariffs and China’s assertiveness.
Complementary Economic Strengths: Canada seeks to diversify beyond the US market; India offers a young market with rising consumption.
Key Challenges in the Relationship
Khalistan Issue: India sees Canada’s inaction against Khalistan-linked separatist groups as a serious security concern, which continues to cause diplomatic friction.
Pending Extradition Requests: More than two dozen extradition and provisional arrest requests by India, related to individuals charged with extremism, remain unresolved in Canada.
Allegations of Transnational Repression: Canada is investigating the killings of two Sikh separatists and has accused Indian nationals of involvement. While India denies any role, the ongoing legal cases have strained bilateral trust.
Mistrust in Security Cooperation: Canada accuses Indian diplomats of covert surveillance, while India criticizes Canada for ignoring intelligence inputs and not cooperating on counterterror efforts.
Stalled Trade Negotiations: Despite prolonged discussions, both countries have been unable to finalise a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), limiting economic potential.
Way Forward
Revive Strategic Dialogue: Resume high-level diplomatic talks to rebuild trust and strengthen institutional ties.
Boost Security Cooperation: Establish joint mechanisms for intelligence sharing and counterterror collaboration.
Fast-Track Trade Engagement: Accelerate trade talks like EPTA to expand economic cooperation and reduce dependency on third markets.
Adopt Economic-First Approach: Prioritise trade and investment ties regardless of political differences, especially in education and energy.
Leverage Diaspora Diplomacy: Strengthen cultural links through the Indian diaspora while addressing extremist influences diplomatically.
The recent strategic reset signals a move toward pragmatic diplomacy between India and Canada, and signals a shift towards a stable, future-ready partnership focused on trade, trust, and shared global goals.
Context: India and the European Union (EU) are negotiating a Free Trade Agreement. The progress is stalled due to disagreements over food safety norms under Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: About Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures; EU-India FTAMains: India - EU relations.
India-EU Trade and Investment Agreement
India and the European Union (EU) are negotiating a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA), officially known as the India-EU Trade and Investment Agreement.
Despite 12 rounds of talks, key differences over Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) continue to hinder progress.
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures:
The Agreement on the Applications of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures came into force on 1 January 1995 with the establishment of World Trade Organisation (WTO). It set out the basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards.
The Agreement allows countries to set their own standards. However, the regulations must be based on science.
They should be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.
They should not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between countries where identical or similar conditions prevail.
Countries can set higher standards based on appropriate assessment of risks so long as the approach is consistent, not arbitrary.
Indian Concerns
EU’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) exceed global norms, often being stricter than WHO Codex guidelines.
The EU regularly rejects Indian shipments citing differences in standards, including restrictions on the use of methyl bromide fumigation for certain plant products.
As per the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM) report in 2022, the EU enforces stringent aflatoxin limits. E.g.,
For direct human consumption, the EU permits a maximum of 2 µg/kg for aflatoxin B1 and 4 µg/kg for total aflatoxins.
Codex Alimentarius (International food standards body under WHO) has set a more lenient general limit of 15 µg/kg (or 15 parts per billion) for total aflatoxins in peanuts, meant for human consumption.
This divergence in standards often leads to trade disruptions and additional compliance burdens for Indian exporters targeting the EU market.
India - EU Trade
EU is India’s largest and most premium export destination for agricultural items, particularly coffee, tea, spices and rice.
However, India’s exports to the EU have seen limited growth over the years, rising from $3.02 billion in FY19 to $4.54 billion in FY25, largely due to the stringent standards imposed by the EU on foreign agricultural products.
Aflatoxins:
Aflatoxins are a group of poisonous carcinogens and mutagens produced by certain moulds (fungi), particularly Aspergillus species, that grow on various food crops and agricultural commodities.
The toxins are commonly found on agricultural crops such as peanuts, maize (corn), rice and tree nuts, especially in warm and humid climates.
When consumed, they can have severe health implications including acute toxicity, liver cancer, immune system suppression and growth impairments.
Context: The United States has deported few foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes to Eswatini, a small southern African kingdom ruled by Africa’s last absolute monarch.
Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Location of Kingdom of Eswatini.
African Kingdom of Eswatini
Eswatini, formally Swaziland, is a landlocked country in Southern Africa. It is situated between South Africa and Mozambique.
It is one of the world's last remaining absolute monarchies and the last in Africa. King Mswati III, who has ruled since 1986, holds full control of government functions and rules by decree.
Political parties are banned from participating in the electoral process. Protests calling for democratic reforms have grown. The government has been widely accused of using security forces to suppress dissent.
Social Issues: Over half of its 1.2 million population lives on less than $4 a day. The country has the world’s highest HIV prevalence rate, with roughly 26% of adults living with the virus.
US deportation of Foreign Nationals
The deportation to Eswatini is part of a wider US strategy to expand third-country deportations. Earlier, the US had sent deportees to South Sudan. Other nations reportedly approached for similar deals include- Rwanda, Benin, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and Moldova.
The deportees are flown to the the-world countries, as their home countries refuse to take them back. The convicts are held in isolation at correctional facilities, while arrangements are made for their eventual return to their countries of origin.
Rationale: The deportations are part of a wider effort by the US administration to ensure that people who terrorised American communities are removed.
Context: In a recent address, the Lieutenant Governor of UT Jammu & Kashmir emphasised the need for a multi-pronged Counter Terrorism Strategy in the region which is focused on Intelligence, Community engagement, Technology, and Inter-Agency collaboration.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Strategy to Counter Terrorism in J&K.
Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) continues to face a complex security environment, where terrorism is not just a law-and-order problem but also deeply linked to local alienation, external interference, and governance deficits. Hence, a multi-pronged strategy is required.
Multi-Pronged Strategy to Counter Terrorism
Intelligence-based operations.
Community engagement to build trust and gather information.
Use of modern technology like Artificial Intelligence (AI) for threat prediction and surveillance.
Strong inter-agency collaboration between police, armed forces, and central police forces.
Reviving beat policing, which relies on local police officers patrolling and connecting with the community.
Role of State Police in Fighting Terrorism:
The primacy of the local or State police as the fulcrum of counter-terror operations is a well established fact -
Local police understand the terrain, demography, language, and culture better than any outside force.
Connect with the local population facilitates high-grade intelligence of terrorists who operate amidst the population.
The Pahalgam terror attack (April 2025) highlighted a critical gap in human intelligence (HUMINT). Strengthening local police could help prevent such lapses in the future.
Role of Technology in Fighting Terrorism:
Artificial Intelligence (AI), predictive analytics, and real-time data processing help to detect, track, and counter emerging threats.
Balance between Techint (Technical Intelligence) and HUMINT is essential for a responsive and layered security apparatus.
Role of Inter-Agency Collaboration in Counter-Terrorism:
Jammu & Kashmir Police, the Indian Army, and the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) must operate as a cohesive unit to eliminate terrorism and dismantle its support system.
Joint efforts between Police and Central Agencies are vital to intensify targeted strikes on Overground Workers (OGWs) and disrupt networks providing logistical and financial support to terrorists.
Inter-agency cooperation facilitates the pooling of resources, expertise, and jurisdictional powers, making the counter-terror response more agile, adaptive, and comprehensive.
Community Engagement and Participatory Governance
Presently, elected MLAs, sarpanches, and local representatives have been kept out of the security matrix. Jammu and Kashmir Police (JAKP) is kept outside the command of the locally elected government. Excluding elected representatives and local control over J&K Police weakens democratic accountability and hampers community trust in counter-terror efforts.
The local population feel more comfortable to share information with their sarpanch or their MLA than with someone from a central agency.
Restoring the control of the JAKP under the elected government will facilitate better accountability and responsiveness to community needs, ensuring that policing strategies align with the local population’s concerns and aspirations.
Elected officials can play a vital role in bridging the gap between the police and the community, fostering trust and cooperation essential for effective law enforcement and counter terrorism.
Policy makers need to encourage structured dialogue between police forces and local leaders to collaborate and address community concerns, gather information on terror-related activities and enhance public safety initiatives.
A one-size-fits-all approach would not work in J&K, India needs a multi-pronged counter-terrorism strategy rooted in intelligence, trust, governance, and technology. A key step is to empower the local institutions and adapt to regional realities to win both the war and the people's trust.
Context: A recent supplemental award by the Court of Arbitration (CoA) in The Hague has turned attention to the challenges confronting the Indus water Treaty.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: About Indus Water Treaty Mains: Challenges confronting Indus Water Treaty and India's strategic vision.
About Indus Water Treaty
Signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank.
Objective: To determine the distribution of the waters of the Indus and its tributaries between India and Pakistan.
The Treaty divides the six rivers of the Indus basin between the two countries.
The Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) were allocated for exclusive use by India.
The Western Rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) were allocated primarily to Pakistan, but India allowed for specific non-consumptive uses like navigation, flood protection or flood control, Domestic use, Agricultural use, Generation of hydro-electric power etc.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism
The treaty provides 3 step Dispute Resolution Mechanism :
Step 1:Permanent Indus Commission (PIC):
Disputes are first decided at the level of the Indus Commissioners.
The treaty required the creation of a PIC, with a commissioner from each country for communication.
Step 2:Neutral Expert
Appointed by the World Bank and involves rendering a binding decision.
Step 3:Court of Arbitration (CoA)
If a neutral expert fails, the dispute goes to CoA. It is a generally seven-member ad-hoc arbitral tribunal, determines its procedures and decisions by majority vote.
The Indian government has consistently opposed the proceedings of The Hague-based Court of Arbitration ever since its constitution by the World Bank in October 2022.
Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack (April 2025), where over 25 Indian civilians were killed by Pakistan-based militants, India placed the Treaty in abeyance citing Pakistan’s continued support for cross-border terrorism.
Supplemental award by the Court of Arbitration (CoA):
The tribunal rejected India’s suspension of the Treaty. It held that the treaty does not allow unilateral suspension or abeyance by any party.
It stated that India’s decision after April 2025 (following the Pahalgam attack) to suspend the treaty cannot override the binding dispute‑settlement mechanism under Article IX and Annexure G.
The Court unanimously ruled that it has full authority to decide on disputes related to the Kishenganga and Ratle hydropower projects, despite India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance.
India’s Response:
India called the court illegal, the proceedings irrelevant, and reiterated that the Treaty stands in abeyance until Pakistan abjures cross-border terrorism.
During this period, India is not obligated to comply with the treaty’s provisions, rendering any arbitration proceedings or decisions by this body without jurisdiction or legal standing.
India's Strategic Choices:
India can continue boycotting the Court of Arbitration to deny its legitimacy.
It can withdraw from the Treaty entirely, though this carries risks.
It might also maximise its legal entitlements including the neutral expert’s forthcoming decision, and use structural advantages to pressure Pakistan without breaching the agreement.
India can offer conditional cooperation using upstream geography as leverage, if Pakistan meets clear and verifiable conditions.
India should expand its infrastructure and fully utilise both its entitled share of the eastern rivers and its permissible use of the western ones under the Treaty.
Craft a diplomatic path that connects peace efforts with counter-terror commitments.
India needs to communicate clearly to the world that India is not undermining peace, but seeking meaningful cooperation based on accountability.
Context: The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for two senior Taliban leaders for the crime of persecuting women, girls, and others who oppose the gender policy of the government.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Rome Statute, Facts about ICC.
ICC issues Arrest Warrant against Taliban Leaders
Warrant issued against: Two senior Taliban leaders- Supreme leader Hibatullah Akhunzada and the head of Afghanistan's Supreme Court- Abdul Hakim Haqqani.
Ground: On charges of systematic persecution of women and girls.
Legal Basis- Afghanistan’s ICC Membership: ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed on Afghan soil or by Afghan nationals after Afghanistan acceded to the Rome Statute in 2003.
Systematic Persecution of Women and Girls in Afghanistan:
Taliban has severely deprived girls and women of:
basic human rights like education, privacy, and family life
freedoms of movement, expression, thought, conscience, and religion.
E.g., barring girls from secondary schools, beauty salons, excluding women from most workplaces, and restricting their movement without a male guardian.
144-page Morality Law (2024) promulgated by the Taliban includes provisions requiring women to cover their entire body in public, and to not sing or even speak in public. It forbids women and men from looking at each other in public, and provides for the persecution of LGBTQIA+ people.
What is the International Criminal Court?
ICC’s law on Crimes Against Humanity:
Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as :
Crimes against humanity include persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender… or other grounds universally recognised as impermissible under international law, carried out as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
Impact of the ICC's Warrant:
The warrants mark the first time the global court has taken legal action directly against the Taliban leadership for gender-based persecution.
However ICC’s warrant is unlikely to result in any arrest, as Taliban rejects ICC jurisdiction, rendering the warrant unenforceable in Afghanistan.
Context: The UAE government has given clarification on eligibility and investment criteria for its Golden Visa scheme, dismissing the widespread media claims in India about a ₹23 lakh visa as false.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about UAE's Golden Visa.
What is the UAE’s Golden visa?
The UAE’s ‘Golden visa’ is a long-term residence visa which enables foreign talents to live, work or study in the UAE while enjoying exclusive benefits which include:
entry visa for 6 months with multiple entries to proceed with residence issuance
long-term, renewable residence visa valid for 5 or 10 years
privilege of not needing a sponsor.
ability to stay outside the UAE for more than the usual period of 6 months in order to keep their residence visa valid
ability to sponsor their family members, including spouses and children and domestic helpers
permit for family members to stay in the UAE until the end of their permit duration, if the primary holder of the Golden visa passes away.
Who is a Sponsor?
In the context of the UAE residency system, a sponsor refers to a local individual or organisation (usually an employer or relative) who takes legal responsibility for a foreign national residing in the UAE.
The sponsor has the legal right to cancel the visa of the person they are sponsoring.
Categories eligible for UAE Golden Visa
How much money has to be spent for the visa: AED 2 million for real estate and other investors. Main categories of individuals eligible for the UAE Golden Visa :
Public investors: People willing to invest dirhams (AED) 2 million in an accredited UAE investment fund. There are some requirements for this:
investors must possess a valid commercial or industrial licence
a tax certificate to prove annual tax contribution of at least AED 2,50,000
Entrepreneurs: People willing to invest AED 5,00,000 in any project approved by the authorities are eligible. The projects need to be tech-based.
Real estate investors: People owning property worth AED 2 million (not under mortgage) along with proof of residence in the UAE.
Exceptional talent: Doctors, scientists, athletes and domain experts.
Outstanding students, Humanitarian pioneers and Frontline heroes.
Who is not Eligible?
The UAE has clarified that crypto investors are not eligible for this visa.
Golden Visa available in the US:
Requirement: Applicants who invest $1 million in a non-targeted area or invest $8,00,000 in a targeted, rural area with high unemployment, and create 10 full-time jobs for US workers are eligible for the EB-5 visa.
Benefit: The US EB-5 visa also allows permanent residency.
How is the UAE Golden Visa different from the US Green Card?
The UAE Golden Visa offers long-term but temporary residency, while the US Green Card provides permanent residency.
The Golden Visa has no citizenship pathway, whereas Green Card holders can apply for US citizenship after 5 years (or 3 years if married to a US citizen).
