WASHINGTON — At a moment when hope for peace seemed lost, senior U.S. officials, led by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012 that would be touted for years as a historic diplomatic achievement. She would later campaign on her strategic prowess for the presidency against Donald Trump.
In 2014, a similar ceasefire was brokered between the two parties during yet another war by Clinton’s successor, John Kerry, also seen at the time as a diplomatic coup. But in the first 72 hours of that ceasefire, without clarity on the precise lines of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas operatives ambushed an Israeli Defense Forces patrol decommissioning a tunnel, throwing peace in doubt. The remains of the Israeli soldier caught in that raid have been held by Hamas ever since.
History shows that Trump’s achievement this week, brokering a new truce between Israel and Hamas after their most devastating war yet, is filled with opportunity and peril for the president.
A lasting ceasefire could cement him a legacy as a peacemaker, long sought by Trump, who has harnessed President Nixon’s madman theory of diplomacy to coerce several other warring parties into ceasefires and settlements. But the record of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows that consistent interest and engagement by the president may be necessary to ensure any peace can hold.
Hamas and Israel agreed on Wednesday to implement the first phase of Trump’s proposed 20-point peace plan, exchanging all remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas since its Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel in exchange for 1,700 detainees from Gaza, as well as 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences in Israel.
Only the first phase has been agreed to thus far.
Guns are expected to fall silent Friday, followed by a partial withdrawal of Israeli forces that would initially leave roughly half of the Gaza Strip — along its periphery bordering Israel — within Israeli military control. A 72-hour clock would then begin after the partial withdrawal is complete, counting down to the hostage release.
Achieving this alone is a significant victory for Trump, who leveraged deep ties with Arab partners built over his first administration and political clout among the Israeli right and with its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to bring the deal to a close.
The president’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, had been working toward a ceasefire for months, starting back during the presidential transition period nearly one year ago. He found little success on his own.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio writes a note before handing it to President Trump during a White House meeting Wednesday.
(Evan Vucci / Associated Press)
It was Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who designed the Abraham Accords in Trump’s first term and maintains close ties with Netanyahu and Arab governments, took an unofficial yet active role in a recent diplomatic push that helped secure an agreement, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter.
“None of this would have happened without Jared,” the source said.
Speaking with reporters from the White House, Trump took a victory lap over the truce, claiming not only credit for a hostage and ceasefire deal but the historic achievement of a broader Middle East peace.
“We ended the war in Gaza and really, on a much bigger basis, created peace. And I think it’s going to be a lasting peace — hopefully an everlasting peace. Peace in the Middle East,” Trump said.
“We secured the release of all of the remaining hostages,” he added. “And they should be released on Monday or Tuesday — getting them is a complicated process. I’d rather not tell you what they have to do to get them. They’re in places you don’t want to be.”
An opening emerged for a diplomatic breakthrough after Israel conducted an extraordinary strike on a Hamas target in Doha, shaking the confidence of the Qatari government, a key U.S. ally. While Doha has hosted Hamas’ political leadership for years, Qatar’s leadership thought their relationship with Washington would protect them from Israeli violations of its territory.
Trump sought a deal with Qatar, a U.S. official said, that would assure them with security guarantees in exchange for delivering Hamas leadership on a hostage deal. Separately, Egypt — which has intelligence and sourcing capabilities in Gaza seen by the U.S. government as second only to Israel’s — agreed to apply similar pressure, the official said.
“There’s an argument here, that presumably the Qataris are making to Hamas — which is that they lost, this round anyway, and that it’s going to take them a very long time to rebuild. But the war must come to an end for the rebuilding to start,” said Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat from the Reagan, George W. Bush and first Trump administrations.
“On Friday, the Nobel Peace Prize will be announced, and he won’t get it,” Abrams said, adding that, if the deal falls through, “I think the Israelis are going to be saying to him, ‘This is a game. They didn’t really accept your plan.’”
“I don’t think, in the end, he’ll blame the Israelis for ruining the deal,” Abrams continued. “I think he’ll blame Hamas.”
Amit Segal writes that “change is afoot,” as Doha is finally pressing Hamas to accept the Gaza peace deal President Trump has put on the table (“
Why Qatar Changed Course on Hamas,” op-ed, Oct. 1). Qatari support for the proposal is a positive development, but the U.S. should be cautious it isn’t fleeting. Doha has played double games before, and unless it sustains its pressure on Hamas, this may prove to be another one.
Qatar’s next move will be telling. Hamas agreed in part on Friday to the Trump administration’s proposal for Gaza, essentially saying, “Yes, but,” with the apparent intention of stalling the plan’s roll out. If talks drag on, will Doha increase the pressure on its longtime client, or back new conditions that Hamas demands and side with terrorists as it did on Oct. 7, 2023?
DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — Hamas said Friday that it has accepted some elements of U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in the Gaza Strip, including giving up power and releasing all remaining hostages, but that others require further consultations among Palestinians.
The statement came hours after Trump said that Hamas must agree to the deal by Sunday evening, threatening an even greater military onslaught nearly two years into the war sparked by the Oct. 7 attack into Israel. There was no immediate response from the United States or Israel, which is largely shut down for the Jewish Sabbath.
Hamas said it was willing to return all remaining hostages according to the plan’s “formula,” likely referring to the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange. It also reiterated its longstanding openness to handing power over to a politically independent Palestinian body.
But it said aspects of the proposal touching on the future of the Gaza Strip and Palestinian rights should be decided on the basis of a “unanimous Palestinian stance” reached with other factions and based on international law.
The statement also made no mention of Hamas disarming, a key Israeli demand included in Trump’s proposal.
Trump’s plan would end the fighting and return hostages Trump appears keen to deliver on pledges to end the war and return dozens of hostages ahead of the second anniversary of the attack on Tuesday. His peace plan has been accepted by Israel and welcomed internationally, but key mediators Egypt and Qatar have said some elements need further negotiation.
“If this LAST CHANCE agreement is not reached, all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas,” Trump wrote Friday on social media. “THERE WILL BE PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.”
Under the plan, which Trump unveiled earlier this week alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Hamas would immediately release the remaining 48 hostages — around 20 of them believed to be alive. It would also give up power and disarm.
In return, Israel would halt its offensive and withdraw from much of the territory, release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and allow an influx of humanitarian aid and eventual reconstruction. Plans to relocate much of Gaza’s population to other countries would be shelved.
The territory of some 2 million Palestinians would be placed under international governance, with Trump himself and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair overseeing it. The plan provides no path for eventual reunification with the Israeli-occupied West Bank in a future Palestinian state.
Palestinians long for an end to the war, but many view this and previous U.S. proposals as strongly favoring Israel.
Hamas officials air objections in TV interviews Trump’s proposal “cannot be implemented without negotiations,” Mousa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official based outside of Gaza, told the Al Jazeera network.
He said it might be difficult for Hamas release all the hostages within 72 hours as the proposal dictates, because it could take days or weeks to locate the remains of some of the captives.
Abu Marzouk said Hamas was willing to hand over its weapons to a future Palestinian body that runs Gaza, but there was no mention of that in the official statement. He also took issue with the proposal’s language about ridding Gaza of terrorists, since Hamas considers itself a national liberation movement.
Another Hamas official, Osama Hamdan, told Al Araby television that Hamas would refuse foreign administration of the Gaza Strip and that the entry of foreign forces would be “unacceptable.”
US and Israel seek to pressure Hamas Israel has sought to ramp up pressure on Hamas since ending an earlier ceasefire in March. It sealed the territory off from food, medicine and other goods for 2 1/2 months and has seized, flattened and largely depopulated large areas.
Experts determined that Gaza City had slid into famine shortly before Israel launched a major offensive aimed at occupying it. An estimated 400,000 people have fled the city in recent weeks, but hundreds of thousands more have stayed behind.
Olga Cherevko, a spokesperson for the U.N. humanitarian office, said she saw several displaced families staying in the parking lot of Shifa Hospital during a visit on Thursday.
“They are not able to move south because they just cannot afford it,” Cherevko told The Associated Press. “One of the families had three children and the woman was pregnant with her fourth. And there were many other vulnerable cases there, including elderly people and people with disabilities.”
Trump wrote that most of Hamas’ fighters are “surrounded and MILITARILY TRAPPED, just waiting for me to give the word, ‘GO,’ for their lives to be quickly extinguished. As for the rest, we know where and who you are, and you will be hunted down, and killed.”
Most of Hamas’ top leaders in Gaza and thousands of its fighters have already been killed, but it still has influence in areas not controlled by the Israeli military and launches sporadic attacks that have killed and wounded Israeli soldiers.
Hamas has held firm to its position that it will only release the remaining hostages — its sole bargaining chip and potential human shields — in exchange for a lasting ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal. Netanyahu has rejected those terms, saying Hamas must surrender and disarm.
Second anniversary approaches Thousands of Hamas-led militants stormed into Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, attacking army bases, farming communities and an outdoor music festival, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians. They abducted 251 others, most of them since released in ceasefires or other deals.
Israel’s retaliatory offensive has killed more than 66,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, which does not say how many were civilians or combatants. It says women and children make up around half the dead.
The ministry is part of the Hamas-run government, and the U.N. and many independent experts consider its figures to be the most reliable estimate of wartime casualties.
The offensive has displaced around 90% of Gaza’s population, often multiple times, and left much of the territory uninhabitable.
Both the Biden and Trump administrations have tried to end the fighting and bring back the hostages while providing extensive military and diplomatic support to Israel.
Walter Russell Mead is the Ravenel B. Curry III Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship at Hudson Institute, the Global View Columnist at The Wall Street Journal and the Alexander Hamilton Professor of Strategy and Statecraft with the Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida.
He is also a member of Aspen Institute Italy and board member of Aspenia. Before joining Hudson, Mr. Mead was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations as the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy. He has authored numerous books, including the widely-recognized Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004). Mr. Mead’s most recent book is entitled The Arc of A Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People.
Remember the vaunted Trump-Putin summit? It was just a month ago this week, but Americans could be excused for having forgotten. Nothing good has come of it. The cringy Alaska photo-op for the American and Russian presidents certainly didn’t yield President Trump’s long-promised deal to end Vladimir Putin’s criminal war on Ukraine.
In fact, as each day since has shown, worse than nothing has come from that failed bro-fest. Which begs renewed attention to it. Putin arrived to Trump’s literal red-carpet welcome and left with an apparent if unstated license — as then-candidate Trump said last year of the Russians — “to do whatever the hell they want.”
And they have.
On Tuesday last week, a Russian bomb hit a group of Ukrainian retirees collecting their pension checks, killing two dozen and injuring more — another day’s civilian toll in Putin’s ongoing offensive, the harshest in more than three years of war and one that’s struck U.S. and European installations. The next day, stunningly, about 20 Russian drones flew over next-door Poland, a NATO ally, forcing the alliance to scramble jets to shoot down threats over its territory for the first time in NATO history.
And mostly we’ve heard bupkis from Trump — except to keep blaming the war on his predecessor President Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, never Putin. Even servile Senate Republicans have roused themselves to press for punishing sanctions against Russia, but Trump withholds his blessing.
You’d think the self-proclaimed “president of peace” would at least be riled that Putin’s impunity since Alaska is a stick in the eye to Trump’s wife as well. Melania Trump wrote Putin a letter — which Trump delivered at their summit — urging him to protect children. “It was very well received,” Trump boasted later.
What a tragic irony that the president who promised he’d end the Ukraine war on “day one,” and who incessantly contends Russia never would have invaded had he, Putin’s friend, been president in 2022, now presides over Russia’s escalation of the war and its unprecedented incursion into NATO territory. And Trump acts all but impotent.
For three years until his return to power, Russia did not test the United States’ pledge to “defend every inch” of NATO territory. Now it has. And at the news of the Poland intrusion, Trump, the supposed leader of the free world, showed himself to be little more than an internet troll.
“What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones? Here we go!” was his online outburst long hours after the news last Wednesday. The next day he suggested the drones’ flight into Poland “could have been a mistake,” provoking rebuttals from Polish leaders and NATO allies. And when NATO’s European members last Friday reinforced the alliance’s eastern flank defenses against Russia, they announced no U.S. contributions.
Much was made last spring of Trump’s nickname among some Wall Street types for his on-again, off-again tariffs: “TACO,” for Trump Always Chickens Out. But that moniker better describes Trump’s Russia stance: He repeatedly sets up a face-off against Putin, and invariably face-plants.
For weeks ahead of the August summit, Trump threatened “extreme consequences” if Russia didn’t agree to a cease-fire. Then, as quickly as U.S. soldiers rolled out the red carpet for Putin, Trump rolled up his cease-fire talk. After hours under Putin’s sway, he came away talking not about what Russia would do for peace but what territorial concessions Ukraine would make. And a month later, he’s still resisting Congress’ proposed sanctions against Russia, even as he’s levied big tariffs on India and China in part as punishment for buying Russian oil.
Nothing Trump claimed would happen as a consequence of his summitry has come to pass. Not a meeting between Putin and Zelensky, nor a trilateral follow-up with the Nobel-coveting Trump joining as mediating peacemaker. Putin has had high-level meetings since the Alaska summit, but they’ve been with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un — all drawn closer in solidarity against the United States’ hegemony.
Trump’s embarrassingly weak response to Russia’s aggression, together with his passivity in the face of Israel’s defiance in renewing its offensive in starving Gaza, recently prompted a New York Times analysis declaring “the bystander phase of the Trump presidency.” A Wall Street Journal headline said Trump is “sidelining himself” in foreign policy. On Wednesday, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote that, just as Trump sought to rename the Department of Defense to be the Department of War, the White House should be called “Waffle House.” (Or Taco Bell?) The criticisms are international: Poland’s deputy prime minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, said in a video last week that Putin, by his hostilities, is “mocking” Trump’s peace talk.
There’s mockery indeed in Moscow, where politicians and state-run media continue to celebrate Putin as the summit winner. Russians weren’t quaking in their valenki when Trump told “Fox & Friends” hosts on Friday that his patience with Russia is “running out fast.” Alexei Zhuravlyov, a leader of the Russian State Duma, said Trump’s “normal state” is “either waiting to talk to Putin, talking to Putin or explaining how well he talked to Putin.” Pundit Mikhail Rostovsky dismissed Trump’s fussing and threats as “a new ‘Groundhog Day.’”
“The Kremlin believes that Russia is slowly but surely achieving its goals in Ukraine,” Rostovsky added. “Therefore Moscow does not intend to stop there.”
Putin has said as much himself. Only Trump doesn’t seem to hear him. Or doesn’t want to.
By hosting an unprecedented short-notice summit with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and key European leaders on Monday, President Trump significantly raised the prospects for ending Russia’s three-and-a-half-year-long war against Ukraine. The vibe at the opening was affable and positive. The participants genuinely looked determined to work out compromises that only a few weeks ago appeared illusory. It was a good sign for long-term Euro-Atlantic security cooperation in the face of challenges that, in Trump’s words, we have not faced since World War II. Toward the end, Trump’s call to Moscow brought a follow-up U.S.-Ukraine-Russia summit within reach.
But the rising expectations also reveal formidable obstacles on the path to peace. As the world’s leaders were heading to Washington, Putin’s forces unleashed 182 infantry assaults, 152 massive glide bombs, more than 5,100 artillery rounds and 5,000 kamikaze drones on Ukraine’s defenses and 140 long-range drones and four Iskander ballistic missiles on Ukraine’s cities. The attacks claimed at least 10 civilian lives, including a small child. This is how Russia attacks Ukraine daily, signaling disrespect for Trump’s diplomacy.
The Monday summit also revealed that Putin’s ostensible concession at the Alaska summit to agree to international security guarantees for Ukraine is a poisoned chalice. On the surface, it seemed like a breakthrough toward compromise. The White House summit participants jumped on it and put the guarantees at the center of discussions.
And yet there has been no agreement, and the world has more questions than answers. How could the Ukrainian armed forces be strengthened to deter Russia? Who would pay? How could Russia be prevented from rebuilding its Black Sea Fleet and blocking Ukrainian grain exports? What troop deployments would be needed? Who would put boots on the ground in Ukraine? What kind of guarantees should match what kind of territorial concessions?
Such questions are fraught with complex debates. Between the U.S. and Europe. Within Europe. Within the Trump administration. Within Ukraine. And all of that even before having to negotiate the issue with the Kremlin. The net outcome of the past week’s diplomatic huddles will be Putin buying time for his aggression as Washington abstains from sanctions hoping for peace.
Disingenuously, in exchange for this poisoned chalice of a concession, Putin demanded that Ukraine should cede not only lands currently under Russia’s illegal military occupation but also a large piece of the Donetsk province still under Kyiv’s control. That area is home to 300,000 people and is a major defense stronghold. Controlling it would give Russia a springboard to deeper attacks targeting big cities and threatening to bring Ukraine to its knees.
Putin’s offer also threatens to tear apart Ukraine’s society. In my tracking poll with Ukraine’s Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology completed in early August, close to half of 567 respondents want Ukraine to reassert control over all of its internationally recognized territories, including the Crimean peninsula illegally annexed in 2014. Only 20% would be content with freezing the conflict along the current front lines. The option of ceding territories to Russia still under Kyiv control is so outrageous that it was not included in the survey. Eighty percent of Ukrainians continue to have faith in Ukraine’s victory and to see democracy and free speech — core values Putin would take away — as vital for Ukraine’s future.
Getting Ukrainian society right is important for Trump’s peace effort to succeed. Discounting Ukrainians’ commitment to freedom and independence has a lot to do with where we are now. Putin launched the all-out invasion in February 2022 expecting Ukrainians to embrace Russian rule. Then-President Biden assessed that Ukrainians would fold quickly and delayed major military assistance to Kyiv.
Misjudging Ukrainians now would most likely result in a rejection of peace proposals and possibly a political crisis there, inviting more aggression from Moscow while empowering more dogged resistance to the invasion, with a long, bloody war grinding on.
Thankfully, Trump has the capacity to keep the peace process on track. First, he can amplify two critically important messages he articulated at the Monday summit: U.S. willingness to back up Ukraine’s security guarantees and to continue to sell weapons to Ukraine if no peace deal is reached. Second, he can use his superb skills at strategic ambiguity and pivot back to threats of leveraging our submarine power and of imposing secondary sanctions on countries trading with Russia. Third, he can drop a hint he’d back up the Senate’s bipartisan Supporting Ukraine Act of 2025, which would provide military assistance to Ukraine over two years from confiscated Russian assets, the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal proceeds and investment in America’s military modernization.
The Monday summit makes the urgency of these and similar moves glaringly clear.
Mikhail Alexseev, a professor of international relations at San Diego State University, is the author of “Without Warning: Threat Assessment, Intelligence, and Global Struggle” and principal investigator of the multiyear “War, Democracy and Society” survey in Ukraine.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The recent summit between Trump, Zelenskyy, and European leaders represents a significant breakthrough that has substantially raised the prospects for ending Russia’s prolonged war against Ukraine. The author emphasizes that participants appeared genuinely determined to work out compromises that seemed impossible just weeks earlier, marking a positive development for Euro-Atlantic security cooperation in the face of challenges not seen since World War II.
Putin’s offer of international security guarantees for Ukraine constitutes a deceptive “poisoned chalice” that appears promising on the surface but creates more problems than solutions. The author argues that this ostensible concession has generated complex debates about military strengthening, funding, territorial deployments, and guarantee structures without providing clear answers, ultimately allowing Putin to buy time for continued aggression while Washington abstains from sanctions.
Putin’s territorial demands are fundamentally outrageous and threaten Ukraine’s social fabric, as the author notes that surveys show nearly half of Ukrainians want complete territorial restoration while only 20% would accept freezing current front lines. The author contends that ceding additional territories currently under Kyiv’s control would provide Russia with strategic springboards for deeper attacks and potentially bring Ukraine to its knees.
Trump possesses the strategic capacity to maintain momentum in the peace process through amplifying U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s security guarantees, utilizing strategic ambiguity regarding military threats, and supporting bipartisan legislation that would provide sustained military assistance through confiscated Russian assets and defense modernization investments.
Different views on the topic
Trump’s approach to Putin diplomacy has been criticized as counterproductive, with concerns that his warm reception of the Russian leader constituted a major public relations victory for the Kremlin dictator that was particularly painful for Ukrainians to witness[1]. Critics argue that Trump’s treatment gave Putin undeserved legitimacy on the international stage during ongoing aggression.
Analysis suggests that Trump’s negotiation strategy fundamentally misunderstands Putin’s objectives, with observers noting that while Trump appears to view peace negotiations as a geopolitical real estate transaction, Putin is not merely fighting for Ukrainian land but for Ukraine itself[1]. This perspective challenges the assumption that territorial concessions could satisfy Russian ambitions.
Military and diplomatic experts advocate for increased pressure on Russia rather than accommodation, arguing that Russian rejection of NATO troop deployments in Ukraine and resistance to agreed policy steps demonstrates the need to make Putin’s war more costly through additional sanctions on the Russian economy and advanced weapons supplies to Ukraine[1]. These voices contend that Putin’s opposition to current proposals underscores the necessity of making continued warfare harder for Russia to sustain.
ANCHORAGE — President Trump made his expectations clear entering a summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday: “I won’t be happy if I walk away without some form of a ceasefire,” he said aboard Air Force One.
Yet he did, emerging from their meeting in a diplomatic retreat, endorsing Russia’s territorial ambitions and adopting Putin’s position that would put off ceasefire negotiations in favor of more comprehensive talks.
Trump told his European counterparts he had agreed with Putin’s demand that Ukraine make territorial concessions to end the conflict, a painful prospect for Ukrainians at the heart of the war, a European official told The Times on Saturday.
Trump also wrote on social media that he would adopt the Kremlin line deferring talks on an imminent ceasefire.
“It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,” Trump wrote on social media. “If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people’s lives will be saved.”
It was a remarkable success for Putin, who sees a Russian edge on the battlefield and has put off discussions of a ceasefire for months as Russian forces press their advantage along the Ukrainian front lines.
Putin was greeted on the tarmac of Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson with applause and smiles from the American president and offered a ride in his iconic vehicle. After years in isolation over his repeated invasions of Ukraine, facing an indictment from the International Criminal Court over war crimes, a red carpet awaited Putin on U.S. soil.
Landing in Washington, Trump spoke with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as the secretary-general of NATO and other European leaders. A follow-up meeting with Zelensky is scheduled for Monday in Washington.
But achieving a peace agreement is an even higher bar than the ceasefire that has eluded the Trump administration in recent months, requiring comprehensive, often protracted negotiations that, in the meantime, will allow Russia to continue its battlefield offensive.
The New York Times first reported details of Trump’s conversations with European leaders.
Details of the meeting are still unclear. In Alaska, both men referenced “agreements” in statements to reporters. But Trump acknowledged the question that matters most — whether Russia is prepared to implement a ceasefire — remains unresolved.
Share via
“We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left,” Trump said. “Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there.”
In a follow-up interview on Fox News, Trump said the meeting went well. “But we’ll see,” he said. “You know, you have to get a deal.”
Trump’s failure to secure a ceasefire from Putin surprised few analysts, who see Putin with the military initiative, pushing forward with offensive incursions along the front, and offering no indication he plans to relent.
The question is whether Putin will be able to sustain Trump’s goodwill when the war continues grinding on. On Friday alone, hours before the summit began, Russian forces struck a civilian market in the Ukrainian city of Sumy.
The Russian delegation left immediately after the press availability, providing no comments to the press corps on how the meetings went behind closed doors. And after sitting down with Fox, Trump promptly left Anchorage for Washington. The White House issued no statements, readouts or fact sheets on the summit. Administration officials fell silent.
“Putin is going to have to give Trump some kind of concession so that he is not completely embarrassed,” said Darren Kew, dean of the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies at the University of San Diego, “probably a pledge of a ceasefire very soon — one of Trump’s key demands — followed by a promise to meet the Ukrainians for talks this fall.”
“Both serve Putin’s goals of delay and appeasing Trump, while allowing more time for Russian battlefield victories,” Kew added, “since ceasefires can easily be broken, and peace talks can drag on for years.”
In brief remarks of his own, Putin said that points of agreement reached with Trump would likely face opposition across Europe, including from Ukraine itself, warning continental allies not to “torpedo nascent progress” in follow-up talks with the White House.
“I would like to hope that the agreement that we have reached together will help us bring us close to that goal, and will pave the path toward peace in Ukraine,” Putin said. “We expect that Kyiv and European capitals will perceive that constructively, and that they won’t throw a wrench in the works.”
It was an acknowledgment that whatever terms agreed upon bilaterally between Putin and Trump’s team are almost certainly unacceptable to Ukraine, a party to the conflict that has lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting Russia’s invasion since February 2022.
The Financial Times reported Saturday that Putin had demanded Ukraine cede two eastern administrative divisions at the heart of the conflict — Donetsk and Luhansk — in exchange for Moscow agreeing to freeze the rest of the front line.
Trump told Fox that a Russian takeover of Ukrainian lands was discussed and “agreed upon,” pending Ukrainian approval — an unlikely prospect given vocal opposition from Zelensky and provisions in the Ukrainian Constitution that prohibit the concession of territory.
“Those are points that we negotiated, and those are points that we largely have agreed upon, actually. I think we’ve agreed on a lot,” Trump said. “I think we’re pretty close to a deal. Now, look. Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they’ll say no.”
Europe and Ukraine have argued that conceding land to Putin is not enough. After invading Crimea in 2014, and successfully holding it, Putin came back for more territory in the eastern Donbas — only to launch a full-scale invasion of the country in 2022.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said this week that its war aims remain unchanged.
“We’re convinced that in order to make the settlement last in the long term, we need to eliminate all the primary roots, the primary causes of that conflict,” Putin said, “to consider all legitimate concerns of Russia, and to reinstate a just balance of security in Europe, and in the world on the whole.”
“The root causes of the conflict,” he added, “must be resolved.”
ANCHORAGE — Vladimir Putin is lavishing praise on President Trump ahead of their high-stakes summit in Alaska on Friday, thanking his host for “energetic and sincere efforts to stop the fighting” in Ukraine over three years since the Russian leader attempted to conquer the country.
Trump, at the White House, also expressed optimism ahead of the talks, telling reporters he believes Putin “would like to see a deal” after suffering more than a million Russian casualties on the battlefield.
Yet Russian Foreign Ministry officials said Wednesday that Putin’s war aims remain “unchanged.” And an aggressive Russian advance along the front lines this week provided evidence to military analysts that Moscow has no plans to implement a ceasefire.
It was a day of diplomatic maneuvering ahead of an extraordinary visit from a Russian president to the U.S. homeland, and the first audience Putin has received with a Western leader since the war began.
“It’s going to be very interesting — we’re going to find out where everybody stands,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday. “If it’s a bad meeting, it’ll end very quickly. And if it’s a good meeting, we’re going to end up getting peace in the very near future.”
Putin’s positioning ahead of the summit, and Trump’s eagerness for a deal, continue to fuel worries across Europe and in Ukraine that the Alaska negotiations could result in a bilateral agreement designed by Moscow and endorsed by Washington that sidelines Kyiv.
In London, Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday, offering support for Trump’s effort while placing the onus on Putin to “prove he is serious about peace.”
“They agreed there had been a powerful sense of unity and a strong resolve to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine,” 10 Downing Street said in a statement.
Trump said the Alaska summit, to be held at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, is meant to “set the table” for direct talks between Putin and Zelensky that could include himself and European leaders.
Journalists stand outside Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage on Thursday ahead of Friday’s summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)
But addressing reporters, Trump suggested that denying Putin dominion over all of Ukraine — and allowing him to hold on to the territories he has seized militarily — would be concession enough from Moscow. The president had said in recent days that land “swapping” would be part of an ultimate peace settlement, a statement rejected by Kyiv.
“I think President Putin would like to see a deal,” Trump said. “I think if I weren’t president, he would take over all of Ukraine.”
“I am president, and he’s not going to mess around with me,” he added.
Russian state media reported Thursday that Putin had gathered his advisors to inform them of “how the negotiation process on the Ukrainian crisis is going.”
Trump, “in my opinion, quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the fighting, stop the crisis and reach agreements that are of interest to all parties involved in this conflict,” Putin said.
But U.S. efforts to get Russia to halt the fighting have proved futile for months, with Moscow pressing forward in an offensive that has secured incremental gains on the battlefield.
“Putin thinks that he is winning this war militarily,” said Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project, which collaborates with the Institute for the Study of War to produce daily battlefield assessments on the conflict. “He’s also confident that Western support for Ukraine, and particularly U.S. support, will break, and that when it does, Ukraine will collapse, and he’ll be able to take control of the whole thing.”
“It’s been his theory of victory for a long time,” Kagan said, “and it’s a huge part of the problem, because he’s not going to make any concessions so long as he’s confident that he’s winning.”
Russian incursions along a strategic portion of the front line, near a crucial Ukrainian logistics hub, spooked Ukraine’s supporters earlier this week. While serious, Kagan said that Russia does not hold the territory, and said that the conditions for offensive Russian operations had been set over the course of months.
“The Russians continue to have the initiative, and they continue to make gains,” he added. “The first step in changing Putin’s calculation about the war is to urgently help the Ukrainians stop the gains.”
Zelensky, after meeting with Starmer in London, said that he and the British leader had “discussed expectations for the meeting in Alaska and possible prospects.”
“We also discussed in considerable detail the security guarantees that can make peace truly durable,” Zelensky said, “if the United States succeeds in pressing Russia to stop the killings and engage in genuine, substantive diplomacy.”
Trump and Putin plan on arriving of the U.S. airbase within moments of one another, and are expected to meet on the tarmac before retreating into a private meeting.
After a while, your conversations and, to some degree, your thoughts about religion and spirituality begin to run together. On this walk, I understand that speed is not an essential quality, but rather, a slower pace proves much more enlightening. Therefore, it is more likely that being still is preferential to being quick. My point is that words like prayer, peace, intimacy, personal, and balance all take on different, although complementary, meanings when it comes to God. Haven’t you heard many preachers say, suggest, or question whether or not you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus? Most people who profess to be Christian or claim to be saved say yes, of course. I know I have. But when I thought about it, I wondered, do I? This is when being still becomes so important (to me). If you think about it, how do you become personal to, or with, another human being, let alone God? Personal relationships result from a whole set of experiences, events, and challenges shared between people. Once established, like it or not, personal is a permanent state of being between you and that other person.
I happen to believe the same is true with God. You can’t be intimate with another being until you’ve become personal. That’s just a fact. Look at how many relationships start with what you think or fool yourself into believing is intimacy, only to find out later that when you want to relate personally, you find yourself trying to relate to a total stranger. If that happens in this world, it is understandable that it can easily happen in a world created and controlled by the Lord. To become personal, you must share all the little secrets, indiscretions, flaws, faults, and sins. Like a close personal friend or lover, you must confide in the Lord and, through Jesus, know He’s listening. When I slow down and deliberately still my consciousness, that’s when it makes sense to pray. Prayer is a personal conversation, the kind that you have with someone who knows and cares about you or whom you truly care about. Prayer is a central mechanism that relates to those involved with crises and love, those issues of the body, mind, and, yes, even the soul. Let’s see. Intimacy can only be achieved by establishing a close personal relationship. A close personal relationship can only be established by a conscious, consistent attempt to be transparent to someone else; no games, no hidden agendas. Prayer is the conversation, the vehicle to establish the framework in which personal relationships can provide spiritual intimacy. This seems to be the key to peace and balance, which I mentioned earlier. I’m not by any means saying this is easy. I’m simply saying God has a wonderful way of reminding us to be still. Stop playing. Listen, or better yet, expose yourself to His hugs and kisses. Cry on His shoulder. Ask for his help. Recognize that His counsel, much like that of a best friend, may not be what you want to hear but what you need to hear because it’s grounded in unconditional love for you, and His counsel is based on the truth. Maybe you can deal with this on the fly, but I can’t. If I equate my relationship to the Almighty on the principles of the best relationships I’ve had here on earth, then I’ve got work to do. There are still conversations (prayers) to be had and things to reveal. My vessel is not yet empty, but I’m working on it in an effort to replace my mess with God’s blessings. I want to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and I’m told by my hopefully good friend Jesus that being still is a good place to start. So my advice to you is also to stop, look and listen.
May God bless you too.
This column is from James Washington’s Spiritually Speaking: Reflections for and from a New Christian. You can purchase this enlightening book on Amazon and start your journey toward spiritual enlightenment.
Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo waws today awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Credit: Niklas Elmehed/Nobel Prize
by IPS Correspondent (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 11 (IPS) – The United Nations Secretary General António Guterres congratulated grassroots Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo on being awarded the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize.
“The atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, also known as the hibakusha, are selfless, soul-bearing witnesses of the horrific human cost of nuclear weapons,” he said in a statement.
“While their numbers grow smaller each year, the relentless work and resilience of the hibakusha are the backbone of the global nuclear disarmament movement.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2024 Peace Prize for “its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again.”
The committee said the global movement arose in response to the atom bomb attacks of August 1945.
“The testimony of the Hibakusha—the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—is unique in this larger context. These historical witnesses have helped to generate and consolidate widespread opposition to nuclear weapons around the world by drawing on personal stories, creating educational campaigns based on their own experience, and issuing urgent warnings against the spread and use of nuclear weapons. The Hibakusha help us to describe the indescribable, to think the unthinkable, and to somehow grasp the incomprehensible pain and suffering caused by nuclear weapons.”
It singled out Nihon Hidankyo, who reportedly cried following the announcement and other representatives of the Hibakusha to have contributed greatly to the establishment of the “nuclear taboo.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee acknowledged one encouraging fact: “No nuclear weapon has been used in war in nearly 80 years.”
The award comes as the world prepares to mark 80 years since two American atomic bombs killed an estimated 120 000 inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A comparable number died of burn and radiation injuries in the months and years that followed.
“Today’s nuclear weapons have far greater destructive power. They can kill millions and would impact the climate catastrophically. A nuclear war could destroy our civilization,” the committee said.
“The fates of those who survived the infernos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were long concealed and neglected. In 1956, local Hibakusha associations along with victims of nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific formed the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations. This name was shortened in Japanese to Nihon Hidankyo. It would become the largest and most influential Hibakusha organisation in Japan.”
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 fulfills Alfred Nobel’s desire to recognize efforts of the greatest benefit to humankind.
Guterres said he would “never forget my many meetings with them over the years. Their haunting living testimony reminds the world that the nuclear threat is not confined to history books. Nuclear weapons remain a clear and present danger to humanity, once again appearing in the daily rhetoric of international relations.”
He said the only way to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them altogether.
The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS
by AD McKenzie (paris)
Inter Press Service
PARIS, Sep 27 (IPS) – In any discussion of world peace and the future of humanity, the issue of nuclear arms must be addressed, and now.
That was the message from a range of delegates at the “Imaginer la Paix / Imagine Peace” conference, held in Paris September 22 to 24, and organized by the Sant’Egidio Community, a Christian organization founded in Rome in 1968 and now based in 70 countries.
Describing its tenets as “Prayer, service to the Poor and work for Peace,” the community has hosted 38 international, multi-faith peace meetings, bringing together activists from around the world. This is the first time the conference has been held in Paris, with hundreds traveling to France, itself a nuclear-weapon state.
Occurring against the backdrop of brutal, on-going conflicts in different regions and a new race by some countries to “upgrade” their arsenal, the gathering had a sense of urgency, with growing fears that nuclear weapons might be used by warlords. Participants highlighted current and past atrocities and called upon world leaders to learn from the past.
“After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have been blessed with many who have said ‘no’—’no’ a million times, creating movements and treaties, (and) awareness… that the only reasonable insight to learn from the conception and use of nuclear weapons is to say ‘no’,” said Andrea Bartoli, president of the Sant’Egidio Foundation for Peace and Dialogue, based in New York.
Participating in a conference forum Monday titled “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World Without Nuclear Weapons,” Bartoli and other speakers drew stark pictures of what living in a world with nuclear weapons entails, and they highlighted developments since World War II.
“After the two bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humans built more than 70,000 nuclear weapons and performed more than 2,000 tests. Still today we have more than 12,500, each of them with power greatly superior to the two used in August 1945,” Bartoli said.
Despite awareness of the catastrophic potential of these weapons and despite a UN treaty prohibiting their use, some governments argue that possessing nuclear arms is a deterrent—an argument that is deceptive, according to the forum speakers.
Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS
Jean-Marie Collin, director of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a movement launched in the early 2000s in Australia and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017), said that leaders who cite deterrence “accept the possibility of violating” international human rights.
“Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy cities and kill and maim entire populations, which means that all presidents and heads of government who implement a defense policy based on nuclear deterrence and who are therefore responsible for giving this order, are aware of this,” Collin told the forum.
ICAN campaigned for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that was adopted at the United Nations in 2017, entering into force in 2021. The adoption came nearly five decades after the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.
The terms of the NPT consider five countries to be nuclear weapons states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four other countries also possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.
According to a 2024 ICAN report, these nine states jointly spent €85 billion (USD 94,6 billion) on their atomic weapon arsenals last year, an expenditure ICAN has called “obscene” and “unacceptable.” France, whose president Emmanuel Macron spoke about peace in broad, general terms at the opening of the conference, spent around €5,3 billion (about USD 5,9 billion) in 2023 on its nuclear weapons, said the report.
The policy of “deterrence” and “reciprocity,” which essentially means “we’ll get rid of our weapons if you get rid of yours,” has been slammed by ICAN and fellow disarmament activists.
“With the constant flow of information, we often tend to lose sight of the reality of figures,” Collin said at the peace conference. “I hope this one will hold your attention: it is estimated that more than 38,000 children were killed in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children!”
All those killed—an estimated 210,000 people by the end of 1945—died in horrific ways, as survivors and others have testified. Delegates said that this knowledge should be the real “deterrent.”
At the forum, Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International, a global Buddhist movement, described testimony from a Hiroshima a-bomb survivor, Reiko Yamada, as one she would never forget.
“She (Yamada) stated, ‘A good friend of mine in the neighbourhood was waiting for her mother to return home with her four brothers and sisters. Later, she told me that on the second day after the bombing, a moving black lump crawled into the house. They first thought it was a black dog, but they soon realized it was their mother; she collapsed and died when she finally got to her children. They cremated her body in the yard,” Ikeda told the audience with emotion.
“Who deserves to die such a death? Nobody!” she continued. “Yet our world continues to spend billions of dollars to upkeep our nuclear arsenals, and our leaders at times imply readiness to use them. It is utterly unacceptable.”
Ikeda said that survivors, known as the “hibakusha” in Japan, have a fundamental answer to why nuclear weapons must be abolished—it is that “no one else should ever suffer what we did.”
Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.
The U.S., Egypt, and Qatar are working on a new ceasefire proposal to end the war between Israel and Hamas. The deal also hopes to bring hostages and prisoners home.Meanwhile, protests in Israel stretched into a third day Wednesday, calling on the government to reach an agreement after six hostages, including an American, were found killed by Hamas over the weekend.The killings sparked new urgency for a deal.The U.S. says constructive talks are now edging closer to a “bridging proposal” that could get Israel and Hamas to agree.”Every day that goes by without an agreement, there are risks. Obviously one of the risks is region-wide conflict that we’ve worked to try and avoid,” State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said in a briefing Tuesday. “Another risk is the continued loss of innocent Palestinian lives. Hostages could die and so that’s why we continue to push for this urgency.”The White House is brushing off the deal as a “final” or “take it or leave it” offer but did not go into detail on what would happen if the deal proves unsuccessful.On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced criminal charges against six Hamas leaders connected to the Oct. 7 attack on Israel igniting the war. The indictment includes charges of terrorism and sanctions evasion but the case is mostly symbolic.Hamas’ leader is believed to be hiding in tunnels in Gaza and three other defendants are presumed dead.The United Nations Security Council will meet Wednesday to talk about the fate of the remaining hostages.
The U.S., Egypt, and Qatar are working on a new ceasefire proposal to end the war between Israel and Hamas. The deal also hopes to bring hostages and prisoners home.
Meanwhile, protests in Israel stretched into a third day Wednesday, calling on the government to reach an agreement after six hostages, including an American, were found killed by Hamas over the weekend.
The killings sparked new urgency for a deal.
The U.S. says constructive talks are now edging closer to a “bridging proposal” that could get Israel and Hamas to agree.
“Every day that goes by without an agreement, there are risks. Obviously one of the risks is region-wide conflict that we’ve worked to try and avoid,” State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said in a briefing Tuesday. “Another risk is the continued loss of innocent Palestinian lives. Hostages could die and so that’s why we continue to push for this urgency.”
The White House is brushing off the deal as a “final” or “take it or leave it” offer but did not go into detail on what would happen if the deal proves unsuccessful.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced criminal charges against six Hamas leaders connected to the Oct. 7 attack on Israel igniting the war. The indictment includes charges of terrorism and sanctions evasion but the case is mostly symbolic.
Hamas’ leader is believed to be hiding in tunnels in Gaza and three other defendants are presumed dead.
The United Nations Security Council will meet Wednesday to talk about the fate of the remaining hostages.
Bee-harvesting in an urban setting. Preparations are underway for the 16th Biodiversity Convention of the Parties (COP16) in Cali, Valle del Cauca. Credit: USDA
by Stella Paul (hyderabad & montreal)
Inter Press Service
HYDERABAD & MONTREAL, May 02 (IPS) – In a world faced with habitat loss and species extinction, climate change, and pollution, it’s crucial that countries develop their national action plans and create a society that lives in harmony with nature, says David Cooper, Acting Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in an exclusive interview with IPS.
And in a year where more than 4 billion people across the globe are expected to participate in elections, Cooper believes that politicians should put biodiversity on their manifestos.
Since taking the reins from the previous Executive Director, Elizabeth Mrema, Cooper has been at the forefront of steering the CBD towards the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework.
Later this year, world leaders will gather in Cali, Colombia for the 16th Biodiversity Convention of the Parties (COP16) slated for October 21 to November 1, 2024 for which preparations are currently underway.
Cooper gives insight into the core issues that will be on the top of the COP16 agenda, the current status of biodiversity finance, including the newly operationalized biodiversity fund, the upcoming meetings of the scientific and technical bodies of the CBD, the current status of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) and what is likely to unfold in the coming months in Digital Sequence Information (DSI).
David Cooper, Acting Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Biodiversity Finance: On Track but at Slow Pace
The UN Biodiversity Convention aims to mobilize at least USD 20 billion per year by 2025 and at least USD 30 billion per year by 2030 for biodiversity-related funding from all sources, including the public and private sectors.
However, the current situation with biodiversity funding shows that while progress is happening, it’s not fast enough. Some countries and groups are trying hard to give more money to projects that help nature, but overall, it’s still below expectations, and there are unfilled promises, Cooper acknowledges.
“We need to see a serious road map,” Cooper says, “All countries, in particular the donor country community, have to see how we are going to achieve at least that USD 20 billion by 2025 because that’s imminent.”
He called on big donors to honor their commitments.
“It’s really important that the big donors who promise money actually follow through and give the money they said they would. We need everyone to work together to make sure there’s enough money to protect our plants, animals, and the places they live,” Cooper says. “Certainly, we need to see all countries put efforts behind all of the goals and targets of the framework and that, of course, includes those on financial resources.”
Cooper welcomed the decision by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to establish a new fund, the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund. He said the CBD secretariat was working closely with Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, the GEF CEO, and his team.
“We then saw a number of contributions to that fund coming. The contribution from Canada is a significant one of 200 million Canadian dollars. Other significant donations came from Germany, Spain, Japan, and most recently, Luxembourg. Actually, the contribution from Luxembourg, if we look at its pro rata, given the size of the Luxembourg economy, is also quite generous, even though it’s only USD 7 million in total.”
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)
It’s not only about funding, Cooper says, but countries showing their commitment to their agreements, including developing NBSAPs. He acknowledged that very few countries had submitted so far.
“It’s only a few countries so far, and Spain, Japan, China, France, Hungary, and Ireland have submitted their NBSAPS, as well as the European Union,” says Cooper.
While he is optimistic that all the countries will develop their targets, he recognizes that it’s a complex process.
“I think most countries are in the process of developing their national targets, which is the first thing they’re supposed to do. But this is a process that is also supposed to engage all the different sectors of the economy and all the different parts of society, with the engagement of local communities, indigenous peoples, businesses, and so on.”
The CBD supports the countries through the complexities.
“The developing countries in particular have been supported through the Global Environment Facility. We’ve also been organizing a number of regional dialogues so that countries can share their experience as they move forward,” Cooper says.
At COP15, it was decided that all countries should submit their NBSAPs, if possible, before COP16.
“If they’re not able to submit their full NBSAPS by then, then at least they should provide their updated national targets. So, we do expect many, many countries to have progressed on their NBSAPs by COP16. Immediately prior to COP16, there will be another meeting of the subsidiary body on implementation to also take stock of where we are on that.”
COP16: What’s In, What’s Out
The core focus of CBD COP16 is likely to revolve around the adoption and implementation of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. This framework sets out the global targets and goals for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use for the next decade and beyond. Key aspects of the framework may include targets related to halting biodiversity loss, promoting sustainable resource management, enhancing ecosystem resilience, and ensuring equitable sharing of the benefits derived from biodiversity.
“I think I can highlight four key areas for COP 16,” says Cooper. “The first is that we have to see, and we have to have demonstrated progress in terms of implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. That means national targets are set. That means NBSAPs developed in at least a majority of countries. That means funds are flowing, which means, as I said before, a credible path towards this USD 20 billion by 2025 target. It also means the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund should be receiving more funds and supporting more projects.”
The second core issue will be the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) on genetic resources. There was an agreement made at COP15 to establish this mechanism, but no details were fleshed out at that time, so those details are now being negotiated in an intergovernmental working group.
“Of course, the establishment of such a mechanism with a fund would give another major boost to the Convention because it would bring in another source of funding.”
The third area would be finance, he says.
“The fourth area that I would highlight is the need to further strengthen the role of indigenous peoples and local communities as key actors.”
He also points out that there’s a number of other issues, such as the issue of biodiversity and health and synthetic biology, that need to be managed, including looking at a risk assessment and risk management for, for instance, gene-edited mosquitoes.
“They’ve determined that the theme of the COP will be peace with nature, which is a broad theme that will include many, many issues,” he reveals.
Plastic Pollution Treaty and CBD’s Role
The fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) on plastic pollution in April 2024 at the Shaw Center in Ottawa, Canada, aims to develop an internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, to end plastic pollution by 2040.
Ending plastic pollution is also one of the biodiversity targets, Cooper says, adding that the CBD is actively involved in the logistical organization of INC-4.
“Also, the reduction of waste from plastics and pollution from plastics is one of the elements of target 7 of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. So, we are seeing the success of INC-4 negotiations as hugely important for the implementation of the Framework,” he says.
What to Watch out for Between Now and COP16
Although all eyes will be on the COP16 negotiations, there are a number of global events taking place in the next few months that will contribute to the agenda and determine the level of the world’s preparedness for the conference.
“The most important ones are obviously the SBSTTA (Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice) and the SBI (Subsidiary Body on Implementation), then this working group on Digital Sequence Information that will take place in August,” Cooper says.
Like the SBI, SBSTTA is a subsidiary body established under the CBD. While the SBI specifically assists in reviewing progress in the implementation of the Convention and identifies obstacles to its implementation, among other functions, SBSTTA plays a crucial role in ensuring that decisions made under the CBD are informed by the best available scientific evidence and technical expertise.
“Then we have the G7 and G20 processes coming up, which are important processes to show leadership. The CBD COP itself will be followed by the COPs of climate change and desertification, making the linkage between these. Also, we expect Colombia and the indigenous peoples will host just before COP, a pre-cop focusing on indigenous peoples and local communities and their roles,” Cooper says.
Finally, as a record 64 countries across the world hold their elections this year to elect a new national government, does this provide a unique opportunity to speak about biodiversity and should biodiversity, like climate change, be made an election issue?
“Definitely,” says Cooper.
“If we look at many of the extreme events that people suffered from, particularly last year, whether these be fires, wildfires, droughts, storms, or floods, you know, these are largely attributed by the media to climate change. Climate change is increasing the probability and severity of these events, but these events are also happening because of ecosystem degradation because we haven’t been managing biodiversity and ecosystems well. So, I think we all have an opportunity to make this message and these links clearer. Politicians have a particular responsibility to do so, and I hope more of them will do so as these various elections in various parts of the world pan out.”
A panel discussion with Kaoru Nemoto, director of the United Nations Information Center, and other youth representatives including Yuki Tokuda, co-founder of GeNuine(Extreme right) delved into nuclear weapons and climate change.
Opinion by Katsuhiro Asagiri (tokyo, japan)
Inter Press Service
TOKYO, Japan, Mar 27 (IPS) – In a significant precursor to the United Nations Summit of the Future slated for September, the “Future Action Festival” convened at Tokyo’s National Stadium on March 24, drawing a crowd of approximately 66,000 attendees and reaching over half a million viewers via live streaming. The event, a collaborative effort by youth and citizen groups, aimed to foster a deeper understanding and proactive stance among young people on nuclear disarmament and climate change solutions.
The festival featured interactive quizzes displayed on large screens, offering attendees a collective learning experience about the complex global crises currently challenging the international community. Additionally, a panel discussion with Kaoru Nemoto, director of the United Nations Information Center, and other youth representatives delved into nuclear weapons and climate change, facilitating a deeper exploration of these pressing issues. Adding to the event’s poignancy, performances included one by the “A-bombed Piano,” a relic from Hiroshima that endured the atomic bombing, and others that highlighted the value of peace through music and dances, reinforcing the call for action and solidarity as agents of change.
A panel discussion with Kaoru Nemoto, director of the United Nations Information Center, and other youth representatives including Yuki Tokuda, co-founder of GeNuine(Extreme right) delved into nuclear weapons and climate change.
Central to the festival’s impact were the insights shared by a participant of the panel discussion like Yuki Tokuda, co-founder of GeNuine, who shared her insights from a “youth awareness survey” conducted before the event. “The survey revealed that over 80% of young respondents felt their voices were not being heard,” she explained. “This suggests a systemic issue, not merely a matter of personal perception, which is discouraging the younger generation from engaging with vital issues.”
Despite this, the massive turnout at the festival offered a glimmer of hope. “The presence of 66,000 like-minded individuals here today signals that change is possible. Together, we can reshape the system and forge a future that aligns with our aspirations,” Tokuda remarked, emphasizing the power of collective action and the importance of carrying forward the momentum generated by the festival.
Equally compelling was the narrative shared by Yuki Tominaga, who captivated the audience with her dance performance at the event. “I have always been deeply inspired by my late grandmother’s life as a storyteller sharing her experiences of the atomic bombing in Hiroshima.” Tominaga shared. “My grandmother would begin her account with her own experiences of the bombing but then expand her narrative to include her visits to places like India and Pakistan, countries with nuclear arsenals, and regions afflicted by poverty and conflict where landmines remain a deadly legacy. She emphasized that the tragedy of Hiroshima is an ongoing story, urging us to spread the message of peace to future generations.”
Yuki Tominaga, a third generation Hibakusha from Hiroshima, continues her grandmothers legacy while using her passin for dance as a medium to communicate about peace and Hiroshima bombing. Credit: Yukie Asagiri, INPS Japan
Reflecting on her grandmother’s profound impact, Tominaga continued, “I once doubted my ability to continue her legacy; her words seemed irreplaceable. But she encouraged me, saying, ‘Do what you’re able to spread peace.’ That inspired me to use my passion for dance as a medium to communicate about peace and the Hiroshima bombing. I aim to serve as a conduit between the survivors of the atomic bomb and today’s youth, making peace discussions engaging and accessible through dance.”
The “Youth Attitude Survey,” which garnered responses from 119,925 individuals across Japan, revealed a striking consensus: over 90% of young people expressed a desire to contribute to a better society. Yet, they also acknowledged feeling marginalized from the decision-making processes. The survey illuminated young people’s readiness to transform their awareness into action, despite prevailing sentiments of exclusion.
This enthusiasm and potential for change have not gone unnoticed by the international community. High-profile supporters, including Felipe Paullier, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs, Orlando Bloom, UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, and Melissa Park, Executive Director of ICAN, have all voiced their encouragement, recognizing young people’s crucial role in driving global advancements in sustainability and peace.
The upcoming UN Summit of the Future offers a pivotal platform for youth engagement, with the “Joint Statement” released by the festival’s Organizing Committee—encompassing key areas like climate crisis resolution, nuclear disarmament, youth participation in decision-making, and UN reform—serving as a testament to the collective will to influence global policies. Tshilidzi Marwala, the Rector of the United Nations University and UN Under-Secretary-General acknowledged the vital importance of young voices in shaping the summit’s agenda, urging them to be “a beacon of hope and a driving force for change.”
As the world gears up for the UN Summit of the Future, the Future Action Festival stands as a powerful reminder of the impact of youth-led initiatives and collective action in addressing the world’s most pressing challenges. Through education, advocacy, and direct engagement, the festival not only spotlighted the urgent need for action on nuclear disarmament and the climate crisis but also showcased the potential of an informed, engaged, and motivated youth to effect meaningful global change.
A new study finds that a “Science of Happiness” university course, designed to teach students a variety of happiness hacks, provides the most long-term benefits when participants stick with the tools and exercises after completion.
There have been many experiments showing the short-term benefits of positive psychological interventions like gratitude, meditation, kindness, and journaling, but not many studies have looked into these effects on a longer timeline.
At the University of Bristol, there’s a popular course known as “The Science of Happiness” that aims to teach students how to use various happiness hacks to improve their mental health and well-being. This course has been running since 2019 and has been offered both online and in-person.
The program balances practical advice with important information on topics such as: the nature of happiness, the role of biology and environment, cognitive biases, brain mechanisms, problem-solving, and the importance of social connection. At the end of each week, students are instructed to try evidence-based activities or “happiness hacks,” as a way of fostering positive mental well-being.
In previous years, individuals who took the course reported significantly increased mental well-being from the first week to the final week, as shown by a 10-15% increase in their scores on the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. Participants also reported reduced loneliness and anxiety. A follow-up after six weeks continued to show sustained benefits, but it was unclear how long these positive effects lasted.
In a new study published in the journal Higher Education, researchers analyzed 228 undergraduate students from various disciplines who had completed the positive psychology course either 1 or 2 years ago. Interestingly, while most students reported short-term benefits, later group analysis revealed that these benefits did not persist uniformly across all participants during the long term follow-up period.
A deeper look at the data revealed a crucial factor behind the program’s success: continued engagement. Approximately 51% of the students who actively practiced the recommended activities taught during the course maintained their increased mental well-being over the follow-up period. These students consistently applied positive psychology principles in their daily lives at least a year after they completed the class.
Here’s a chart from the study illustrating the findings:
As you can see, those who continued to follow the “happiness hacks” maintained their gains in subjective well-being during the long term follow-up.
The most commonly reported technique that students continued to use was gratitude (37.17%), including writing letters of gratitude to others and making lists of things that they were grateful for (“three good things”). Other commonly reported techniques were mindfulness/meditation (33.63%), exercise (21.24%), journaling (17.70%) and kindness (10.62%).
How to Create Sustained Positive Change
The study recommends that schools and institutions consider the long-term impact of psychoeducational courses. While initial benefits are essential, sustained effects depend on prolonged engagement and commitment.
Course designs should incorporate mechanisms to encourage continued practice:
The goal of psychology – whether it’s with a course, book, article, therapist, or coach – is always to take what you learn and integrate it into your real world living.
In the moment, learning about these tools and exercises can provide a nice temporary boost of relief, but then we quickly get bored, forget about them, stop applying them, and lose out on their benefits over time.
Much like a diet or exercise regimen, you need to create a mental health system in your life that works for you and is sustainable into the future. Quick fixes are a myth. You’ll always snap back to your old ways if you don’t choose a course of action you can follow continuously and indefinitely.
In theory, choose habits you can do for the rest of your life. That’s the mindset you need for continuous growth, happiness, and well-being. Gratitude, kindness, meditation, exercise, and journaling can become habits that are just as second-nature to you as tying your shoes or driving a car. Make self-care an everyday occurence.
Ultimately, if you want to build a happy life, you have to be in it for the long haul.
Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:
NAIROBI, Kenya, Jan 22 (IPS) – Among East Africa’s dozens of pastoral tribes, major conflicts have erupted repeatedly, largely over land and water disputes.
Generational trauma and anger have built to create tensions and grievances that carry emotional weight even hundreds of years later.
Among some African tribes, warriors returning home from fighting are frequently greeted by women singing. And it is reported that some tribes have no name for an enemy tribe in their language; they simply substitute the word enemy.
These same people could tell you how many of their tribe had been killed by the other tribe, how much capital was stolen, and the exact day each event happened dating back as many as 60 years.
Such cultural and linguistic practices continually reinforce and perpetuate a lingering notion of otherness and violence. And they underline a key point: Each person involved and affected by conflict can contribute to its resolution and peacebuilding.
Founded in 2009 in the aftermath of Kenya’s disputed elections of 2007-2008, Shalom-SCCRR is a non-governmental organization created to help mitigate conflicts in eastern Africa. To date, the organization has initiated about 1,000 interventions in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda, among other countries.
Today, we confront religious ideological radicalization, extremism and conflict in both urban and rural environments and along the entire Kenyan coast. And the only answer to it is to truly empower local people.
SCCRR is committed to transforming conflict into social development and reconciliation, reflecting a belief that violence is fundamentally based on inadequately met human needs.
The aim of our team goes beyond the absence of physical violence to a deep-rooted positive peace where all parties are committed to each other’s well-being, uprooting the causes – not just addressing the symptoms – of conflict by creating transformative grassroot networks.
Trust in SCCRR is fostered in large part by our long term – 5 to 10 year – commitments to building local capacity for negotiation, mediation, and joint problem solving, and by involving community members who can then themselves build their own architectures of peace.
Our staff have, at minimum, masters level university qualifications. These highly-educated peacebuilding practitioners train local politicians and other key thought leaders – chiefs, elders, religious, education, women’s groups, youth and other community influencers.
SCCRR’s approach to reconciliation is based on four pillars:
Ending violence
Truth, with each side listening to the other, sharing perceptions on their conflicts
Justice, which requires truthful people genuinely open to objective consideration. Sadly, conflict has a very robust, resilient memory, frequently distorted by erroneous historical narratives and mendacious media reporting
Mercy: Without which, a negative situation will be entrenched forever in endless cycle
We also advocate on behalf of communities with governments to develop and upgrade institutions to meet, for example, medical, legal or education needs (particularly interethnic or interfaith schools, and education equality).
Over the years, SCCRR has successfully trained over 28,000 community leaders in conflict transformation skills, leading to over 600 local community development projects, to the benefit of over 200,000 school aged children and many others.
While SCCRR can provide bricks and mortar, communities must provide the site, water, and labor, for example. And it is essential to success that a community owns a project themselves.
In recent times, women have made up 60% of the main beneficiaries of SCCRR interventions.
Extreme, systemic, inter-ethnic conflict has left countless people killed, injured or displaced, and debilitated many communities in eastern Africa.
And it is impossible to promote sustained development in places where humanitarian institutions are periodically destroyed or incapacitated. That is why conflict transformation is fundamental to social development and reconciliation.
Rather than seeking new places to live, communities need practical tools for self-sustainability that empower them to thrive where they are.
And as the world grapples with a global migration crisis, the success of SCCRR’s work takes on heightened significance, offering helpful insights and a template for action.
*Rev. Dr. Patrick Devine is International Chairman and Founder of the Shalom Center for Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation (Shalom-SCCRR). In 2013, he received the International Caring Award, whose previous recipients include the Dalai Lama, Bill Clinton, and Mother Teresa.
NEW YORK, Dec 10 (IPS) – Human Rights Day Statement by Education Cannot Wait Executive Director Yasmine SherifToday we mark a milestone in history: the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As people around the world commemorate Human Rights Day, we must also deeply reflect on the meaning of this historic document and what it takes to achieve peace in the world.
The inspiring preamble of the Universal Declaration is not the work of an indifferent or greedy mindset. It was crafted by those able to delve into their hearts and souls to authentically express the imperatives for peaceful co-existence in the world.
Inspired by the East and West, North and South, Eleanor Roosevelt, together with the French jurist, Rene Cassin, were the driving force behind the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. With the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and successive legal human rights conventions, one can safely say that these rights were not proclaimed to find consensus around the lowest common denominator. Rather, the Declaration was created to inspire and mold consensus around the highest of human values: the goal was to achieve peace.
The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: ‘Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ Yet, almost a century later, these universal rights are largely not respected, nor equally applied. As the essence of these values and laws are eroded and ignored, is it any wonder that there are more wars, conflicts and widespread injustices, resulting in more refugees, internal displacement and immense human suffering?
This unspeakable, yet preventable, human suffering comes about because we have departed from our highest of human values through many small and big decisions. These are decisions leading to actions severely undermining the foundation for peaceful co-existence in the world. Haven’t freedom, equality and justice for all members of the human family been compromised or disregarded enough?
The path to peace is not complicated. The answer lies in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all the rights enshrined in the Declaration.
The right to an inclusive, sustainable quality education is a foundational right. A continued quality education empowers every child and adolescent to claim all other rights. The chance of success is even greater provided that these children and adolescents live in an environment conducive to all other human rights – also for their families, communities and countries.
This is not complicated. It only demands that we take courageous decisions in every role we find ourselves – and deploy meaningful action – to begin materializing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for all members of the human family.
It would be such a purposeful way of moving forward. It would be a profound legacy to leave behind for the young generation and for generations to come. All we need to do is to act as our conscience dictates. Or, as the co-author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt, rhetorically asked: “When will our conscience grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it.”
NEW YORK, Dec 01 (IPS) – Although the dire impact of the Israel-Hamas war has touched many countries in the region and beyond, no foreign country has been so profoundly affected by the war than Jordan. Israel must mitigate Jordan’s concerns to save its critical alliance with its neighbor while fully collaborating in the search for a permanent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel-Jordan relations have hit a new low. Sadly, after 30 years of peace, there is deep sullenness and disappointment between the two countries. The aspiration for strategic partnership has fallen short, except for security collaboration. Jordan’s King Abdallah and Netanyahu do not see eye-to-eye on many issues.
The King views Netanyahu as particularly responsible for the deterioration of the relationship between the two countries. Of specific concern to Jordan is the Israeli government’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank, its worries about any change in its status as the guardian of the holy Muslim shrines (Haram al-Sharif), and its concerns over the limits of the bilateral economic relations.
What has added significant insult to the already injured relationship is the tragically inadvertent carnage and destruction being inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza as a result of the Israel-Hamas war.
For Jordan, the future resolution to the Palestinian conflict is the most contentious because whatever happens to the Palestinians, especially in the West Bank, has a direct and indirect impact on Jordan’s security, economy, and demographics due to its proximity and also because half of the population is of Palestinian origin.
Netanyahu made hardly any effort to address King Abdallah’s justifiable worries about the rapidly deteriorating security conditions in the West Bank. Since the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7th, nearly 220 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank as of this writing, and there is no sign that the violence will abate any time soon.
Indeed, the absurdity here is that given that Jordan has been at peace with Israel since 1995, its proximity to Israel, and its mutual concerns over the region’s stability, the need for full cooperation on intelligence sharing, commercial ties, and national security become ever more critical.
But then, Netanyahu has taken Jordan for granted when, in fact, Amman remained faithful to its collaborative efforts with Israel and continues to play a critical role in monitoring and securing the approximately 300-mile-long border with Israel to prevent the smuggling of weapons and infiltration of terrorists into Israel proper and the West Bank.
The Israel-Hamas war has enormously changed the political dynamic of the Jordanian-Israeli relationship. Although Jordan expressed sympathy toward the Israelis for the unimaginable butchery that Hamas inflicted on innocent Israeli civilians, Israel’s invasion of Gaza and the horrendous destruction and death have enraged the Jordanians to a level unseen between the two countries since they signed a peace treaty in 1994.
More than 50 percent of the Jordanian population are of Palestinian origin and have a strong affinity to their brethren wherever they reside. The death of more than 14,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including nearly 6,000 children and 4,000 women, caused an unparalleled stir in Jordan, damning Israel and demanding an immediate end to the hostilities. In fact, out of sympathy and solidarity, many Jordanian youth have chosen to adopt “Hamas ideology.”
The UN Jordanian delegation presented a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) calling for an “immediate, permanent, and sustainable humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities,” which was adopted by 120 countries. On November 1st, Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Al-Safadi recalled Jordan’s Ambassador to Israel, saying that his decision was an “expression of Jordan’s rejection and condemnation of the raging war in Gaza, which is killing innocent people and causing an unprecedented human catastrophe.”
Jordan considers the forced evacuation and displacement of Palestinians in Gaza as equivalent to a war against civilians that will fundamentally shake the bilateral Israeli-Jordanian relations, mainly because Jordan has the largest Palestinian refugee population of any other country, which makes it extraordinarily sympathetic and sensitive to the Palestinian cause.
Of particular concern to the Jordanian government is that the Netanyahu government is determined to deny the Palestinians the right to statehood, which will have a significant impact on Jordan domestically. What worries the Hashemite Kingdom is that some ministers in the current Israeli government are resuscitating the notion that Jordan is Palestine by their actions in the West Bank.
Although Netanyahu knows how sensitive the Jordanian government is about this momentous issue, he has done nothing to assuage the Jordanians’ growing anxieties that the West Bank Palestinians will be entirely pushed into Jordan.
Amman can play a significant regional diplomatic role in stemming the escalation of the conflict, especially in the West Bank, before it spins out of control. Jordan, the most stable country with moderate political leadership in a region reddened with violent conflicts, has and continues to serve along with Israel as the cornerstone of the US-Middle East security partnership, which both countries must guard with zeal.
There are several necessary measures that the Israeli government must take to alleviate and mend past and present Jordanian grievances and restore and further improve their bilateral relationship, which would best serve their national interests.
First, given Jordan’s direct and indirect involvement with the Palestinians, Israel must not ignore Jordan’s concerns over the violent clashes between the Israeli settlers and security forces and the Palestinians. Recently, the increasing violence in the West Bank compelled Jordan to strengthen its border security to prevent the escalation of violence from spilling over into its territory.
Nevertheless, it could precipitate an influx of Palestinians into Jordan, which Amman wants to avoid. Israel must restate in an unmistakable tone that it respects Jordan’s sovereignty, and any resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be separate and apart from and would not infringe in any way on Jordan’s independence, which Israel recognizes.
Second, Israel must commit to continuing water and gas supplies to Jordan without interruption. This is critical for restoring Jordan’s confidence in any Israeli government, which has been dangerously eroding under Netanyahu. The “Blue and Green Prosperity” project, financed by the UAE and signed in August 2023, enables the exchange of Israeli desalinated water for Jordanian solar energy. This is a significant project for Jordan and must be guarded and fully implemented under any circumstance.
Third, although the collaborative security ties and intelligence sharing between Jordan and Israel remain close, the Israeli government must ensure their security collaboration stays intact and robust. Israel must also carefully address Jordan’s unique security needs given the continuing regional tension and the threats of extremist militant groups, as well as its concerns over Iranian threats, which Israel shares. Amman needs to feel assured that Israel has Jordan’s back.
Fourth, Israel must assure Jordan that under no circumstances would it seek or facilitate any change in the custodianship and the administrative responsibility of Jordan over the Muslim holy shrines (Haram al-Sharif) in Jerusalem. From the Jordanian perspective, the current arrangement gives it a strategic basis that allows it to have a say in any future agreement with the Palestinians in connection with Jerusalem. Although Saudi Arabia aspires to assume that role, Israel should honor its agreement with the Hashemite Kingdom from the time Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967.
Fifth, Israel ought to strengthen its economic ties with Jordan by expanding the import-export of goods and services, encouraging Israelis to invest in Jordan, especially in the technological sector, and increasing tourism once the Israel-Hamas war comes to an end and the anti-Israeli Jordanian public sentiment subsides.
The current Netanyahu or any future Israeli government must stop short of nothing to safeguard its ties and constantly improve its relations with Jordan—Israel’s most important Arab ally, partner for peace, and its closest neighbor. Since they have a strong mutual national security interest and strategic alliance, Israel should work hand-in-hand with Jordan in the search for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it will directly affect Jordan’s national interest on every front.
To be sure, given the Israel-Hamas war, which makes it impossible nor desirable to restore the status quo ante, it is now more urgent than any time before for Israel and Jordan to mitigate their differences, strengthen their strategic alliance, and find common ground on how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
For more information on how a sustainable peace agreement based on a two-state solution can be reached, please refer to my essay in World Affairs, “The Case for an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian Confederation: Why Now and How?”
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. [email protected]
Russia offered to end Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022 if Ukraine agreed to drop its ambitions to join NATO, according to the head of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky‘s political party, who was present at peace negotiations.
David Arakhamia, leader of the Ukrainian political party Servant of the People, revealed part of the purported deal during an interview with Ukrainian journalist Natalia Moseychuk on Friday. The Kyiv official previously led the Ukrainian delegation that held peace talks with senior Russian officials in the months following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Both sides of the war have laid out conditions for a ceasefire in the conflict in recent months, but many war analysts doubt neither Zelensky nor Russian President Vladimir Putin currently has a serious urge to end the 21-month-long fight.
According to Arakhamia, however, there was a drafted peace agreement between Ukrainian and Russian negotiators early in the war. Arakhamia said that Moscow pledged to end the fighting if Ukraine’s agreed to remain neutral and forego its bid to join NATO.
Leader of the Servant of the People’s Political Party of Ukraine David Arakhamia talks to the media as he arrives for the Renew Europe Leader’s pre-summit meeting, in Brussels, on June 29, 2023. Arakhamia said in a recent interview that Russia once offered to end the war in Ukraine in exchange for Kyiv’s agreement to reject its bid to join NATO. KENZO TRIBOUILLARD/AFP via Getty Images
“They really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality,” Arakhamia told Moseychuck, according to an English translation of his comments by the Kyiv Post. “It was the biggest thing for them.”
“They were ready to end the war if we took…neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point,” the Ukrainian official added.
Ukraine has aimed to become a member of NATO for decades, and in September 2022, Kyiv announced its bid for a fast-tracked membership in the military alliance. Russian officials have warned that fighting would only escalate if Ukraine was admitted into NATO, which would solidify Kyiv’s alliances with Western countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.
Arakhamia said changing Ukraine’s intentions to join NATO would require an amendment to the country’s constitution since Kyiv’s parliament voted to adopt an amendment in February 2019 that stated Ukraine’s goal of becoming a member of both NATO and the European Union.
Arakhamia also said that Ukrainian officials did not trust Russia to uphold their end of the bargain.
“There is no, and there was no, trust in the Russians that they would do it. That could only be done if there were security guarantees,” he told Moseychuck.
Elsewhere in the interview, Arakhamia brought up former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson‘s surprise visit to Kyiv in April 2022. He said Johnson encouraged Ukraine to not “sign anything” with Russia and “just fight.”
The Russian Embassy in the U.K. reacted to Arakhamia’s interview in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday. The message put the blame on Johnson for interrupting negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.
“In the Spring of 2022 Russian and Ukrainian delegations were on the verge of negotiating an end to the conflict, assuring Ukraine’s military non-alignment and protection of rights of Russian speakers,” the Russian Embassy’s post read. “A text was on the table in Istanbul, almost ready to be signed.”
“However, according to Arakhamia, during his visit to #Kiev Prime Minister @BorisJohnson pressured the Ukrainian side ‘not to sign anything’ and ‘just keep on fighting,'” the X post continued. “Thus, evidently, with substantial #UK input, an off-ramp for a negotiated solution was missed—with tragic consequences for Ukrainian statehood, economy and population.”
Newsweek reached out to Russia’s Foreign Ministry on Monday night via email for comment.
Reuters reported in September 2022 that people close to Kremlin leadership confirmed that Russian negotiators had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would keep Ukraine out of NATO, but Putin rejected the deal and continued with his invasion. Sources who spoke with Reuters said the Russian leader told his negotiations that the deal “did not go far enough and that he had expanded his objections to include annexing swathes of Ukrainian territory.”
Russia currently occupies large parts of southern and eastern Ukraine, and Kyiv has said that the war will not end unless the annexed territory is returned to Ukraine’s control.
Zelensky said earlier this month that reaching an end to the war would require “the restoration of territorial integrity, rights and the freedom of citizens. Another stage of the war is the restoration of justice.”
“The restoration of sovereignty is the main principle for ending the hot stage of the war,” the Ukrainian president added. “Everything will end in peace.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
In a world filled with conflict and hostility, one of the most important skills we can learn in life is conflict resolution and our ability to negotiate peacefully and effectively.
This content is for Monthly, Yearly, and Lifetime members only. Join HereLogin
