By: Patted Shamanth, GSDN

The inherent geological location of Haiti renders it prone to flooding and mudslides, which attack Haiti at twice the rate, to which the US plays the geopolitical card to its advantage. A more comprehensive understanding of the predicament must be assessed through the prism of historical events stretching back to Haiti’s independence and its intertwined relationship with the United States.

On January 1, 1804 Haiti proclaimed its independence from France, making it the second-oldest independent country in the Western Hemisphere. Prior, Haitians contributed to America’s glory in the Revolutionary War. However, during Woodrow Wilson, the United States invaded Port-au-Prince in 1914, looted its reserve, and seized it. Up until 1934, the United States reigned over Haiti. Haiti still suffers the effects of imperialism and the dictatorship that was supported by the United States that ruled from 1957 to 1986.

Further, when in 2010, a catastrophic earthquake struck Haiti, killing at least 200,000 people. The US granted $5.1 billion to relief, recovery, and reconstruction efforts. Also, provided for temporary visas allow certain Haitians to seek better economic opportunities in the US. Foreign aid to Haiti benefits the United States because it fosters goodwill and recognizes that the United States has taken a lot from Haiti in the past.

Nowadays, the United States and Haiti are trading partners. Foreign assistance to Haiti benefits the United States because it promotes more trade with the US. The majority of clothing offered at Walmart, JCPenney, Gap, Old Navy, and other well-known retailers is made in Haiti. According to the Association of Industries of Haiti, the country’s garment manufacturing industry has remained stable for decades and currently employs 60,000 people. And this garment industry accounts for at least 90% of Haiti’s overall exports.

Despite what might be expected, the U.S. stands to gain from the employees who enter the country on temporary visas. There is unequivocal economic proof that migrant workers significantly fill vacancies in the US labour market. According to a 2013 research, North Carolina’s unemployment rate peaked at 12% during the worst of the Great Recession. Only 250 of the state’s 500,000 unemployed people applied for the 6,500 available agriculture jobs. Haitian immigrants contributed to the U.S. economy by filling the labour shortage in agriculture.

Not to be outdone, referring to Haiti’s current political instability and its proximity to the United States, the leading Spanish daily “El Pas” stated that Haiti is “on the verge of becoming the ‘Somalia of the Americas.'” Ipso facto, The United States must maintain a stable political calendar in Haiti. The lack of democratic governance, security concerns, and absence of rule of law leads to violations of citizens’ human rights and fundamental freedoms, which disrupts their economic growth and jeopardizes US investment. President Biden pledged a new era of US involvement with Latin America and the Caribbean. following which the 2022 Global Fragility Act made Haiti a priority nation. This intends to offer financing to support stability and lessen and prevent violent conflict.

By: Kritika Kaushik, Research Analyst, GSDN

Context: Fast-forward from 2015 to 2023

Exactly 8 years ago in March 2015, the world woke up to a painful photograph of a three-year-old dead child washed ashore on a Turkish beach which was a red flag for the entire world to take collective action to mitigate the refugee crisis. The refugee crisis is not just about a particular region or a country, it is what is plaguing all of humanity. The 2015 refugee crisis also referred to as the ‘European Migrant Crisis’, is rooted in armed conflicts across Western Asia which is also known as the ‘Middle East Region’. Since the onset of the Ukraine war, international observers had been anticipating another human catastrophe similar to the EU Refugee Crisis and the recent development of a shipwreck (February 2023) carrying migrants from countries including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria caused great concern because even the Ukraine war is painfully producing refugees. The problem cuts deeper as it is not Ukraine or West Asia/Middle East facing a humanitarian catastrophe, but even remote areas like the Sahel (in Burkina Faso) are reeling in armed conflict, especially, which go long back to 2011 and the roots are even older.

A Crisis for the Entire Humanity

Therefore, it is important to see the refugee crisis as a crisis to deal with for the entire humanity and not just a crisis of a particular region like the Sahel, or a specific country like Nigeria or Ukraine or the Democratic Republic of Congo and the responsibility to protect the people is and should be a mutually shared global responsibility. This goes beyond the traditional versions of the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) Doctrine. In 2005, the United Nations adopted the concept of the R2P in order to stop and curb humanitarian crisis and it goes on to say, “sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference, it is a charge of responsibility that holds States accountable for the welfare of their people” (The UN World Humanitarian Summit Rio+23). While taking military action is one way to look at R2P, it is more than just this, because it is also about armed conflict prevention. Owing to the hybrid nature of challenges that the world faces today with crisscross intersectionalities of armed conflict intertwined with gender violence, climate change, child soldiers, forced migration, and economic deprivation, to name a few. A blend of realist power politics, geopolitics and political conflict, insurgency et al are definitely the common ingredients to analyse armed conflicts across the world, however, it is getting enmeshed with such recent complex challenges, which renders older definitions of doctrines like the R2P redundant. The point is not to abandon them, however, to revive them, and reinvigorate them for the sake of tangible peace in the world for the longer run.

The Global South & Multilateral Peace Arrangements

This article, therefore, argues that there is a need to reinvigorate the present multilateral-international institutions by enthusing them by giving an active role to the countries that fall under the category of the ‘Global South’ and what better occasion there could be than G20. However, what makes this article different is how a hybrid shift from the conventional ‘level of analysis’ in International Relations is done to facilitate understanding of how we need to revise the lessons learnt from the EU Refugee Crisis 2015 to at least manage ongoing conflicts and prevent a humanitarian crisis like the one described just now.

The Level of Analysis: As per recent academic scholarship (Gebhard: 2022), there are 4 levels of analysis in order to understand the current & past happenings of the world. For instance, ‘the system level’ (which comprises the entire global system in its entirety and looks at issues like the distribution of political power, economic system, international law and international organisations and the diffusion of technology); the second level is the ‘the state level’ that includes nation-states as actors in the international arena; the third is ‘the group level’ including political parties, non-governmental organisations and interest groups acting at the intersection between governments and societies; and at the bottom comes the “individual level” wherein the behaviour of and decisions people in organisations both governmental and non-governmental are analysed. Perhaps the above hierarchy needs a levelling wherein all four need to be seen horizontally in an equal manner while definitely giving making the nation-states and the international law framework at the centre stage in order to enforce State obligations and commitments to meet humanitarian catastrophes.

India’s Foreign Policy & ‘Preventive Diplomacy’

It is interesting to note that India is a signatory to the UN Child Rights Convention and ratified the treaty in domestic law arrangements long back in December 1992. As India is at the helm of the G20 Presidency today, strengthening the bulwark of India’s Foreign Policy and strategic autonomy, it is important to note that peacekeeping and peacebuilding have been one of the biggest hallmarks of Indian Foreign Policy and this article argues that the same metal of India as a peace builder can reinvigorate multilateral and intergovernmental agencies like the UN in a manner that State Parties deliver on their national obligations and implement statutes. When India abstains from any UN Resolution either in favour of Ukraine or against Russia in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, it is not a sign of weakness, however, a sign of diplomatic brilliance and creativity wherein while we are fine-tuning our strategic tightrope for a balanced foreign policy stance to maintain an independent foreign policy stance, we as a country are also contributing towards ‘preventive diplomacy’ which refers to actions and efforts taken to present disputes that may arise between State Parties and/or other actors, ‘to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter when they occur’.

Therefore, it is time to strengthen the narrative that the Global South must be at the centre stage or must be given the centre stage in a way that countries like India can democratise the multi-lateral institutions. India’s diplomacy has been based on a solid balance of peace-making and pragmatism. In fact, it was in 2007, that India became the first country to send an all-India female peacekeeping unit on a foreign mission, which demonstrates the unique approach India has always taken in the international arena. Humanitarian intervention, either done by any of the major world powers have had both positive as well as debilitating impact on civilians and countries, therefore, the point is to strengthen and democratise the institutions like the UNHCR, UN Security Council etc as well as to revive statutes of the International Law and in the case of the refugee crisis and children, UN Conventions like the Child Rights Convention (UNCRC 1989) and its Optional Protocol No. II (2002) relating to the prohibition of children in the direct involvement of children in armed conflict; the International Humanitarian Law, the International Refugee Law et al because International Law must be seen as a coherent system and to bring this coherent brilliance in play, it is important that we see International Relations and International Law and its overarching philosophy in harmony because it is based on the very same moral foundations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1984 that human dignity is the basic principle and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the ‘human family’. This universal and moral consensus was achieved by the world following the Nuremberg Trials after World War II and there was widespread agreement that ‘barbarous acts’ against humanity were committed which led to the establishment of the Roosevelt Commission headed by Eleanor Roosevelt which was based on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous speech on four freedoms of human beings – freedom of expression, belief, want and freedom from fear.

Such a moral grounding along with reviving multilateral, international arrangements and legal regimes to strengthen the refugee cause by putting the Global South at the centre stage is the need of the hour today and for the days to come.

By: Devyani Wadera, Research Analyst, GSDN

India-Russia bilateral ties have been an enduring affair, sustaining for more than 70 years now. The two countries have had a longstanding relationship grounded in strong military, political, and economic ties. This relationship has been based on cooperation, understanding, and respect. The Indo-Russia relationship can be characterized as time-tested with the two countries having a level of trust which has been unprecedented in the global arena. This partnership has been formed and strengthened due to multiple factors like similar political and strategic goals, collaboration in science and technology, extensive military-technical cooperation, and deep economic bonds formed between the two nations. In this article, we will attempt at shedding light on the well-established relationship between the two countries, and the trajectory of this partnership over the last few decades. We will also be delving deep into the different domains of cooperation which has helped in the sustenance and deepening of the bond. Lastly, the article will be talking about the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and how it has impacted the bilateral relationship.

When India gained independence, it was also the inception of the cold war between the two superpowers and their military alliances. It was a state of geopolitical tension which had enveloped the whole world in its power struggle with each country picking sides and joining military alliances. India however chose the path of non-alignment which gave a chance to nations to not formally join any military blocs and have an independent political and military stance This policy was viewed with suspicion and confusion in the global arena. The west viewed India as too socialist in its outlook whereas the communist bloc led by Russia perceived India as a capitalist economy and state. In India also Russia was seen with suspicion as the word communism made people uncomfortable with the perception that India and Russia had different values and goals. The initial years can be best described as cold with both sides keeping each under scrutiny. It is only after the death of Stalin in 1953 that a cordial relationship started between the two countries as a new leadership emerged in Russia. Stalin had a negative view of Nehru and the Congress Party as they were seen as the instrument of British and capitalism. He had expressed his dismay for India’s approach to international relations.

With changes set in motion to foster a closer relationship between the two states, Nehru visited the USSR in June 1955 and a return visit by Nikita Khrushchev, Communist Party General Secretary, and Prime Minister Nikolai Bulganin took place the same year in India. During Khrushchev’s visit, he declared that USSR supported India’s sovereignty over Kashmir. Even though India’s resolve for not to join any military alliance proved to be strong and lasting, it did realize a need to counter the brewing friendship between the US and Pakistan. Pakistan had joined the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO, also known as the Baghdad Pact) and Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). To counter the growing influence of the US in the south Asian region and the economic and military support being gained by Pakistan, the India-Russia relationship was vital. This relationship endured the cold war and remained a strong pillar till the very end of the Soviet Union. The USSR soon became and until its disintegration remained India’s primary arms supplier even surpassing Britain which India had often turned to in the initial years of its independence. The Soviet arms were important to India as Pakistan was receiving military aid from the US as well as China. After 1964, the Soviet was the sole source of arms for all three services. Also, Soviet-designed tanks and aircraft were being produced in India under license. As much as 85% of the nation’s force structure still comes from the Soviet Union, causing a heavy dependence on and need for spare parts and upgraded aircraft, missiles, and armour versions. In addition, the Soviet Union served as a training ground for numerous Indian military leaders.

There was economic cooperation witnessed in several sectors of the Indian economy. Through its technical aid and know-how, Moscow changed the face of the Indian public sector, an essential part of the Indian economy. Some big names which can be included are BHEL, ONGC, HEC, and Bokaro. Here, the rupee-rouble arrangement deal struck by the two countries really aided in expanding trade. The US which promoted private enterprise was not very keen on investing in India’s state-run sector, resulting in more opportunities for the Soviet Union. Also, during the cold war, India’s close economic and protectionist policies hindered foreign investment. Political relations between the two countries grew warmer with high-level delegations and political leadership becoming an annual affair. Additionally, there was a lot of cultural exchange between the two countries with Indian movies and culture being popular in the USSR. Indian movies and songs had become household names further creating a camaraderie between the two countries and their populations. In the international forum, Moscow came to India’s need multiple times by vetoing the Kashmir issue at the United Security Council which saved India from the prying eyes of the west, mainly the US and UK who had a soft spot for Pakistan. India reciprocated by supporting USSR in Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1978. During the 1962 Indian-Sino war, the Soviet Union handled the whole issue tactfully as it expressed regret over the clash between two of its allies and did not take any sides. This was accepted in India but did not go well down with China which was witnessing a downgrade in its relations with USSR since the latter’s growing proximity with India. As India-Russia relations became more intimate there was distancing seen on the part of China.

The culmination of this friendship was the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation signed by the two countries. Moscow firmly stood by India in the 1971 Indo-Pak war and opposed the Pakistani-USA-China nexus. These relations continued to grow and remained special for the two nations for a long time. However, the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 led to a change in the international landscape where the USSR had lost its position and the US had emerged as the sole superpower. Even though Russia was the successor of the USSR it was a new entity altogether with different leaders and perceptions. Russia had emerged with a different attitude with Boris Yeltsin’s pro-western policy orientation causing its relationship with India to take a backseat. In the meantime, India started to liberalize its economy and turned to the West for trade and investment. Both nations were preoccupied with home affairs while adjusting to a new global order. During this time, bilateral trade and economic cooperation slowed down, cultural exchanges stopped and there was a lack of warmth among the political leaders.

Yet, both Russia and India tried to mend fences. They ratified a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 1993, and a Military-Technical Cooperation pact was signed the following year. After a brief period from 1990 to 1993 in which there was a steep decline in the number of arms shipments, India eventually became one of Russia’s top importers of weaponry. In 2000, in order to get the relations between the two countries on track ‘Declaration on India-Russia Strategic Partnership’ was signed. With increased levels of collaboration in practically all sectors, including politics, security, defense, trade and economy, science & technology, culture, and people-to-people relationships, India-Russian relations have taken on a radically new character. The Strategic Partnership was upgraded to the status of “Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership” during the visit of the Russian President to India in December 2010. In order to guarantee ongoing communication and follow-up on collaboration initiatives, the Strategic Partnership has various formalized discussion structures operating at both the political and official levels.

The defense and security relations between the two countries have moved ahead of just a buyer-seller relationship and the two states are jointly involved in the research, development, and production of advanced defense technologies. The joint military programs between India and Russia include: – the Brahmos cruise missile program, the 5th generation fighter jet program, the Sukhoi Su-30MKI program, Ilyushin/HAL Tactical Transport Aircraft, and KA-226T twin-engine utility helicopters. Russia also assists the Indian Navy in its submarine programs. INS Vikramaditya operated by the Indian Navy is also a Russian production. India is dependent on Russia for its nuclear submarine program and many of the conventional submarines used by India are Russian by origin. Now looking at trade relations between the two countries, the bilateral trade has reached a 30 billion US dollar record in 2023 speaking of the growing relations. By 2025 the two countries intend on increasing the investment to 50 billion US dollars. In the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Russia is a strategic partner as it recognizes India as a responsible country with advanced technology. The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) is being built in India with Russian cooperation. Also, both parties work together for peaceful uses of outer space, such as satellite launches, the GLONASS navigation system, and remote sensing. During the 19th Bilateral Summit, an Agreement was signed between ISRO and ROSCOSMOS on Joint Actions in the Field of Human Spaceflight Projects.

India and Russia have had a time-tested relationship in this multipolar world as both nations are forging new relationships with other key nations. Now, shedding some light on the contemporary circumstances of the Russia-Ukraine war and India’s stance on it.  India’s balanced position with respect to its policy of multilateralism has met with sharp criticism from the west. India has avoided openly condemning the acts of Russia in Ukraine and has also abstained from voting in the UN general assembly and Human rights council that condemned Russian attacks. India’s neutrality has led to the creation of a void between the US and itself. A lot of spectators have referred to this neutrality as a pro-Moscow position. This decision on India’s part has been taken to safeguard national interests and preserve its friendship with Russia. This is done to ensure that Russia does not deepen its ties with China or Pakistan.

Also as discussed earlier, India is dependent on Moscow for its arms supply and therefore cannot afford to alienate Russia. Even though in the last two decades India has diversified its sellers, it still cannot cut ties with Russia as there are multiple strategic, technological, and political advantages of working with the country. Also, India cannot afford to go against Russia as It is not sure of the US as a loyal and sturdy partner and Russia has always been a constant and sturdy friend of the nation who has always come to India’s aid. Following the outbreak of the Ukraine War and as a result of sanctions placed on Russia by the US and Europe, it began to offer discounted oil and chemical fertilizers to India, resulting in an increase in the volume of bilateral trade between India and Russia from $13 billion in 2021–2022 to $27 billion in 2022, making it the largest supplier of oil and fertiliser to India. India has received a lot of criticism from the west on purchasing oil from Russia at discounted rates however, the Indian government defended its trade by stating that it will source oil from where it is cheapest and does not feel any moral dilemma in the purchase. India refused to accept the price cap on oil imposed by the US on Russia. All these steps have been taken to protect national interests as India cannot anger Russia with whom it has had years of friendship.
Lastly, the India-Russia relationship has withstood the test of time, where both countries have supported each other on multiple fronts and have been able to sustain their friendship in the ever-changing world order.

By: Hitti Chopra, GSDN

Azerbaijan and Iran, major Shiite Muslim countries, witnessed the worst escalation in their ties when on January 27, 2023 the Azerbaijani embassy in Tehran was attacked, killing the head of the embassy security service and injuring two guards.

According to Al-Jazeera, closed circuit television footage released by Iran showed the attacker hurriedly arriving at the scene with his car and crashing into another vehicle parked in front of the embassy. After exiting the car with the rifle in hand, he passes an unarmed Iranian guard sitting in a booth and enters the embassy shooting. While shooting at two Azerbaijani guards, a third tackles him, eventually disarming the attacker. Azeribaijan President Ilham Aliyev had condemned the incident as a “terrorist act” whereas top officials in Iran have denied it as a  “terrorist” act as it was carried out with personal motivations. Azerbaijan suspended its diplomatic mission and also warned its citizens against visiting Iran.

Similar incidents have been observed in the past when diplomatic missions of the countries (the United Kingdom embassy in 2011 and the Saudi Arabian embassy in 2016) which shared periods of strained relationships with the country have been attacked in Tehran. This has led to further deterioration in relations between Iran and Azerbaijan.

Baku, a strict secular republic nation, detesst Iran’s theocratic attitude. Iran is a home to a sizable Azeri minority and has always accused Baku of fanning the flames of separatist sentiment in the country. The relations between the two nations have been rocky since the 2020 war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Azerbaijan officials have blamed Iran for backing Armenia in the conflict over Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh region. In addition, relations have from time to time flared in the past three decades over Azerbaijan’s friendly relations with Israel.

The 44-day war between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020, gave Baku a decisive victory over Armenia. Azerbaijan reclaimed districts which border Iran and have been under control of Armenians since 1990s. Azerbaijan’s heavy taxation policy on Iranian trucks carrying good to Armenia, regaining a critical trade route linking Iran and Armenia has led to disruption in Iranian trade and access to Armenian market which has been condemned by Tehran.

The close proximity between Baku and Tel Aviv further irks Tehran. Israel has always been a national security threat to Iran. The decade long policy of Azerbaijan of not having a diplomatic mission in Jewish state was permutated when Baku approved the opening of the Israel embassy in Azerbaijan. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Israel is the second largest arms supplier to Azerbaijan from 2011 to 2020. Iran has accused Israel for its attacks on nuclear facilities and has always considered the latter as its arch nemesis.

The straining relationship between Iran and Azerbaijan have brought the bilateral relations to a new low and can put regional projects at stake. This poses complications for the larger Caucasus region, which is important to Russia, Turkey and the West.

By: Devyani Wadera, Research Analyst, GSDN

As the world grapples with the dangers of global terrorism in the form of terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Islamic State, one militant group has garnered attention for its brutal and hostile ways in the state of Nigeria. Here, we are talking about Boko Haram, an extremist radical group that has been termed one of the deadliest terrorist organizations by the Global Terrorism Index in the transnational arena. The group has received a lot of coverage since 2009 due to its large-scale and relentless violent attacks on local police, military, political and religious groups, and its indiscriminate killing of civilians. The insurgency has massacred more than 32,000 people, 3,00,000 children, and displaced 2.3 million civilians from their homes, speaking of the somber circumstance threatening the political integrity and sovereignty of Nigeria. In this article, we will be investigating the rise of Boko Haram, from the genesis of the group to its current disposition as a militant organization. Further, there will be an exploration of the influence and current activities of Boko Haram.

The inception of the militant jihadist group took place in 2003 when war was waged against the Nigerian government under the leadership of Muhammad Ali, a Nigerian who had fought alongside the mujahideen in Afghanistan. This small group mainly comprised of youth coming from wealthy families, fighting against the corrupt government, and wanting to establish an Islamic state run according to the sharia laws. The group withdrew from Maiduguri to the Yobe state in the northeast of the country. From here, the militants launched attacks on government buildings and police stations in different areas in the Yobe state. In December 2003, the group engaged in a fight with the local police over fishing rights in a pond. This fight escalated into a violent showdown where close to 70 members of the group were killed including Muhammad Ali. This group garnered attention from the Nigerian media for its open defiance against the state and its sensational name- Nigerian Taliban.

The survivors of the attack returned back to Maiduguri and joined Mohammad Yusuf, who had just returned back from his exile. The group identified themselves with a new name ‘Boko Haram’ colloquially translating to ‘Westernisation is Forbidden’. The ideology rejected, democracy, secularism, and western education and westernization. The organization’s objective was to fight against the corrupt, inefficient, and unjust Nigerian government. In an interview with BBC Hausa language service, the organization’s leader Mohammad Yusuf stated western education must be replaced with Islamic education and that all those who oppose it must be killed. Further, there was a threat of converting all the non-Muslims to Muslims. Boko Haram wanted to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state and regarded the current government as illegitimate. It sought to purify the practice of Islam and remove what it sees as west-inspired corruption and immortality.

According to observers, the rise of Boko Haram is a consequence of the government’s incompetency to address corruption, unemployment, and growing income disparities between the poor north inhabited by Muslims and the rich south with a majority population of Christians. These disparities lead to anger among the public, especially in the north and northeast areas of the country. The jihadist group took advantage of this predicament by tapping into local grievances and offering people a higher sense of purpose driven by religious beliefs. This jihadist movement was the boiling point for the rising inequality and neglected poverty-stricken population of the north. The group steadily expanded into other regions- Yobe, Bauchi, and Niger under the leadership of Yusuf. Many experts referred to how the organization had created a state within a state in the provinces that were controlled by them.

The year 2009, turned out to be a flashpoint for Boko Haram as an armed conflict took place between the organization and the security forces. The long-standing contestation achieved its climax as the militants were traveling to the funeral of a fellow member and the group was stopped on the highway by the police to enforce a tightened restriction on motorcycle helmets. This led to a heated confrontation between the two parties. The argument instigated an altercation as the men refused to comply with the demands, angered the police shot and wounded several men. This incident led to a violent crackdown by the police on the organization and more than 1000 people were killed with 800 alone only in Maiduguri. The clash continued for 5 days where initially the organization members were roaming the streets independently, killing civilians indiscriminately and fighting the police. The police finally took control of the city and were on a killing spree, multiple people were queued up and shot including Mohammed Yusuf. The police however denied the allegations of executing Yusuf, rather stating that he was shot while trying to escape.

This violent upsurge and the extrajudicial killing of Yusuf by the armed forces ignited a desire for vengeance in the terrorist organization which has gone underground. A year later, the new leader Abubakar Shekau in a video vowed to avenge the death of Yusuf. After the re-emergence of the group, there was a noticeable change in the strategies, mimicking the sophisticated tactics of Al Qaeda. The group refashioned its methods by organizing lethal and continuous attacks in the country. The brutal tactics of the regime included suicide bombing, mass killings, and mass abductions of particularly women and children. The organization’s first high scale attack was in September 2010, when the members attacked a prison in Bauchi and freed 700 prison inmates out of which 150 belonged to the group. A guerrilla war had been waged, where the terrorists assassinated many politicians, and police personnel, and robbed banks. Attacks by Boko Haram became more frequent and more severe, causing numerous fatalities and injuries. Many of the attacks took place in the northeast, north-central, and central states of Nigeria, with a particular emphasis on police, military, and government targets as well as Christian churches and schools and Muslims who held opposing views.

Subsequently, multiple attacks took place, which brought the organization into the eyes of the international audience. In august 2011, a bomb exploded at a United Nations building in Abuja which maimed 100 people and killed 25 others. Boko Haram kept up its relentless attacks and initiated coordinated assaults on police installations in Kano on January 20, 2012 which killed 185 people. Further, in an attack in February, Boko Haram destroyed more than 12 schools in Maiduguri which pushed 10,000 students out of formal education. Two churches in Kaduna were destroyed by a suicide bomber on April 8, which was Easter and resulted in the deaths of almost 40 persons. Further, the group murdered more than 60 boys at the Federal government college in Yobe state. In 2014, the group abducted 276 female students from the town of Chibok. This move followed the pattern of the kidnapping of women in the northeast and demonstrated to the west and the Nigerian government the unlimited power of Boko Haram. Abubakar Shekau in a tape promised that these women will be exploited and sold in the markets the same way the authorities have seized and inflicted atrocities on Muslim women belonging to Boko Haram. These attacks are a small proportion of the total number of killings by the militant group.

Since 2010, Boko Haram has organized numerous attacks in Nigeria which have destabilized the country and led to countless loss of lives. The more recent attacks include the kidnapping of 110 school girls in Yobe state in 2018 and an attack on Chadian security forces which killed at least 23 soldiers and was the deadliest attack by Boko Haram inside Chad. In 2020, at least 20 people were killed and 25 others were injured when the cult stormed the Nigerian community of Gajigana, just as locals were getting ready to break their Ramadan fast. The group has been termed the deadliest terrorist group in the world which has disturbed and exterminated the lives of many. The organization has been able to carry out an average of two attacks per day since it turned violent in 2009, killing close to 11 people every day. Since 2013, the Boko Haram insurgency has primarily operated in rural regions where it has been able to confront the Nigerian military. Up until 2014, Boko Haram concentrated its attacks in north-eastern Nigeria, but mounting pressure from security forces and vigilante groups has forced the terrorist group to launch more and more attacks in Chad, Cameroon, and Niger. In Cameroon, the organization massacred more than 1000 people between 2015 and 2016. Civilians living in areas controlled by Boko Haram have spoken of the inhuman and degrading treatment that is inflicted on them by the group members. Many reports have highlighted how the women and children were subjected to ill treatment, severe beating, and starvation for days. Also, women and girls in captivity for sexually abused by the members including rape, sexual slaves, forced pregnancies, marriages, and conversions.

The organization is now also active in west African nations- Chad, Niger and Cameroon which are bordering Nigeria. A very similar pattern of assassinations, kidnapping, and suicide bombings has been noticed in these countries as well. The group has also been able to develop ties with other terror groups in Africa and other places. This highlights a global nexus of terror groups connected through common theological and ideological aspirations. According to sources the group has ties with African-based organisations- Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Somalia’s Al-Shabab, and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. There have been reports of operational connection with AQIM with special reports detailing how fighters have been trained with Al-Qaeda in small groups. AQIM has also provided Boko Haram with useful information about making improvised explosive devices. In 2012 the UN discovered that several Boko Haram militants fought alongside Al-Qaeda-connected organizations in Mali.

In 2012, Boko Haram openly declared its support for Al-Qaeda, and even during the killing of Osama Bin-laden, US officials found letters by Abubakar Shekau to Bin-laden. Boko Haram in 2015, also openly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. However, there exists a difference between these groups, as the methods, frequency, and magnitude of the attacks organized by Boko Haram are much more brutal and heinous. Boko Haram believes that the entire Muslim population of Nigeria is non-Muslim and therefore killing them is acceptable, whereas other groups believe that the Muslim population of Nigeria should be considered Muslims and not be attacked. The antagonizing and harsh attitude of Boko Haram toward the Muslim population is what differentiates the group from other non-state actors.

The Nigerian government’s approach up until 2015 alternated between ignoring the issue and ineffective, overbearing counterinsurgency tactics that made little distinction between Boko Haram terrorists and the populace that had to live under its rule. Between 2015 and 2017, the military campaign’s effectiveness increased, and the Nigerian government was able to recapture territory from Boko Haram, driving the organization into less populated areas. In 2021, the forces were also able to kill the leader Abubakar Shekau during one of its operations. However, the Nigerian military has had trouble successfully defending retaken territory. Attacks by Boko Haram on a smaller scale continue, exposing the dubious assertions of the Nigerian government that Boko Haram has been effectively crushed. Although the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) in the region has made significant strides against Boko Haram, people are still at risk of terrorist assaults and identity-based violence. Security personnel have allegedly violated human rights and used disproportionate force, including extrajudicial killings, against suspected ISWA and Boko Haram members during counterterrorism operations. The ruthless counterproductive measures have proven to be unadvantageous for the government as it has only further fuelled the desire to seek revenge and caused the lives of civilians.

Even though the government in the last few years has been successful in reducing the group’s capabilities, it has not been able to fully eradicate the same, posing a great threat to the integrity of the country. The insurgency continues to openly operate in the complex north and northeast regions of the country. It has further expanded into the regions of Chad, Niger, and Cameroon leading to regional instability. Several reports have backed that annually 5% of the total deaths are caused by Boko Haram in Nigeria, proving how the militancy still exists as a grave humanitarian crisis for the country. The jihadi group continues to be one of the most dangerous militancy groups in the world, whose attacks are increasing not only in frequency but also in magnitude.

By: Khushbu Ahlawat, GSDN

For the first time, the US President Joe Biden welcomed a head of state with whom he could compare notes about experiencing a bloody uprising. As he sat with the Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in the Oval Office, Biden stated, “Both our nations’ robust democracies have been challenged lately, very much tested, and our institutions are put in risk. But democracy won out in both the United States and Brazil”.  And he also welcomed the second summit of democracy to be held in March 2023. The United States and Brazil stand together in rejecting political violence and valuing our democratic institutions, he added.

The outburst in Brazil on January 08, 2023 resembled a South American version of the attack in Washington on January 06, 2021 when hundreds of Trump supporters broke into the Capitol and attempted to halt the counting of the electoral votes that confirmed Biden’s victory. The Brazilian mob, which backed former president Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right figure known as the Trump of the Tropics and a friend of Donald Trump, rampaged into government buildings in an effort to force the military to overthrow the leftist Lula. In the Oval Office on Friday, Lula criticized his predecessor in harsh words while thanking Biden for his “solidarity” throughout the crisis last month.

After four years of occasionally erratic foreign policy under Bolsonaro, Lula’s meeting with the two leaders, just 40 days into his presidency, was framed as a renewal of ties between the two biggest nations in the Western Hemisphere and demonstrated the warm reception that Brazil’s new president is receiving from leaders around the world.

They talked on how to cooperate and coordinate efforts to advance the human rights agenda on problems including social inclusion and labour rights, gender equality, racial equity and justice, and the defence of LGBTQI+ people’s rights. Additionally, they pledged to revitalise the joint action plan between the United States and Brazil to end racial and ethnic discrimination and advance equality in order to benefit both nations’ marginalised indigenous and racial, ethnic, and ethnic populations, particularly those of African origin.

Both parties emphasised their shared commitment and growing coordination to halt climate change. The protection of the Amazon rainforest was the most important topic on the agenda for their discussions, above and beyond their common experiences and opinions regarding the risks to democracy. Biden crossed his fingers as Lula reaffirmed his nation’s pledge to totally stop deforestation by 2030. They acknowledge the essential role that bilateral and multilateral cooperation between Brazil and the United States, notably within the framework of the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, can play. They examine potential areas of collaboration, including preventing deforestation and environmental degradation, advancing the bioeconomy, accelerating the use of clean energy, stepping up adaption efforts, and encouraging low-carbon agricultural practices. The leaders also reaffirmed their commitment to eradicating hunger and poverty, boosting global food security, removing barriers to trade, fostering economic cooperation, and promoting peace and security on a global scale.

There were some differences of opinion, most notably the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Although Lula has denounced Russia’s invasion, he has previously claimed that NATO and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy may be partially to blame. Additionally, Lula has reluctant to provide Ukraine arms in an effort to uphold his neutrality. While Biden has been more sceptical of discussions in the near future given that Russian President Vladimir Putin has showed no interest in putting an end to hostilities, Lula wants to try to assist in mediating peace in the war. They expressed concern about the conflict’s consequences on the world’s food and energy security, particularly in the world’s poorest areas, and they stated support for the Black Sea Grain Initiative’s effective operation.

A results-driven strategy that benefits both countries was also highlighted as being interested in enhancing bilateral cooperation in sectors including commerce and investment, energy, health, science, technology, and innovation, defence, education and culture, and consular affairs. Recognizing the significance of supply chain resilience, particularly in light of the current state of the world, they made a commitment to continue working together in this area through targeted public-private dialogues.