Author: Sanjh Vishwakarma

First, gender equality in public engagement and institutional representation. Second, public policy reform to eradicate patriarchy. Finally, to reform politics around everyday life, relationships, communities, and the common good.

Feminization of politics goes beyond simply increasing the number of women in politics to challenge and restructure a patriarchal institution long believed to be a masculine prerogative to lead.

Feminization of politics emphasizes gender balance, inclusion, and participation of women in policy-making and representational institutions. It’s about tackling patriarchal privileges and transforming institutions, behaviors, and discourses for women’s equality.

Women finally got the vote after a long and hard-fought fight in the 19th century.

Men have dominated politics since the Westphalian modern state system began. After 19th-century women’s suffrage campaigns won the right to vote, women were neglected and barred from politics and electoral involvement. Modern feminism’s foundation is women’s political equality.

It emphasizes a feminist political strategy that builds political power from the bottom up rather than relying on patriarchal state institutions and political parties to incorporate feminist ideas into mainstream politics. This would give feminist mobilizations a clear path to an inclusive, participatory, and non-discriminatory political discourse.

Women’s political participation boosts women-focused problems. Sustainable gender equality and high-functioning democracy require it. Gender-sensitive governance improvements require women’s direct participation in public policymaking.

17 countries have female heads of state and 19 have female heads of government, according to UN Women. 22.8 percent of Cabinet ministers are women. 22 states have less than 10% women in single or lower dwellings, including one with no women.

UN Women estimates that gender parity in top leadership will take 130 years to achieve at the current rate.

Why should women have political representation and how would it impact politics? Justice, pragmatism, and difference support women in politics.

The fairness argument is that men monopolize politics and representation, which is unfair.

The pragmatist perspective holds that women have experiences, abilities, and proficiencies that can improve political processes and better understand women-centric concerns and issues.

The difference argument argues that women deserve equal involvement and representation in public places and should not be sidelined in politics based on gender.

Women politicians and candidates face many social, political, and cultural difficulties, explaining under-representation.

Women lack resources to enter politics. Women are poorer and less likely to work in political-activist jobs. Second, lifestyle constraints mean women have less time to engage in politics meaningfully. Women spend time on family and children, lowering productivity.

Masculine politics is combative and sexist. These obstacles impair women politicians’ utilization and political aspirations.

Obstacles show the political and electoral infrastructure. Party government and the electoral system limit political office alternatives. Only political parties with Parliamentary seats can apply. Parties, not voters, choose political representatives under this system. Political parties have neglected to nominate women for winnable Parliamentary seats despite studies showing that voters do not penalize women candidates.

Cultural elements indicate women’s poor socioeconomic conditions and structures, especially in underdeveloped nations. Inability to meet candidacy standards, lack of education, age, and other stereotyped issues hinder women’s political careers.

Parliamentarians are typically socioeconomic elites recruited from low-female vocations. They are also well-educated and generally from powerful political backgrounds. Women are concentrated in “traditionally feminine” jobs, which discriminates against them. They rarely hold high-level economic positions dominated by men, where men develop political leadership skills.

Things need to improve due to the lack of female political leadership. Political parties worldwide have implemented three key initiatives to increase female political engagement;

Positive action tactics that boost women’s chances of selection through specific training and candidate mentorship. Mainstream political party leaders typically emphasize the importance of women in politics. Positive discrimination quotas for women in decision-making bodies, panels, etc.

Feminization of politics may seem lofty, but with actual, genuine efforts, it may be achieved. Mainstream political parties must first raise finances to educate and promote women candidates. Women seeking for public office should get government funding to cover operations and party activity costs.

All political parties must have 30% women. This removes institutional and capability barriers to women in politics.

Third, to prepare for future elections, women’s organisations should develop a pool of female politicians, including previous and current MPs, leaders of state, etc. After the pool is developed, potential candidates should be trained to handle challenging situations and political activity.

Finally, political parties must increase female MPs’ activities. Women are less likely to hold high party roles and influence priorities and decision-making. Women lawmakers could lead and direct policy-making discourses via a gendered lens and nominate more women to senior political positions by increasing their activity and nominating more women to high-ranking offices.

Feminizing politics takes time and skill. It takes time to integrate into society’s socioeconomic fabric. Gender mainstreaming is one way to eliminate gender bias in public efforts. The political will of policymakers to implement it is rarer.

Municipal politics is a better place to start increasing female participation since everyday practices change. Women’s political participation is crucial to their empowerment.

Thus, affirmative action should prioritize compensating justice for underrepresented women.

Last Monday, Wales Green Party leader Anthony Slaughter called independence from the English Greens “inevitable” and “desirable.”

Great news, but less reassuring considering the party had voted on this topic in 2018 and elected to stay attached to their English counterparts.

Hayden Williams

Only 20% of members voted, yet 65% supported the English Greens.

Despite Slaughter’s recent announcement, the Welsh Greens haven’t officially broken the cord (despite the Northern Irish and Scottish Greens having done so).

The Welsh and UK Conservatives, Welsh Labour, and Welsh Liberal Democrats are all unionists.

Why is Welsh politics still “a thing”? After 25 years, we have the Senedd, our parliament. Funding is the apparent solution, but is this acceptable?

Slaughter said England and Wales Green Parties share resources. Politics is expensive, but this “apron strings” arrangement undermines their credibility as a Welsh party seeking independence.

After the 2018 decision to keep connections with England, Wales Green Party leader Grenville Ham resigned. After the membership chose to remain a party of two countries, he felt his membership was untenable.

That sums up the issue, right? How can any “party of two countries” advance Wales’ interests?

Alarm Bells

The Welsh Conservatives have received funds from affluent English benefactors who share their goal of reuniting Wales with the Union.

At least these gifts are transparent. Welsh voters understand the Welsh Conservatives.

But wait! Welsh Conservatives have discussed leaving the UK Conservatives. The Telegraph reported in July 2022.

The Welsh Conservatives wanted “Welsh-focused answers to Welsh issues” and were upset that Boris Johnson didn’t invite Senedd Members to Number 10 after his election, a source said.

Number 10 doesn’t care about Wales or treat it as a devolved legislature, hence no one was invited. Why are all but one of our Welsh political parties still conflated with Westminster parties?

Only Plaid Cymru lacks a political “mother-ship.” Plaid isn’t flawless, but it’s held the course. You’d think at least some of the other Welsh parties would have joined it in standing on their own by now, but Plaid is still the only party working toward a completely autonomous Wales.

Welsh Labour is cloudier. The fact that “clear red water” has to be explained to Welsh people should have raised red flags.

Welsh politics is changing: somehow, the Welsh mindset seems to be catching up to the fact that we’ve had our own parliament for 25 years.

With Labour currently in charge in Wales, what is split between Welsh and English Labour is unclear.

Transparency

The Electoral Commission publishes all party, campaigner, and candidate spending data from the preceding Senedd election.

“Ensuring voters are able to see clearly and accurately how money was spent on influencing them at this election,” says Louise Edwards, the Electoral Commission’s Director of Regulation.

Declared donations and spending are categorized by the Electoral Commission.

UK Labour declares donations, but Welsh Labour declares costs. Welsh Labour’s campaign spending is visible, but UK Labour’s assistance is not.

Welsh Labour (Cardiff HQ) and UK Labour (National HQ, Newcastle) were asked weeks ago why this is the case and how much UK Labour has redirected or donated to Welsh Labour over the past three years, but neither party responded.

Money aside, Labour think-tanks like the Fabian Society, Compass, and Labour Together, associated UK-wide trade unions, and the variety of party-connected specific interest groups may provide other benefits.

Welsh Labour has (conveniently?) claimed that Wales and her people are better off in the UK, therefore it may not matter.

Whether you agree or not, the problem is that the Welsh Labour Party appears to benefit from staying in the UK.

Again, Welsh Labour—and so Welsh Government—must then be a “party of two nations.”

Serving two masters is impossible.

The northeastern states of India—Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, and Sikkim—are changing rapidly. It is now developing economically after overcoming certain security issues. Political changes helped. The substantial Bangladeshi linkages are too. Japan also helps India and Bangladesh develop.

The Asian Confluence (ASCON) conducted the third India-Japan Intellectual Dialogue (April 11–12, 2023) in Agartala, Tripura, providing an ideal chance to analyze experts’ and policymakers’ evolving views. It revealed that this decade may bring Bangladesh, India, and Japan closer.

A recent ASCON study calls this port “a game changer”

Matarbari Deep Sea Port (DSP) on Bangladesh’s southeast coast is a major project. It will be completed in 2027 with Japanese help. The port must serve Bangladesh and northeast India to be profitable. Bangladesh and the northeast will serve 220 million people as a regional hub and industrial corridor.

At the meeting, Japan’s Ambassador to India, Hiroshi Suzuki, stressed that regional industrial value chains are needed to connect roads and railways. Thus, quick industrialization in northeastern competitive industries is important. This plan ensures maximum usage and productivity of the new connectivity linkages. New industrial firms with national and foreign investment must accompany roads and ports to create jobs. Bangladesh and the northeast may prioritize connection and industrialization.

Northeastern resources are abundant. Its bordering countries—Nepal, Bhutan, China, Bangladesh, and Myanmar—are advantageous. Agro-processing, man-made fibers, handicrafts, assembly of two-wheelers and possibly mobile phones, and pharmaceuticals should be included in value chains and product manufacture. The well-educated population thrives in services, attracting investors.

Policy convergence and public participation solve problems.

Expanding policy convergence and involving people can solve problems. Japan cannot invest alone in the northeast. Indian firms must invest. India must ease Bangladeshi investment limitations. The three governments should strengthen economic ties.

Bangladeshi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Shahriar Alam made an important point. He said Dhaka and New Delhi have “almost restored” pre-1965 infrastructural links between India and Bangladesh and are now going further. Mr. Alam noted that Bangladesh, which has enabled so much connection, now wants “reciprocity” from other countries (read: India) to better connect with Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar. India may help Bangladesh join the Act East Policy by assisting it.

Two more considerations. First, regional cooperation and integration discussions rarely mention the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), which is self-defeating. To achieve the Bay of Bengal Community (BOBC) goal, something must alter.

Second, linking much of South Asia to Southeast Asia demands a skilled pilot. Bangladesh, India, and Japan (BIJ) can lead. The northeast will welcome a BIJ Forum started by Foreign Ministers.

Equalities watchdog of the United Kingdom has warned that Rishi Sunak’s crackdown on small vessels may violate human rights protections.

Today, the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued its verdict on the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill and issued a warning that the bill “risks violating international obligations to protect human rights.”

Hinders human rights universality

The organization enumerated a number of “key areas of concern,” including the fact that the Bill “undermines the fundamental principle of the universality of human rights” and “threatens to violate the Refugee Convention by restricting the right to asylum and penalizing refugees.”

The warnings were issued prior to the Bill’s return to the House of Commons for further scrutiny on Wednesday of this week, with ministers proposing amendments that would further toughen the law.

The proposed changes include empowering ministers to disregard temporary injunctions issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that prohibit the removal of Channel crossing migrants from the United Kingdom.

At GW Hillel on Wednesday, a congresswoman discussed Jewish values, the growth of antisemitism, and youth political engagement.

The first Jewish woman to represent Florida in Congress, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-FL, said her Jewish upbringing gave her a “responsibility” to serve her community. Adena Kirstein, executive director of GW Hillel, moderated the event.

Wasserman Schultz, who represents Florida’s 25th congressional district, claimed Jewish ideals like “tikkun olam,” or “making a difference in the world,” inspired her legislative decisions. In 2006, she introduced a resolution to declare May Jewish American Heritage Month in the US, which then-President George W. Bush signed.

The National Archives reports that every president since George W. Bush has recognized JAHM annually.

Wasserman Schultz said she is “most proud” of being the first Jewish woman to serve Florida in the U.S. Congress, but she didn’t understand it until her predecessor, former Rep. Peter Deutsch, D-FL, told her while she was running.

“It really gave me pause when I learned that because there is a sense of responsibilities that came with that distinction,” Wasserman Schultz added. “It increases the responsibility I have always held.”

Wasserman Schultz said her time as University of Florida Student Senate president inspired her to enter national politics. Before her 2004 election to the U.S. House, Wasserman Schultz was elected to the Florida Senate in 2000 and the House in 1992.

Wasserman Schultz was DNC chair from 2011 to 2016. When asked about political double standards, she stated she was scrutinized more than male chairs.

“In the normal course of running the DNC, the decisions I would make, I would get scrutinized or called out by the media or by other people who had say-so in the work that we were doing,” Wasserman Schultz said. “They never questioned my male predecessors.”

Wasserman Schultz was criticized for her 2016 election primaries emails that favored Hillary Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, including one that said Sanders would never be president. She resigned one day before the 2016 DNC convention when DNC insiders and Sanders supporters criticized her.

Wasserman Schultz expressed alarm about rising antisemitism, particularly in Florida. According to the Anti-Defamation League Florida, Florida had the fourth-most antisemitic incidents in 2022, behind New York, California, and New Jersey. In 2022, the ADL recorded 269 antisemitic occurrences in Florida, up 42% from 2021 and a state record.

Wasserman Shultz claimed social media firms’ refusal to restrict antisemitic and racist speech allowed it to spread “wildfire” online and promote harassment, attacks, and speech. She stated social media corporations profit by not removing racist comments.

They claim to fight hate.

Wasserman Schultz stated social media corporations are indifferent. “They pretend to want to take down the hate, but they make money off of it and use their algorithms to promote it and advertisers make money from it.”

Since 1979, the ADL has reported the most U.S. antisemitic events, including harassment, graffiti, and attacks, in 2022. The ADL defines harassment as “harassment verbally or in writing,” vandalism as “antisemitic intent or which had an antisemitic impact on Jews,” and assaults as “targeted with physical violence accompanied by evidence of antisemitic animus.”

Wasserman Schultz, who became the youngest female Florida legislator when she was elected to the House at 26, said serving with colleagues old enough to be her parents and grandparents made her realize the need for the “energy” and “ideas” of the “lens of the younger generation.” She said as a young mother of three children, she co-sponsored the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act to prevent child drowning by requiring pool drain covers to reduce body, hair, and limb entrapment because no one had “taken on” the issue.

She noted that youth representation in Congress has improved, but more young people should seek for government.

“Now it will be different, now you could run as a single young woman,” Wasserman Schultz added. “But it’s so important that younger people think about running because you lose that perspective generationally.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed Vigyan Bhavan on “Civil Service Day” last week. Modi preached arrogantly to the nation’s top bureaucrats. The prime ministerial pulpit allows that.

But Modi addressed a wider audience. The message is dangerous and reflects an authoritarian persona hopelessly enamored with infallibility.

A prime minister can shout his own praises, but he cannot incite the bureaucracy against the political class. The prime minister did that at Vigyan Bhavan.

His main point was that all political parties—except his own, the Bharatiya Janata Party—are self-serving instruments of self-serving leaders and cannot be trusted to protect and promote public welfare, public interest, and national well-being. In a democracy, political parties cannot be eliminated, but the bureaucracy had the “duty” to judge all government initiatives.

If Modi’s anti-politics narrative takes hold in our national consciousness, we’ll just replace one strong leader with another when the time comes.

More importantly, the prime minister advised senior bureaucrats to watch out for any changes made by a newly elected state administration at the demand of its business allies.

Despite his Orwellian double-speak, the prime minister seemed to be creating an ethical narrative to justify his government’s widespread and demonstrative use of the Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and other coercive instruments against the BJP’s political opponents. Typical political vendetta legitimization.

The newly emboldened technocratic elite—impatient with democratic restrictions and ideologically anti-people—must love the prime minister’s tirade against political parties. This new elite supports Modi’s self-interest. The new governing class revels in its partisan notions of public good, just as he thinks his actions are motivated by national interest.

Every politician smears opponents. Modi appears to have crossed another rekha. He said in Hindi, “Ye aap logon ko dekhna hi hoga, doston (You will have to look into this, friends).” The bureaucracy was invited to join a conspiratorial jugalbandi against non-BJP parties and governments. Our politicians have sunk much lower.

Of course, the prime minister has diligently used – on a massive scale – the resources and instruments of his office to build himself up as the sole national saviour, excluding his party, cabinet colleagues, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and crony capitalists. He rises tall on his own pedestal.

His new doctrine outlaws disagreement. Civil society and democratic dissent are forgotten.

His huge media machine has corroded all other political leaders and parties by labeling them polluted and corrupt. A new dogma invalidates dissent to his regime. Civil society and democratic dissent are already forgotten. Order, stability, and prosperity face the Great Demagogue.

This is not the first time people, external and internal forces and circumstances have destroyed popular trust in the political elite and its ability to guide the Indian State. In 1991, we jointly trusted the market’s curative power.

The political class had lost its self-confidence and voluntarily handed dominate territory and moral aura to the “animal spirits” of our business community and civil society, who ritually shouted “good governance.” Chief ministers preferred CEO titles.

This misunderstanding meant the political elite never regained its old elan or popular trust. Judiciary, other institutions, and civil society invaded political parties. New forces, persons, ideological pretensions, and interests strove to impose themselves.

After the “terror” age began, Indian society sought a “strong” government to protect us from external and internal threats. This need for a “strong” and “decisive” ruling arrangement obviously undermined democratic methods of discussion, bargaining, adjustment, and consensus-building among our society’s many fault lines.

Finally, in 2014, the Narendra Modi Project was presented to a susceptible audience as the solution to our polity’s anxieties and disenchantments. He earned clear mandates in 2014 and 2019 to restore democratic energy and social harmony.

Nearly ten years later, the Modi experiment is inefficient like any dictatorial regime. However, the prime minister and his drumbeaters are deliberately degrading all pre-2014 regimes’ democratic mandates and constitutional sanctions.

The prime minister and his hit squads should then delegitimize all constitutional institutions—judiciary, parliament, political parties—as dens of anti-national emotions. Unsurprisingly, Uttar Pradesh police lawlessness is being pushed as a necessary shortcut.

Modi is the high priest of this anti-politics religion. More mayhem follows. The much-maligned Nehruvian years gave India a democratic culture that helped resolve succession crises, but the current emphasis on one man is draining the republican vigor of the country. If Modi’s anti-politics narrative takes hold in our national consciousness, we’ll just replace one strong leader with another when the time comes.

Rahul Gandhi’s request to suspend his criminal defamation conviction in Surat was denied on Thursday. The recent judgment has hurt his chances of returning to parliament.

Judge Robin Mogera dismissed Gandhi’s criminal defamation plea, saying he “should have been more careful with his words.”

Gandhi’s MP disqualification “cannot be termed as irreversible or irreparable loss or damage to the Appellant, as envisaged by Gujarat High Court in Naranbhai Bhikhabhai Kachhadia’s case,” the court ruled.

“I hold that the Counsel for the appellant has failed in demonstrating that by not staying the conviction and denying an opportunity to contest the election on account of disqualification u/s. 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 an irreversible and irrevocable damage is likely to be caused to the Appellant,” the additional sessions judge Mogera wrote.

“Caution and circumspection and if such power is utilized casually and mechanically

The order states that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that courts should exercise their powers to suspend or stay convictions with “caution and circumspection and if such power is exercised in a casual and mechanical manner, the same would have serious impact on the public perception on the justice delivery systems and such order will shake public confidence in judiciary.”

Gandhi was found guilty of criminal defamation for his 2019 Karnataka election rally statements about Modi’s surname by a magisterial court on March 23. Under Indian Penal Code sections 499 and 500, he received the maximum two-year punishment. Purnesh Modi, a former minister and Surat BJP MLA, sued Gandhi.

The order excluded the former Congress president from Wayanad parliament. Unless his sentence is stayed, a legislator convicted of a crime for two years or more loses his standing immediately under the Representation of Peoples Act.

“Rahul Gandhi should have been more careful with his word which would have large impact on the mind of people,” the additional sessions judge said. Gandhi’s slanderous statements might inflict emotional anguish.

“In this case, uttering defamatory words viz. comparing persons having surname ‘Modi’ with thieves would definitely have caused mental agony and damaged complainant’s reputation, who is socially active and dealing in public.”

This month, many guys stood in front of a blue-framed door in Istanbul’s Bagcilar area. One towering, furious one shouted a query.

He sought permission to assassinate someone in Syria. “No.”

He was furious because a Syrian killed his brother, a textile worker.

Right-wing nationalist Ata Alliance presidential candidate Sinan Ogan visited the family.

“We’ll return the Syrians quickly.” “Syrians won’t kill another Turk,” he remarked.

Ogan is one of four May 14 presidential candidates. The 55-year-old politician joined Ulkucu, or Gray Wolves. After an internal power struggle, the ultra-nationalist MHP expelled him. Surveys show his approval rating between 1.3% and 2.5% weeks before the vote.

Anti-refugee sentiment is not limited to Ogan and the Ata Alliance. All alliances save the pro-Kurdish Green-Left Alliance have promised to transfer nearly 4 million Syrians back to Syria if they win the election.

Kilicdaroglu would negotiate return with Syrian president.

Kemal Kilicdaroglu, CHP leader and presidential candidate for the largest opposition bloc, also plays on anti-refugee sentiment. Kilicdaroglu prioritized refugee policy years ago after sensing Turkish hostility. If elected, he will engage with the Syrian administration to return refugees.

His alliance promised to reassess the EU refugee treaty and sign a separate repatriation agreement with other nations in its election agenda.

The partnership intends to use drones and modern technology to monitor porous border crossings and erect walls to stop uncontrolled migration. Discussing visa facilitation with various states.

Until a year ago, the AKP defended Syrians as cheap labor essential to the Turkish economy. The AKP now supports Syrians as the economic crisis, inflation, and poverty reduce Turkish society’s acceptance of them.

“With the realization that the Syrians wouldn’t return home after a few years, the mood changed,” said Ankara University migration researcher Murat Erdogan.

He claimed the opposition parties were the first to notice the mounting unhappiness, and the AKP followed after winning voters over with the refugee crisis. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated his party would fight illegal migration and prepare for Syrians’ voluntary and safe return.

“The AKP has recently been bragging about high deportation figures,” the migration researcher stated.

Most Turks want Syrians back.

Murat Erdogan has conducted the Syrians Barometer poll for five years, examining Turkish-Syrian relations in Turkey.

Turkish society’s refugee issue importance is surveyed annually. The issue has consistently been among the top three or four topics.

“In the latest study, it reached second place, right after the economic crisis,” the researcher told DW.

The survey also examined whether party refugee policies affect voter choice. “Up to 60% percent of the participants answered ‘yes’,” Murat Erdogan said, adding that the Syrian refugee problem gives parties ample of space to make their imprint, especially if the race is close.

The Syrians Barometer found that 88.5% of Turks and 85% of AKP voters want Syrian refugees back.

Demand unrealistic

However, Murat Erdogan claimed returning Syrians is unrealistic. Over 3.5 million Syrians have temporary protection in Turkey, 100,000 have a legal residence visa, and 200,000-300,000 are naturalized citizens.

Erdogan further claims that Turkey hosts 400,000 irregular refugees, mostly from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Africa, and 1 million awaiting deportation.

Turkey has 5.5 million refugees. “No other country in the world has taken in as many refugees as Turkey,” he claimed.

Syrian children attend school and adults work, even if illegally.

“Sending them back over the next few years, as the parties claim, is impossible,” said the migration researcher. He said around 900,000 Syrian children were born in Turkey.

Violence victims

Turkey is struggling with rising inflation, unemployment, and poverty. Erdogan’s low interest rates have sunk the economy. Poverty has reached the middle class as purchasing power declines.

Motorcycle rider, corner shop.

Right-wing populist and nationalist parties are capitalizing. They are inciting xenophobia and foreign infiltration to benefit themselves. “Turkey has been assimilated by young foreign men,” they warn.

Critics became violent. A crowd destroyed Syrian stores in Ankara in August 2021, claiming the owners were living off state subsidies and without paying taxes. In mid-January 2022, masked attackers attacked 19-year-old Syrian Nail Alnaif in his Istanbul flat. In June 2022, Turkish security agents shot 35 refugees in Osmaniye for fleeing the refugee shelter. Refugees were accused of looting after the February earthquakes.

Syrians seek European citizenship.

Migration specialists say mood affects refugee mobility. More Turks are leaving, mainly for Europe.

Murat Erdogan said they fear Turkey but have no future in Syria. According to the Syrians Barometer, 25% of Syrians aspired to leave Turkey for a third nation four years ago. Current surveys show 55%.

Murat Erdogan said the Syrians “would certainly exceed the 70% mark” if asked now.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg visited Ukraine on Thursday for the first time since Russia invaded more than a year ago, a symbolic trip that shows the alliance’s commitment to Kyiv’s defense.

The Kremlin swiftly warned against Ukraine joining NATO. Russia has given many reasons for going to war, including fears that Kyiv might be allowed to the military alliance.

Local media showed Stoltenberg honoring slain Ukrainian servicemen in Kyiv’s St. Michael’s Square.

The symbolic visit, two days after Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Ukraine, was unclear.

Throughout the battle, Stoltenberg has been NATO’s forceful voice. He has helped the organization’s 31 countries provide guns, ammunition, and training to Ukraine’s beleaguered military.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg visited Ukraine for the first time since Russia invaded almost a year ago.

NATO only offers generators, medical equipment, tents, military uniforms, and other nonlethal support to Kyiv’s administration.

High-level visits have grown common as NATO, founded to fight the Soviet Union, has evolved from tentatively sending helmets and uniforms to tanks, bombers, and powerful missile systems.

This is Stoltenberg’s first wartime visit to Kyiv. Stoltenberg has often promised that Ukraine will join NATO.

Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin spokesperson, claimed Moscow’s “special military operation” aims to keep Ukraine out of NATO. In a Thursday press conference, Peskov called Ukraine’s entry a “serious, significant threat to our country, to our country’s security.”

Finland joined the alliance this month, ending decades of neutrality. NATO claims it doesn’t threaten Russia, but the Nordic country’s entry hurt Putin politically.

Finland’s joining doubles Russia’s border with the largest defense alliance. Sweden may join by July, when U.S. President Joe Biden meets NATO leaders in Vilnius.

To deter Putin, the alliance has strengthened its own defenses. NATO’s collective security guarantee considers an assault on one member an attack on all.

The former Norwegian prime minister was one of the last Western leaders to visit Kyiv last year.

Stoltenberg and Lloyd Austin will attend a Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, on Friday. It’s the key international platform for military help for the war-torn nation.

Denmark and the Netherlands announced Thursday that they will give Ukraine at least 14 repaired German Leopard 2 battle tanks in early 2024.

Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany previously pledged at least 100 older Leopard 1 A5 tanks.

After Indonesia excluded the Israeli team from the Under-20s World Cup owing to their treatment of Palestinians, Fifa is looking for a new host. Indonesia was removed as host “due to current circumstances” by the international federation.

They said the Football Association of Indonesia (PSSI) faces “potential sanctions” that will be decided later. Indonesians were banned in 2015 for third-party interference, making this depressing. The Under-20s World Cup was long-awaited because they missed the 2018 World Cup and 2019 Asian Cup qualifiers.

This ruling highlights political-sports issues. Whether governments, fans, or players voice out, Fifa is unequivocal.

The letter stated, “We know football does not live in a vacuum, and we are equally aware that there are many challenges and difficulties of a political nature all around the world.” “Not allow football to be dragged into every ideological or political battle that exists,” it stated. Politics are off-limits for Fifa.

Fifa’s politics-free federation is admirable. When countries are barred from sports competitions, athletes are punished, not their governments. Athletes lose their life goals when their country loses medals and trophies. Sport is an escape for many in such countries, and taking it away for activities they have no control over is unfair and counterproductive.

The president of Save Our Soccer, Mr. Marhali, said that “the Israelis who would come are not the army, not the government, but the athletes and soccer players who have no interest in politics”. Sport must not be politicized.

football is united with Ukraine’s victims.

Who decides what political acts should be banned from worldwide competitions? Fifa and UEFA banned all Russian clubs and national teams in February for fighting in Ukraine. Fifa stated that “football is fully united here and in full solidarity with all the people affected in Ukraine” and hopes for peace in Ukraine. Despite efforts to hold Israel and Qatar accountable for their treatment of Palestinians and migrant workers, inconsistency and double standards persist.

Fifa’s view of these conflicts affects its engagement. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine seems more local and serious than Middle East human rights atrocities. Fifa responded to Poland and Sweden’s World Cup boycott of Russia. Indonesia loses hosting when they try the same.

“The decision to suspend Russian clubs and teams from all competitions must be accompanied by a ban on those affiliated with Israel [because Israel] has been killing children and women in Palestine for years,” stated retired Egyptian player Aboutrika. Without the other, people wonder if certain lives are worth more than others.

Indonesia’s solution of banning Israel poses moral issues. Human rights atrocities occur worldwide, but football is not the venue to fight them. We would be unchallenged if we blacklisted all countries for political atrocities.

As with Russia and Israel, subjectivity sneaks into where we draw the border, making consistency difficult. Political bias can only be eliminated by treating all conflicts equally. A team should only be banned if it compromises the sport. Arya Sinulingga (PSSI committee member) believes we cannot make “political requirements in sports” and must prioritize sports.