KURDISTAN (IRAQ)

Real-time website launched to track donations for Kurdistan flood victims

18-12-2025
Rudaw


ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - A new website has been launched to allow people to track - in real time - the funds collected for victims of recent heavy rains and flooding in the Chamchamal district of the Kurdistan Region’s eastern Sulaimani province, the commission leading the relief efforts told Rudaw. More than $8.1 million has already been deposited, with fundraising still ongoing.

The Chamchamal Relief and Reconstruction Commission launched the website under the name Hawkary Kurdana - “Kurdish Aid” in Kurdish - and said in a statement that it has been activated to “ensure the utmost transparency” and is available 24 hours a day.

Ata Mohammed, head of the commission and chief of staff to Kurdistan Region Deputy Prime Minister Qubad Talabani, said on Wednesday that “everyone can use the link https://hawkary-kurdana.com/ to see how much aid has been deposited into the bank accounts.”

“The website is currently active, and more than 7 billion Iraqi dinars [over $5.3 million] have already been deposited,” Mohammed added.

The Kurdistan Region and parts of Iraq experienced three consecutive days of heavy rainfall last week, resulting in severe flash floods. A preliminary report from the Kurdistan Region’s Joint Crisis Coordination Center (JCC) indicated at least five fatalities, 19 injuries, and damage to 2,225 homes across the region and Kirkuk province.

Chamchamal district, in western Sulaimani province, was the hardest-hit area, with two people killed and 12 others injured. According to the JCC, around 1,607 homes were damaged, 200 vehicles destroyed, 115 shops and workplaces affected, and 450 projects impacted.

A large share of the donations - exceeding 7 billion dinars (around $5.3 million) - was raised through Rudaw’s flagship program Lagal Ranj - “With Ranj” in Kurdish - presented by renowned Kurdish media personality and Rudaw’s lead presenter Ranj Sangawi, who launched the fundraising campaign on Sunday.

Opening the broadcast, Sangawi told viewers, “Today’s program is not With Ranj, but rather With the People.”

As of Thursday, over $8.1 million - primarily donated by Kurdish businessmen - has been raised and deposited into bank accounts designated for Chamchamal flood victims, according to the real-time figures published on the website.

Mohammed confirmed to Rudaw that “the deposits are still ongoing and the final total has not yet been received,” adding that “the funds will be distributed to affected residents during a special ceremony.”

He further specified, “We have decided to compensate every flood victim with cash so they can purchase household items according to their own wishes and specific needs.”

Turkish Defense Minister Güler's open threat to SDF

Turkish Defense Minister Yaşar Güler targeted the SDF in his statements regarding North and East Syria. Güler argued that the SDF should be integrated into the Syrian army "individually, not as a unit" and threatened to intervene.


THREAT FROM YAŞAR GÜLER

ANF
NEWS CENTER
Saturday, December 20, 2025 

Defense Minister Yaşar Güler met with Ankara representatives of media organizations as part of the Annual Evaluation Meeting. Making evaluations about the future of North and East Syria at the meeting, Güler asserted that Turkey's plans are ready for all developments in the field.

Güler argued that the newly established structure in Syria should not accept the SDF "in unity" and imposed that SDF fighters join the Syrian army individually. Güler pointed out that this approach actually means the liquidation of the military and political presence of the SDF.

Referring to the negotiations with the USA, Güler claimed that Washington's attitude has changed and said, "Our US friends see the facts better, our differences of opinion are decreasing." Güler emphasized that Turkey will not step back from its demands on this issue.

Güler said, "Our plans are ready for all kinds of developments. We know very well what to do. We have the power to do the same as we have done so far," he said, clearly stating that Turkey is keeping the option of a possible military operation on the table.

OPEN MILITARY THREAT

Answering the question of what will be done if the SDF does not take a step back on its integration into the Syrian army, Güler recalled the military operations carried out in Syria since 2016 and said, "We will do what is necessary without asking anyone."

These statements once again reveal that Ankara continues its policy of pressure and threats against the SDF in North and East Syria, and are considered as a harbinger of new steps that will deepen instability in the region.

SDF to retain ‘three divisions’ in Syrian army under preliminary deal

18-12-2025
Rudaw



ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) will retain three divisions within the Syrian army’s structure under “a preliminary agreement,” a media affiliate of the Northeast Syria (Rojava) administration reported Thursday, noting that negotiations with Damascus are still ongoing.

In a statement posted on X, the North and East Syria Communication (Nescomm) - affiliated with the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES) - said that “a preliminary agreement has been reached to keep three divisions affiliated with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) within the military structure of the Syrian army.”

Nescomm added that “technical discussions are ongoing through specialized committees from both sides to address details related to roles and organizational structure, in a process expected to see practical steps in the coming period.”

The SDF serves as the de facto military force in Rojava and is the primary ground partner of the US-led Global Coalition to Defeat the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Kurdish-led forces, Mazloum Abdi, signed a landmark agreement with Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa on March 10 to place Rojava’s civil and military institutions under centralized state authority and establish a nationwide ceasefire.

While talks to implement the accord have been ongoing since March, the two sides differ on how the SDF should be integrated. Kurdish negotiators want the forces incorporated as a unified bloc, whereas the Syrian side prefers absorbing them individually into regular army units.

Nescomm reported Thursday that Rojava-Damascus talks are advancing with international support encouraging “a political solution based on dialogue, as it is considered the most realistic option to ensure stability.”

Importantly, the Rojava administration’s media outlet noted that “any tangible progress requires refraining from media escalation and hate speech, and focusing on understanding and partnership as the only path to building a sustainable solution in Syria.”

The development comes despite recent attacks on SDF positions reportedly carried out by Damascus forces.

The SDF on Tuesday accused factions linked to the Damascus government of injuring two of its fighters in a suicide drone attack in Deir Hafer, located in the eastern part of northern Aleppo province.

A day earlier, the SDF reported that “factions affiliated with the Damascus government” shelled several areas near the Tishreen Dam in eastern Aleppo, “using artillery and heavy weapons.”

Last week, Abu Omar al-Idlibi, a senior commander in the North Democratic Forces - a component of the SDF - told Rudaw that the Kurdish-led forces are approaching integration talks with Damascus “with great seriousness.” However, progress remains stalled due to a lack of political will from the Damascus leadership and its failure to reciprocate the SDF’s initiatives, Idlibi said.

Preparations for an attack on Rojava?

Turkey met with delegations from France, the United States, Britain and Russia to attack North and East Syria, destroy its gains and force the SDF to disarm.

ZEYNEP BORAN
NEWS CENTER
Saturday, December 13, 2025 

While the Syrian crisis has become the focus of regional and Western powers again; The Turkish state is intensifying its intelligence and diplomatic activities in order to destroy the gains and military power of the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. In this process, which marks the first year of Jolani's seizure of power in Damascus and the last three months of the deadline for the implementation of the March 10 agreement, we see that the diplomatic language has hardened.

While jihadist groups within Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) openly threaten the Autonomous Administration, it is known that the talks between the HTS regime and the Autonomous Administration have stopped for a while. On the other hand, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan imposes that every step to be taken within the scope of the March 10 agreement should be taken according to his wishes.

There was heavy traffic, especially in the first weeks of December 2025. Meetings were held with the participation of a security delegation representing the HTS regime, as well as delegations from the UK, Turkey, France, the United States and Russia. This reflects the international understanding that Syria's future cannot be determined militarily and that the Autonomous Administration has become an important actor in the political and security environment. In all its meetings, Turkey describes the political and social activities of the Autonomous Administration as a "direct threat to Turkey's national security" and the support of the Autonomous Administration by Israel, France and the United States as "an attack on the territorial integrity of Syria." It was learned that the Turkish delegation told the French delegation that this support "allows the PKK to create a safe corridor between northern Iraq and Syria, which threatens Turkey's border security."

In the meetings, the details of which we have reached, the views of some international parties, especially the British and French delegations, on the Autonomous Administration draw attention. It is stated that the delegations said that the Kurds in Syria do not demand separation or independence, on the contrary, they want to stay within the borders of a united Syria, but that a decentralized or federal model should be applied for this. At the same time, the delegations clearly emphasized the need to guarantee the political, security, cultural and economic rights of the Kurds and ensure their fair representation in the institutions of power.

This attitude is implicit recognition of the legitimacy of the Autonomous Administration and reflects a general Western tendency to see the Autonomous Administration as an important partner in stability and the fight against ISIS, especially considering the key role of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in defeating ISIS.

It was learned that the Turkish delegation tried to limit the March 10 agreement to the withdrawal of the SDF from Deir al-Zor, Reqa and Tebqa and the disarmament of the SDF. Moreover, it was stated that he asked the French delegation to put direct pressure on the SDF to force it to surrender its weapons and join HTS's institutions, which was rejected by France. It was noted that the Turkish delegation expressed its disappointment with what it described as "Europe's strict stance" and argued that Europe continues to support the Autonomous Administration within the framework of the "fight against terrorism" and that this support reflects Europe's independence from Turkish pressure to some extent.

Despite the new pragmatic relationship established between Turkey and the HTS regime after the fall of the Baath regime, HTS has not fully adopted Ankara's policy. As HTS seeks to rebuild a centralized state, it recognizes that the Autonomous Administration and the SDF are an important military, political, and social force that cannot be ignored or dismantled. However, it was stated that the Damascus delegation insisted on the individual integration of SDF fighters into the Syrian army, security, oil and natural gas, prisons where ISIS members are held, and the transfer of control of border crossings to it.

It was learned that Russia was cautious in managing its relations with all parties. Although it is a key partner for Turkey on many issues, it seems willing to maintain open channels of communication with the Autonomous Administration.

Despite Turkey's forcing HTS to launch an attack on the Autonomous Administration, Moscow has given clear messages that any attack could directly conflict with its interests and weaken its influence, especially in the coastal regions of Syria. Russia's position reflects the understanding that a possible attack would destabilize the country and revive extremist organizations. This does not align with Russia's current interests in Syria.

The sources emphasized that the US delegation firmly and unequivocally rejects any attack against the areas under the control of the Autonomous Administration. Washington believes that a large-scale war would lead to the resurgence of ISIS and threaten the security gains made by the SDF in recent years. It was stated that the US delegation conveyed these concerns directly to Turkey, emphasizing that stability in North and East Syria is a key element of the US strategy in the region and that the SDF is an indispensable partner.

Among these complex dynamics, Russian sources to the Israeli security delegation; An unexpected Israeli role emerged when Turkey announced that it had informed Moscow of its plans to establish permanent bases in southern Syria in order to limit its influence. This development reflects the multiplicity of actors involved in the Syrian crisis and shows that any radical shift in the balance of power in the north of the country will inevitably affect the south, where sensitive regional security interests intersect.

In addition, it was learned that the Turkish delegation claimed that Israel prevented the US from approving Turkey's operation against the Autonomous Administration on the grounds that Iran would be active in Syria again. This reflects Israel's strategy to maintain its influence in Syria and put pressure on Turkey.

All these developments show that the main disagreement between the Autonomous Administration and the HTS regime is not limited to security, border issues and oil, but also lies at the core of the identity of the future Syrian state. While HTS is moving towards once again imposing the centralist system that Syrians have suffered for decades, the Autonomous Administration adheres to a decentralized project based on the distribution of power according to geographical, ethnic and religious criteria, compatible with the complex realities of Syrian society.

In the new power struggle in the region, the chances of the Autonomous Administration and the SDF consolidating their positions in the Syrian geography are higher than ever. In short, it is clear that the Kurds have succeeded in positioning themselves as a key force in the future of Syria over the past decade. With the growing conviction in the regional and international arena that a decentralized model may be the most realistic option for Syria's stability, the Autonomous Administration project demonstrates the will to move forward towards becoming an integral part of Syria's future political structure, despite numerous challenges and pressures.

source: New Free Politics

KURDISTAN (SYRIA)

'Integration' document from Damascus to Rojava without specifying an interlocutor

The "integration proposal document" signed by the Syrian Ministry of Defense was forwarded to the Autonomous Administration through intermediaries without specifying the addressee. The document, which imposes disorganization and vulnerability, resembles a text signed by Yaşar Güler translated from Turkish into Arabic.


HALIL CEMAL*

HESEKÊ
Friday, December 19, 2025, 


A unique integration proposal document of the Syrian Ministry of Defense, dated 07-12-2025, from which it is not known where it was sent, was delivered to the officials of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria through intermediaries a week ago. However, no official response has been given by the Autonomous Administration regarding this document so far.

The project is signed by the Ministry of Defense, but it is not specified to whom it was sent, that is, the addressee person or institution. I guess there was a concern that if the name of the relevant institution was written, it would be thought that the addressee was taken. In other words, as stated by different commentators or institutions that provided explanatory information, not even for the first time, and finally, the Autonomous Administration or the SDF were not addressed. Therefore, it should be stated from the beginning that the comments such as "the Autonomous Administration was addressed with this document for the first time" are wrong.

The document consists of 6 main headings. Apart from these, there are 2 more headings. While 7 of these headings are the steps to be taken by the Autonomous Administration, that is, the steps to be taken, the last article is supposedly listed as the duties of the government.

Of course, there will be a lot to be said about this document, which has been discussed and evaluated based on some sources without naming names. But in this article, as stated by various people and press organs, the source will not be cited. For this reason, it will not be possible to evaluate this document, which is described in form, item by item in this article.

Since the document was signed by the Ministry of Defense, it can be thought that only the SDF issue was discussed. But it is not.

The subject of SDF is covered. However, the way it is processed is not as expressed by the Autonomous Administration so far. The integration will take place in the form of three separate military units (based in Hesekê, Deir al-Zor, Reqa). Accordingly, the HTS Command, that is, the Ministry of Defense, according to the document, was shown as the approval authority of the SDF's promotion-appointment system, that is, the commanders and officials. So a commander can be proposed. However, the proposed person will be interviewed for approval. The institution that will conduct the interview is not described in the document. However, when the subject is discussed through the logic of the document, it can easily be said that this institution is the HTS command. A very detailed framework has been drawn regarding what needs to be done in this regard. Many topics such as the records of SDF fighters and commanders, the delivery of the SDF inventory and everything subject to the inventory to HTS, the complete transfer of the deployment system and infrastructure works, etc. are mentioned in this document.

The most interesting aspect of this document is that although it was signed by the Ministry of Defense, attention was also drawn to issues such as what the place of the Kurds in the system would be, how people would be included in the state bureaucracy, how energy resources, customs gates would be handled, etc.

With these features, the document is in a content that exceeds the dimensions of the Ministry of Defense and should bear the signature of Jolani, who is ready to do anything to make it permanent, but it is not clear whether it is temporary or permanent.

The time period in which this document was published is also very important. It is quite meaningful that the Damascus HTS government, which has not had any official discourse and not a single step taken in this regard other than the March 10 Agreement for a year, presented such a document in a hurry, without specifying the addressee, and through intermediaries in the last days of the year. Especially at a time when the Turkish ruling wing is making very intense evaluations on reconciliation and integration and forcing the Autonomous Administration to surrender under the name of integration, sending such an unclear document actually means ignoring the Autonomous Administration. In other words, as stated by press commentators or in the statements made, this document does not include being addressed. It means an imperative imposed as "You will do what I say".

On the other hand, this document seems to be a copy of the reports prepared by the ruling wing. There, too, Kurdish denial is grinning. Surrender is tried to be presented as a solution. Under the name of a solution, disorganization and lack of defense mechanisms are imposed. And for the Autonomous Administration, it is wanted to say that "if you do not surrender by the end of the year, the military option, that is, occupation, is on the table". This document, as can be understood from its language, appears as a text translated from Turkish into Arabic and signed by Yaşar Güler.

Considering all this, all Autonomous Administration components and friends, especially the Kurds, need to be prepared for a new wave of genocide. For this reason, it is one of the main duties of our day to avoid discourses that make our people and our peoples complacent. Let us not forget that freedom can only be the work of peoples who are organized and have a self-defense mechanism. For this reason, now is not the time to be complacent, but to be prepared for the most comprehensive resistance.

* Article taken from ANHA

Equal representation

As a result of the 52-year struggle led by Rêber Apo, the Kurdistan Freedom Movement has set an example for the whole world in terms of equal representation.


SİNAN SAHIN

ANF
SİNAN SAHIN
NEWS CENTER
Wednesday, December 10, 2025


When equality is mentioned, the most basic point that comes to people's minds is the issue of rights. In a period when the right to life is recognized for all living things, borders are not crossed, and the right to life is not denied, equality can only be mentioned. Today, the issue of equality has been the subject of debates between men and women. One of the basic principles of democracy has been accepted as women's freedom.

The higher the democratic level of a society, the more evident the level of equality becomes. For this reason, in societies where there is equality, people; They are equally represented in all areas of life such as politics, elections, thought and freedom. Thus, equal representation is not only in the political field; It also settles in people's minds in religion, nation, culture, nature and relations between men and women. Unfortunately, one of the problems that persists to this day is the issue of equal representation.

The dominance of the male-dominated mentality has weakened the understanding of equality and equal representation, and has prevented the recognition of such an understanding in many systems. The state mentality, which accepts only one gender as the basis, has first of all removed women from political power and also dispersed the perception of the society about women. The male-dominated system has stolen all the historical values of women and emptied their essence. It has condemned society to deep slavery along with women.

After this understanding, the co-life model and joint management were erased from the memory of the society over time. All knowledge and understanding in society have been detached from historical social realities, denying the truth of nature and women, that is, the fact that women have the power to rule. The male-dominated understanding, which is incompatible with social values, has shaped science and truths according to its interests. For this reason, the male-dominated mentality was shaped within the state culture; Although he used concepts such as equality, democracy and freedom from time to time, their essence was completely based on the understanding of sovereignty.

Therefore, it is normal for the mind of the state to see even the smallest criticism as a threat and to perceive it as a rebellion against its own system. On this basis, the understanding of equal representation has never been accepted by the state mentality, and women's rights have been constantly denied. Despite the rapid developments in the field of science and technology in this century, many important data are still in the hands of humanity; However, the male-dominated mentality is also deepening, creating more obstacles to free and equal life.

This one-sided system sees women as weak-willed; However, in nature, all beings are in harmony and each of them carries a mission and responsibility. However, the state has disrupted social harmony and made nations, religions, cultures and most of all women invisible. The essence of this understanding is that society is seen as worthless and ignorant; It decides on its own, does not recognize the will of the society, only protects its own power. It suppresses women, individuals, nations, religions and other cultures in a way that serves its own interests and ignores their existence.

EQUAL REPRESENTATION IS THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY

Every group or society; Ethnicities, beliefs and cultural communities, every individual of society contributes to the enrichment of humanity. Despite this wealth, men keep women away from social, political and political activities and especially exclude them from management and decision-making processes. Women's non-participation in the administration expresses a backward situation in terms of the principles of democracy.

However, women's participation is a basic measure in the construction of democracy and paves the way for collective struggle; It limits the man's understanding of governing society alone. The aim of equal representation is to bring society to freedom and democracy based on equality between both sexes. Because joint work constitutes the essence of communal life established on the basis of justice.

Women's participation in political decision-making mechanisms has a great impact on society; It raises the level of democracy in the fields of equality, justice, rights and morality. In addition, collective and active representation brings together all the compositions of society.

There are few examples of equal representation in the world; However, this does not mean that systems do not implement this method at all. In the 1980s, the German Green Party adopted a 50 percent quota for both sexes and adjusted its internal regulations accordingly. This approach also affected other parties; Towards the end of the 1980s, some parties based on similar quotas within their own bodies. The German Green Party implemented the co-chairmanship system and implemented the joint presidency consisting of one woman and one man.

In this context, the Kurdistan Freedom Movement has set an example for the whole world in terms of equal representation as a result of the 52-year struggle led by Rêber Apo.

On November 20, 2004, Rêber Apo announced his determination on the co-chairmanship system and said: "The fact that parties do not have internal democracy is a fundamental problem for all parties in Turkey. If democracy is not built within the party, politics cannot be democratic; if politics is not democratic, society cannot be democratic; If society is not democratic, the state cannot be democratic."

On this basis, the co-chairmanship system started to be implemented in elections in Bakur in 2005. The first party to implement the co-chairmanship system in Turkey was the Democratic Society Party (DTP).

Likewise, in 2010, DBP implemented this system in all Kurdistan provinces. The HDP, on the other hand, entered the elections with the co-chairmanship system throughout Turkey in the 2013 local elections and the 2015 general elections, becoming the first party in Turkey's history to implement this model nationwide. This system is still in force today and produces important results in the struggle for women's freedom and society.

Another important example is Rojava. With the beginning of the Rojava Revolution, equal quotas were taken as a basis for the construction of the democratic nation system and the co-chairmanship system began to be implemented as the basic method of democracy. In Rojava, this system has settled from all areas of life to the smallest community, the communes. Since the commune is the most basic unit of society, the co-chairmanship system is also the basic principle of the commune. Women and men make policies equally, discuss social needs together and make decisions together. This has transformed men's approach to a certain level.

WHY EQUAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEM?

The equal representation system is an alternative to statist, centralist and despotic systems that do not recognize the will of society and the individual. This system is a method of democratic politics. Diversity enables the development of free mind and also builds true common life.

When we talk about equal representation, we are not only talking about equality between men and women, but also about the equal right of young people, different peoples, cultures and beliefs to equal political representation. The basic criteria of this system are collective and joint work.

Equal representation advances a democratic and egalitarian order; It opens up space for different opinions to emerge and prevents the authoritarian perspective. Its purpose is to ensure that the political, social and economic spheres are governed on a fair and dialectical basis.

Equal representation protects the rights of minorities and creates stability based on social peace. The understanding of the democratic nation sees the unity of peoples and equal representation as a wealth. In this sense, peace, tranquility, justice, equality, freedom and democracy become the main goal. It has been of great importance to educate the society on this issue in order to develop the understanding of equal representation in society and to create a culture of free life. The democratic nation model will neutralize the sexist, statist and nationalist system thanks to the organization of free individuals in the political and cultural field.

This model has also become practical in Rojava. All peoples, beliefs and cultures take part and are represented in the 'Democratic Autonomous Administration' system with their free will.

Equal representation of men and women in all areas of work and struggle has set an example for all peoples of the world. In addition, women participate in social work and make decisions with their own identity and free will.

This system has also created radical changes in the mentality of society. In particular, a real revolution has taken place against the sexist understanding that says 'A woman's job is only housework'. Today, Kurdish women are both the pioneer and the executor of a free society. This approach strengthens the social existence and puts the understanding of common, communal struggle on a solid basis.

'Peace and Democratic Society' meeting in Toronto

A meeting was held in Toronto, Canada, where the Peace and Democratic Society process, which was initiated with the call of Leader Apo, the developments in the Middle East and the future of the peoples were discussed.

ANF
TORONTO
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 

The meeting, held at the Canadian Kurdish Community Center, started with a moment of silence for Kurdistan and the Martyrs of the Revolution.

Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) Mêrdîn Deputy Salihe Aydeniz drew attention to the importance of the process initiated by Leader Apo in his speech at the meeting. Saliha Aydeniz said, "Everyone's contribution is absolutely necessary for the construction of peace and democracy in Kurdistan and Turkey."

Pointing to the changing balances in the world and in the Middle East, Saliha Aydeniz said, "There are developments that concern the Kurds and the peoples of Turkey. This process was initiated with the joint efforts of both sides and the point reached is the construction of peace and democratic society that will benefit all peoples."

Emphasizing that the process developed differently from the known peace examples in the world, the DEM Party Deputy said, "Unlike the peace solutions experienced in countries such as the Basques, Ireland and the Philippines, we are moving forward with a new solution model suitable for the sociological structure of our peoples and we have started to get results."

Stating that the process was explained to the public through thousands of meetings, panels and seminars, Saliha Aydeniz stated that diaspora Kurds also have a responsibility: "This process concerns not only those living in Turkey and Kurdistan, but also the Kurdistanis living there. We also expect contributions from our migrated people. It is valuable and meaningful that everyone is involved in this process."

The meeting ended with the questions of the participants about the process and evaluations on the latest developments in Rojava.

Rêber Apo

 

Living in Times of Temporality, Narratives and Commoditisation

Arsh K.S. | 15 Dec 2025

• 
  
• 
  

The terrain of cyberspace, while once liberatory, has become predatory in some respects, with humans playing both spectators and actors.

Representational Image. File Image

Trust, if we understand that to be the belief that two or more people have toward each other, is earned incrementally when there is a lack of understanding about the respective positions regarding where each player stands. Factors that are completely beyond the control of these parties weigh on the backdrop of any such encounter.

The terrain of cyberspace while once liberatory has become predatory in some respects as advertisements become the dominant form in which programmes, images, narratives, news, television, and radio become interspersed with. Money is exchanged for each of these performances, and with them we see a decline of dedicated long-form journalism, for example, that has to compete with applications, such as Inshorts, that can deliver summaries of the top stories of the day in 60 words or less, though admittedly they still provide links to the original articles.

Reflection, as the late American philosopher Fredric Jameson once observed, has become reduced to the instant, and a reduction of lived time to the body. This phenomenological poverty is exacerbated by the kind of habits we have imbibed, such as scrolling through reels that are less than 90 seconds long and often much shorter.

Performance is what television emphasises, with choreographed dances reflecting the sensibility that flash mobs have in terms of their organisation and emergence. It is inevitable that human experiences become permeated by such forms and the rhythm of our thoughts attunes to such modes at the expense of others.  Capital is at play here and the difference between a genuine advertisement that highlights a product or service, and other less appreciatory forms become evident for all to see.

What happens to sociality in such a terrain? Professional interaction becomes the sole recourse amongst people and we begin to approach what would be a technocracy. This is not to say that the sharing of private experiences and correspondences are necessarily beyond such a logic, for even the presentation of, let us say a condensed family tree or even history is so easily commoditised, instrumentalised and tokenised to serve as a means to secure an interest, or establish primacy.

Where amongst this is any genuine interest for the other? Here, we could say that the common presumption is that such a point of view is reduced to that of the spectator, who caught in, if not the same specificities, is still an actor in society that is subject to the above-mentioned developments.

Author Milan Kundera in 1995 wrote a beautiful short novella titled, Slowness, where he identifies this craze for speed that the motor has introduced into society since the dawn of the industrial revolution. For the first time, man did not need to use the power of his own limbs to propel himself, freeing himself from such a weight and opening himself out to a new temporality that the motor vehicle introduces. It became possible, for example, for the background to disappear into a blurred scenery with only the horizon and road ahead, a sense of adventure perhaps and animated conversations amongst companions evocatively captured in novels such as, On The Road by Jack Kerouac (1957), and yet half a century later where are we? Stuck in traffic jams, watching signals, jammed packed in public transportation, but this is not what slowness is about. Really, slowness is about narrative and how that is exchanged, and the best form that can transmit this remains literature.

What any narrative requires is, apart from the characters themselves, a narrational point of view. That is a perspective that can assimilate what is happening, amongst characters, in characters, when they are apart, when they are together, what transpires between them, where they meet, their silences, aporias, and desires.

What must not be forgotten in any such recollection is that literature is, like any other medium, a commodity in the conditions of capitalism as they exist today and the ability to appreciate such a form demands a temporality that is not driven by the 24-hour news cycle, rummaged by the sound of traffic, complaining neighbours, the sounds of a construction site, and other such distractions that come with the city, which apart from these can yet afford moments of stillness and silence, even if simplicity is now beyond it.

A neighbourhood, for example, has a certain sensibility that permeates it, voices, gazes, some benevolent, some malevolent, and an anticipated consideration which is sadly always too short and broken by a knee-jerk fear that perhaps someone would break out of its sphere of gravity, find a time that is not a merely a plaything of their sensibilities.

In other words, in capitalism and in the conditions of alienation we now inhabit, we always end up trying to make commodities out of each other that we can consume ourselves, while offering nothing in return, perhaps worse yet, cheapening the nothing that can be shared.

The writer is an independent journalist pursuing a PhD. The views are personal.

Is international law truly ‘law’?

International law is not contingent upon flawless compliance but emerges from the interplay of institutional coherence, collective recognition and structured mechanisms of accountability.

Muhammad Siddique 

Ali Pirzada 

Published December 17, 2025

IMAGES/DAWN

In recent years, the legitimacy of international law as a licit system has become a matter of profound scholarly interrogation and diplomatic preoccupation. This inquiry transcends the merely semantic or pedantic; instead, it excavates the very architecture of global order, shaping how nations comport themselves, how disputes are adjudicated, and how justice, stability, and predictability may be sustained across an ever-interdependent planet.

This is underscored by contemporary crises such as the genocide in Gaza and the Indus Water Treaty, both cases illustrating how international law functions as a stabilising framework and normative guidance even in contexts characterised by stark power asymmetries and conflict.

The fact is rather straightforward: international law is not contingent upon flawless compliance, but rather emerges from the interplay of institutional coherence, collective recognition, and structured mechanisms of accountability.
Law or wistful aspiration?

Critics, particularly those beholden to English legal theorist John Austin’s Command Theory of Law, argue that international law cannot properly be considered law. Their charge is beguilingly simple: states flout their obligations with disconcerting regularity, and enforcement mechanisms appear weak, inconsistent, or entirely spectral.

In Austin’s schema, law is nothing more than a sovereign’s command buttressed by tangible sanctions. Remove coercive force, and law dissolves into wistful aspiration. Viewed through this tapered prism, international law becomes a mere compendium of norms, perennially hostage to the oscillations of national self-interest, geopolitical realpolitik, and the caprices of power.

Such critiques, though intellectually stimulating, crumble under more rigorous scrutiny. Two rebuttals prove decisive. First, the illusion of perfect compliance is a profoundly flawed metric for assessing legal validity because even the most sophisticated domestic legal systems are replete with breaches, infractions, and unresolved disputes that do not, for a moment, impugn the legitimacy of the law itself. If obedience were the lodestar of legal existence, few, if any, legal orders would endure.


Second, Austinian critics import criteria appropriate to hierarchical, coercive domestic structures into the unique, horizontal, and consensual realm of international relations. International law operates among sovereign equals who recognise no global Leviathan. To judge it by domestic parameters is to commit a categorical error. The legitimacy of any legal system inheres not in immaculate obedience but in the presence of an internally coherent constellation of norms, institutions, and authoritative procedures.

British legal professional and philosopher H. L. A. Hart, in his seminal work The Concept of Law, provides the most illuminating framework for apprehending this legitimacy. He repudiated the reduction of law to crude coercion and conceived law as an intricate tapestry woven from primary and secondary rules. Primary rules impose duties and confer powers, guiding conduct and maintaining social order. They exhibit three characteristics: engender an insistent demand for conformity, be indispensable to the maintenance of societal life, and require individuals or states to subordinate parochial preferences to collective imperatives.

Secondary rules imbue a legal system with coherence, adaptability, and authority. The Rule of Recognition furnishes the criteria of legal validity. The Rule of Change offers mechanisms for amendment and evolution. The Rule of Adjudication provides authoritative procedures for dispute resolution.

Together, these rules comprise a functioning legal order founded not upon brute force but upon structural sophistication and institutional legitimacy. Absent these secondary rules, law is a formless nebula, incapable of guiding conduct or resolving disputes.
‘Systematic ordering of social life’

Through this Hartian lens, international law unmistakably presents the hallmarks of a mature legal system. Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice functions as an international rule of recognition, identifying treaties, customary norms, general principles, and subsidiary jurisprudence as authoritative sources.

Treaty-making procedures, customary formation, and UN Security Council deliberations operate as rules of change, facilitating the perpetual evolution of international norms. The International Court of Justice, regional courts, and arbitral bodies furnish reliable mechanisms of adjudication. These institutions exercise authority not through coercive diktat but through the persuasive force of reason, legitimacy, and collective expectation.

Primary sources of international law readily satisfy Hart’s criteria of obligation. Consider the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which codifies a finely calibrated system of privileges, immunities, and behavioural standards for diplomats, reinforced not by coercion but by reciprocity. No state wishes to endanger the safety of its own emissaries abroad.

Thus, compliance flows from enlightened self-interest and the recognition that diplomatic intercourse is the lifeblood of international comity. Crucially, these obligations often compel states to restrain short-term impulses. The immunity provisions in Article 31 oblige states to place the dignity of a legal order above the allure of expedient retribution.

Customary international law provides further illustration. Norms such as the prohibition of torture, elevated to jus cogens — a body of peremptory norms in international law from which no derogation is permitted — bind all states. In Prosecutor v. Furundžija, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia affirmed this status.

Such norms generate moral suasion, institutional authority, and global opprobrium against breaches. They embody a universal conscience that no state can legitimately contravene.

General principles recognised by civilised nations serve as stabilising forces when treaties fall silent or custom proves ambiguous. Principles such as estoppel, equity, and good faith preserve coherence, integrity, and reason. The Argentina-Chile Frontier Arbitration vividly demonstrates estoppel’s ability to anchor states to their prior undertakings, forestalling chaotic inconsistency.

Judicial decisions and scholarly interpretations, though subsidiary under Article 59, wield immense interpretative influence. They refine the law’s contours, crystallise its principles, and guide state behaviour. Their authority is derived not from coercion but from erudition, logic, and the institutional legitimacy of international courts and tribunals.

When apprehended holistically, international law emerges as a sophisticated union of primary and secondary rules. Austinian critiques, fixated on coercion, overlook this deeper structural and normative architecture.


Hart teaches that the essence of law resides not in the immediacy of its sanctions but in the systematic ordering of social life, the predictability it engenders, and the institutional mechanisms it employs to resolve disputes.
Procedural and moral anchor

Case in point: the Indus Waters Treaty. Operational for over six decades, it demonstrates the endurance of legal norms despite intermittent political turbulence. India’s unilateral suspension of the treaty in April 2025 challenged the immediate authority of the legal order but did not annul its binding force.

From a Hartian perspective, the treaty’s legitimacy derives not from immediate obedience but from the robustness of its primary and secondary rules: the institutional architecture underpinning dispute resolution, the sustained collective recognition by the parties, and the adjudicative mechanisms, including recourse to the Permanent Court of Arbitration.


These structural features ensure that the treaty continues to exert normative influence, compelling compliance through reasoned expectation and procedural authority rather than through coercion.

Similarly, the catastrophe in Gaza illustrates the resilience of international law under extreme conditions. Peremptory norms: prohibiting genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity operate as primary rules, binding states. The legitimacy of these norms is reinforced by secondary rules embodied in tribunals, fact-finding commissions, and the International Court of Justice, which provide structured avenues for recognition, adjudication, and accountability.

Even where direct enforcement is limited, these mechanisms sustain the authority of the legal order, asserting claims to justice and normative compliance.

In November last year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became the first leader of a “western-style” democracy to have an arrest warrant issued in his name by the International Criminal Court. The three-judge panel said it had found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu “bears criminal responsibility for … the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.

Bibi, of course, was not arrested because Israel is not a member of the ICC. However, the order did, in theory, limit his movement, as any of the court’s 124 national members could arrest him on their territory. This explains why the Israeli premier chose to skip an event marking the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland, or why his plane avoided the French airspace on the way to the 80th United Nations General Assembly session in September.

But more than that, what the warrant did was establish that there was someone out there seeing, noting and keeping a record of the grave crimes Netanyahu’s government committed. And that there was someone who would try, at least, to hold him accountable for it, even if on paper.

In both instances — the Indus Water Treaty and Israeli assault on Gaza — international law serves as a procedural and moral anchor, maintaining authority through institutional integrity, collective commitment, and the internal logic of the legal system, rather than relying solely on coercive power. The enduring challenge lies in the continuous engagement of states; the effectiveness and legitimacy of international law remain contingent on their sustained recognition, highlighting that its authority is fundamentally procedural, consensual, and structurally grounded rather than purely coercive.

This understanding gives rise to urgent and arresting questions. If law is something more than the shadow of force, what then is the true source of legitimate authority in an otherwise anarchic world? If justice aspires beyond coercion, can a global community genuinely exist without recognising the binding nature of shared norms? And if states willingly partake in the benefits of legal order, can they, with any honesty, disclaim the obligations that sustain it?

These questions, echoing through the long arc of international jurisprudence, challenge states to acknowledge that legitimacy does not originate from compulsion alone but from procedural integrity, collective consent, and a shared commitment to the governance of reason.

To deny this legitimacy is to imperil justice itself, to unravel the threads of accountability, and to erode the fragile architecture upon which the international system rests. To affirm it is to accept that humanity, despite its frailties, is capable of rising above the tyranny of unrestrained power through the ennobling discipline of law.
The choice between law and might

The question has never been whether international law is flawless. Perfection is an illusion to which no human institution can credibly aspire.


The real question is whether we are prepared to embrace international law as indispensable: the essential foundation of global justice, shared responsibility, and a world in which reasoned norms constrain unfettered force.

Even with all its imperfections, the international legal order we possess today offers something infinitely more valuable than the void. It provides a platform on which accountability can be demanded, a vocabulary through which injustice can be named, and a structure through which the powerful can, at least in principle, be held to account.

In moments of profound crisis, such a framework becomes not an academic abstraction but a lifeline. Without it, we would stand before atrocity with empty hands and no legal ground on which to challenge those who perpetrate grave violations.


With it, imperfect though it may be, humanity retains a foothold: a means to contest impunity, to invoke norms against barbarity, and to insist that even in the darkest hours there exists a higher standard to which the world must answer.

The choice is stark yet simple. We can reject the system for its inadequacies and be left with nothing, or we can uphold it as the best and indeed the only civilisational instrument we possess to express our collective yearning for order, dignity, and justice.

The future of global society depends on recognising that in the contest between law and might, it is only through the persistent affirmation of law’s legitimacy that humanity can hope to transcend the brutal logic of force.

Header image: Protesters hold a Palestinian flag as they gather outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as judges rule on emergency measures against Israel following accusations by South Africa that the Israeli military operation in Gaza is a state-led genocide, in The Hague, Netherlands. — Reuters/File





5


The author presently serves as a research associate at the United Nations Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan. The views expressed are the author’s own and do not reflect the official position of the ministry. He tweets @msapirzada

Ben & Jerry’s co-founder announces lawsuit against Magnum for ‘interfering’ with its social mission

The brand's new parent company tried to remove three key members of the independent board overseeing its social missions.

Images Staff
20 Dec, 2025
DAWN

Ben Cohen, the outspoken co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, has announced that the ice cream brand’s independent board is suing its new parent company, Magnum, accusing it of illegally interfering with the board that safeguards Ben & Jerry’s social mission — just one week after Magnum took charge.

“On Monday, just one week after taking charge of Ben & Jerry’s, Magnum tried to remove three key members from the Independent Board, which oversees Ben & Jerry’s social mission,” Cohen wrote in a post on X.

“The Independent Board is now suing Unilever/Magnum.”

Cohen made it clear that, in his view, the move crosses a legal and ethical line. “Magnum does not have the legal right to interfere with the Independent Board,” he added.

Reiterating the company’s founding ethos, Cohen stressed that Ben & Jerry’s was built to speak out — especially when it is uncomfortable. “If Magnum can’t live with that, they shouldn’t be in charge of it,” he wrote, adding the hashtag #FreeBenAndJerrys.

In 2000, Cohen and co-founder Jerry Greenfield sold the company to Unilever, negotiating a unique governance structure designed to protect its social mission.

However, the founders have repeatedly accused Unilever of trying to muzzle the brand’s activism, tensions that culminated in Greenfield’s resignation in September. Now, with Ben & Jerry’s placed under Unilever’s subsidiary — The Magnum Ice Cream Company (MICC) — those fears appear to have intensified.

What actually happened

According to Reuters, Ben & Jerry’s — now operating under Magnum — removed three long-serving members of its independent board as part of newly introduced governance rules, including a nine-year term limit for board members.

Among them was Anuradha Mittal, the board’s chair, who joined in 2007 and had served as chair since 2018. Mittal told Reuters earlier this month that she had no intention of stepping down under pressure from Unilever, describing attempts to remove her as an effort to “undermine the authority of the board itself”.

In a statement, Ben & Jerry’s said that directors who had served more than nine years would no longer be eligible for re-election from 2026 onward. While the company did not publicly name the affected members, sources confirmed to Reuters that Mittal was removed with immediate effect, while long-standing directors Daryn Dodson and Jennifer Henderson will see their terms expire on December 31.

If the three additional directors are removed, the board, which once had eight members, would be left with just two directors, Ben & Jerry’s CEO and one member previously appointed by the brand’s prior owner Unilever.

Cohen strongly pushed back against the move, praising the three directors for serving “with integrity and courage” and calling their removal “another step in Magnum’s systematic effort to dismantle Ben & Jerry’s from the inside and silence the very social mission that gives the brand its value.”

Competing narratives

Magnum, which now controls Ben & Jerry’s, has claimed that the brand’s foundation trustees have refused to address alleged deficiencies in financial controls and governance.

The trustees, however, flatly rejected those claims.

In a statement, they said the allegations were “misleading and unfounded,” arguing that what is unfolding is “a coordinated effort by Magnum to manufacture a narrative of dysfunction” in order to justify unprecedented control over an independent, mission-driven institution.

This latest clash is not happening in isolation. In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling ice cream in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, prompting a legal clash with Unilever. Last year, the company sued its parent over what it said were repeated attempts to silence its advocacy for a ceasefire and Palestinian rights.

Ben & Jerry’s was officially moved under The Magnum Ice Cream Company in September as part of Unilever’s planned corporate spin-off.

 

Ben Cohen

@YoBenCohen

Tag 

@MagnumIceCream

and tell them you want a #FreeBenAndJerrys and sign the letter at http://freebenandjerrys.com

Anuradha Mittal

1:28 PM · Dec 19, 2025

·

35.9K

Views