India and Pakistan have been at daggers drawn since 1947 when Indian Sub continent was partitioned.  The partition of India was the division of British governance on the Indian sub-continent into two independent dominion states, India and Pakistan.  The partition was based on religious domination in each state with India having majority Hindu population and Pakistan majority Muslim.

The two nations have had continual dispute ever since, mainly over the control of the Jammu and Kashmir region, which is administered by India. It consists of the southern portion of the larger Kashmir region, which has also been disputed since 1947. Pakistan claims most of the region based on its Muslim-majority population.

On 22 April, 26 civilians were killed in Pahalgam in Kashmir. India has accused Pakistan of sponsoring the attacks; Pakistan has denied involvement and has undertaken to comply with any independent investigations into the attack.

Subsequently, tit-for-tat diplomatic spats have since ensued between the two nuclear nations. India fired the first salvo by closing its main border crossing with Pakistan, expelled its military diplomats and suspended a landmark water-sharing treaty.

The situation is escalating. On 6 May, the Indian armed forces confirmed that it had targeted nine sites in Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir as part of “Operation Sindoor”.

Pakistan has vowed “to respond to this at a time and place of their own choosing. This heinous provocation will not go unanswered.”

The Resistance Front (TRF) has claimed responsibility for this attack. The TRF, a fringe organisation, emerged in the region in 2019. This attack is the deadliest on civilians in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks carried out by Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group also known as Jamaat-ud-Dawa.

This latest attack has triggered a memory of the Mumbai attacks, something most Indians would like to forget. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is under pressure to act. He needs to particularly reassure his ultra-Hindu nationalists political base.

According to Sunil Singh, a street vendor in Delhi's busy Lajpat Nagar market, “Pakistan is the root of the problem, and the military should go all out to teach them a lesson.”

Singh argues that “unless India breaks the back of Pakistan, these heinous acts will continue to occur. Our prime minister has our full support; our military has our full support.”

A war between the two nuclear power nations could prove detrimental to the world’s economy, regional peace and stability. China and the United States have called for restraint.

Pakistan has had its share of homegrown terrorism, which it continues to confront. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), in its annual report, said there were at least 67 suicide attacks in Pakistan. A total of 973 people died and 2318 were injured in 2008.

Part of Pakistan’s difficulty in combating terrorism is its weak border with Afghanistan. Thousands of migrants enter Pakistan undetected. The government of Pakistan recently issued a decree meant to deal with illegal immigration. The Pakistan-Afghanistan border has been volatile since Pakistan’s independence. Moreover, the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia and later the US worsened the safety of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The recent attack of Indian nationals in Kashmir comes at a critical time in Indian politics, particularly with the rise of ultra-nationalists in the country. There have been a number of incidents targeting Muslims in India.
Less than 24 hours after the attack, a new song surfaced on YouTube. The lyrics are: “We made a mistake by allowing you to stay on, You got your own country, why didn’t you leave then? They call us Hindus ‘kaffirs’, Their hearts are full of conspiracies against us.”
The haphazard nature in which the partition of India took place and failure to include Kashmir into Pakistan is to be blamed for this conflict.

Why did Britain decide not to include Kashmir, a majority Muslim region under the administration of Pakistan? There is an argument that Britain allowed Kashmir to be under India’s control to further divide and rule. Britain committed crimes against the Indians before the partition, including the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, which saw British troops fire on thousands of unarmed people in Amritsar on 13 April 1919. Instead of calling for reparations and for Britain to account for its atrocities it committed during the occupation of India, the two countries have been engaging in an endless conflict.

Britain did the same in South Africa by supporting the establishment of apartheid after the country became a republic outside of the Commonwealth. The intentions of apartheid were the same as those that were implemented in India. Similarly, Jews were given a right to establish the Jewish state of Israel, which resulted in the dislocation and displacement of Palestinians from their land.

Thembisa Fakude is a senior research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues and a director at the Mail & Guardian.

Coup d’états have dominated African politics since the end of colonialism for a number of reasons. Coup d’états continue to be condemned by several countries in Africa and indeed the African Union (AU). The Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Union (AU) is empowered by the AU charter to impose sanctions on countries and leaders who are involved in coup d’états. However recently, even the PSC has been unwilling to execute its mandate due to popularity of “ good coup d’états” especially in West and Central Africa. At one of its meetings to discuss the coup d’état in Chad, the PSC, after examining the report submitted by its fact-finding mission to Ndjamena and following lengthy discussions, decided against suspending Chad from the AU or imposing individual sanctions. Instead, it endorsed the Transitional Military Council (TMC) 18-month plan to restore constitutional order.

There have been several coup d’états in the West and Central African states since 2020 including in Gabon, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Gabon, Guinea and in Mali. They are regarded as “good coup d’états”, a new political phenomenon in African politics. The popularity and charisma of the leadership of these coup d’états have pushed the AU into a corner in terms of excluding and sanctioning those responsible.

The traditional academic framing of coup d’états labels these political events as undemocratic processes, their framing is based on “the rule of law”. What does the rule of law mean in unruly and lawless societies? Where governments do not respect civil rights and consistently violate constitutional and basic human rights of their citizens. Moreover, what happens in situations where elections are never held, continually postponed or results thereof meddled? Young African activists and scholars insist that in such instances coup d’états are legitimate democratic instruments.

There is an emergence of a radical school of thought within young African thinkers and academics regarding coup d’état. They argue that, given the sociopolitical realities in many dictatorships in Africa, the blanket condemnation of coup d’états needs a rethink. This thought is further motivated by the rise of young new leaders such as President Ebrahim Traore of Burkina Faso. This new young leadership, their style and method of governance deserve proper study and inclusion in African political thought from a new academic perspective.

Anti-personnel landmines have maimed millions of people around the world. At least 1  983 people were killed and 3  663 injured in 53 countries, according to the 2024 report by the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor Group. Civilians made up 84% of the victims, with children accounting for 37%.

Efforts by a number of organisations continue to assist countries around the world in mine clearance.

Princess Diana of Wales was perhaps one of the most popular people who spearheaded and highlighted the urgency of mine clearance. The image of her wearing a protective visor and flak jacket, walking through a minefield in Huambo, Angola, made international headlines.

Landmines continue to harm the ability of people to reach their full potential, particularly in the region of Karabakh in Azerbaijan.

Karabakh is heavily contaminated with landmines and unexploded ordnances.

More than 340 Azerbaijani citizens have either been killed or injured in varying degrees due to landmines since the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War.

It’s estimated that 11  667 square kilometres of territory in the Karabakh Economic Region is laced with landmines and other explosive remnants of war. According to estimates by experts, it will take decades to clear the region of the landmines and the unexploded ordnances.

Karabakh covers the south-eastern stretch of the Lesser Caucasus mountain range. The region was occupied and governed by Armenia in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War in 1994. The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, also known as the 44-day war, took place from 27  September to 10  November 2020.

Azerbaijan reclaimed the Karabakh region except for a rump state connected through a narrow Russian-controlled corridor with Armenia.
On 19 September 2023, the Azerbaijani armed forces took over this area, including the ancient city of Khankendi.

The takeover of Khankendi was particularly important for Azerbaijan because of its historical significance. The city was established by the khan (or ruler) of Karabakh in 18th century, and was thus called Khankendi or ruler’s own.

The University of Karabakh is located in Khankendi. Hundreds of students from various parts of Azerbaijan are enrolled there. It is gradually becoming a vibrant student city with ambitious plans for growth and economic activity.

Khankendi also a campaign to attract new residents and businesses from other parts of the country, including those who left their homes and business during wars and conflicts in Karabakh over the years.

Thousands of Azerbaijanis who were forcibly removed from their homes in Karabakh during the 1990s and after the First Nagorno-Karabakh War live in the city.

The government of Azerbaijan has also communicated willingness to help resettle Armenians who left their homes after the war. According to the Azerbaijan’s foreign ministry, the country is “committed to upholding the human rights of the Armenian residents of Karabakh on an equal basis with other citizens of Azerbaijan”. The government has kept the houses and business premises of Armenians, especially in Khankendi, intact and uninhabited, hoping that Armenians and others who left will one day return.

Notwithstanding political successes and infrastructural developments, the region of Karabakh is still struggling to meet the goals of its socio-economic projects.

This is due largely to the dangers presented by landmines and other unexploded ordnances.

After the end of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020 landmine maps were transferred to Azerbaijan.

In June 2021, Armenia handed to the Azerbaijan government a map detailing the location of landmines in Agdam, a region relinquished by ethnic Armenian forces as a part of a deal to end their short war of 2020. But Azerbaijan regarded those maps as inaccurate.

In 2024, Armenia presented an additional eight maps on minefields in Karabakh. But, according to the Azerbaijan National Mine Action Agency (Anama), “the information in those maps was “inaccurate, unreliable and incomplete”.

The agency said the carnage caused by landmines continues despite Armenia’s repeated claims of having provided accurate and complete minefield maps.

Anama is responsible for the clearance of mines, unexploded ordnance and other explosive residues (except for chemical weapons) found in the territories freed from occupation.

It is also responsible for other areas affected by war and military operations, and its activities include temporary storage, transportation and neutralisation of the weapons, as well as the planning, coordination and management of other activities.

Last year, Anama cleared 62  023 hectares of landmines, gathered 59  163 pieces of unexploded ordinances, 4  286 anti-personnel mines and 2 372 anti-tank mines.

The constant danger presented by the landmines and other ordnances continue to impede the progress in Karabakh.
Armenia is not a signatory to the Convention of the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.

There is increased pressure on oil-producing countries to do more to limit the effect of climate change.

Some of these countries have begun making efforts and have detailed plans to address climate change. Azerbaijan, one of the major oil-producing countries in the world, for example, has committed to a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels and aims to increase renewable energy to 30% of its total electricity capacity by 2030.

Among the first executive orders US President Donald Trump signed after taking office was the withdrawal from several treaties and agreements on climate change. He signed an executive order declaring a national energy emergency — a directive aimed at rolling back regulations on the oil and gas sector and accelerating drilling and pipeline development.

In his inauguration speech, Trump insisted that the US would “Drill, baby, drill”, emphasising that the country would intensify oil drilling and encourage increased oil production to boost its economy.

This position contradicts those taken by previous administrations. Under the Biden administration, the US took a strong stance on climate action, committing to a 61% to 66% reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. It also set a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

Moreover, the US had accelerated the transition to a clean energy economy, aiming to reduce oil demand rather than production.

Trump has reversed those commitments. Notably, he has withdrawn from the Paris Accord — an international treaty adopted in 2015 aiming to limit global warming to below 2°C, among other goals.

The US company Tesla has been innovative in the production of electric vehicles (EVs), arguably compensating for the US’s shortcomings in its climate change efforts. Tesla has been praised globally for its technology and introduction of efficient and competitive alternatives to petrol-powered vehicles. It has significantly reshaped the perception of EVs by demonstrating their viability, performance and desirability — moving them from niche to mainstream and inspiring other car makers to invest heavily in EV technology.

Tesla’s core offering has not only targeted car enthusiasts; the company prides itself on accelerating the transition to sustainable energy, building products designed to replace some of the planet’s biggest polluters.

Tesla’s products have also appealed to environmentalists. Tesla claims that, because of its technology, in 2023 customers avoided releasing over 20 million metric tonnes of CO2  equivalents (a unit of measurement used to standardise the climate effects of greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere.

Tesla’s founder, Elon Musk — the world’s richest man — joined the Trump 2.0 administration in January 2025. He has endorsed conservative policies on governance and has become a central figure among those opposing climate change policies.

Consequently, many Tesla clients and patrons are increasingly feeling betrayed by a company that, since its establishment in 2003, has operated under global environmental concerns. Protests against Tesla have been organised across the US and Europe. Musk’s support for and association with the Make America Great Again movement and his involvement in the Trump administration have intensified calls to boycott Tesla.

Crowds protesting against the purge of the US government under Trump have been congregating outside Tesla dealerships in the US and in some European cities. Tesla clients have also expressed concern about their indirect support of Trump through their patronage of the company. According to CBS News, Elon Musk spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars to back then president-elect Trump and other Republican candidates.

Musk is leading the department of government efficiency (Doge), a new entity in the Trump 2.0 administration aimed at improving government efficiency, cutting wasteful expenditure and increasing revenues. A few months after its establishment, the department froze federal grants and issued a costly directive offering employees paid resignation. Musk has also dismantled the US Agency for International Development and seized control of a huge database containing sensitive information on all Americans. These actions have raised serious legal and constitutional concerns.

Tesla plans to open operations in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in April 2025. Pop-up stores in Riyadh, Jeddah and Dammam will be operational by 11  April.

In 2018, Tesla decided not to sell its EVs in Saudi Arabia. Falling sales figures as a result of the protests and calls for a boycott led to a change in strategy. Tesla’s sales in Europe are down 42.6% this year, even as demand for EVs increases.

Saudi Arabia appears out of touch with global sentiment in its decision on Tesla. Launching its operations amid protests against the company and Elon Musk is likely to compound the country’s public relations problems. First, the US’s support for Israel has been blamed for the ongoing killing of women and children and the bombardment of Palestine.

Saudi Arabia has been criticised for its intentions to endorse the Abraham Accords and normalise relations with Israel. Hosting Tesla may heighten such criticisms. The accords are agreements aimed at improving relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

Second, Musk has called for the elimination of Hamas and likened the situation in Gaza to how the US treated Germany and Japan after World War II. Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was made to accept full blame for World War  I, subjected to heavy reparations, military reductions and territorial losses. Israel has persistently called for the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza and continues to annex parts of the West Bank.

Reflecting this ideology, Trump has proposed relocating Palestinians from Gaza to other countries instead of rebuilding homes in the war-torn region, which he referred to as a “demolition site”. He suggested expelling Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt; both countries have rejected this proposal. Trump has also proposed transforming Gaza into a “riviera of the Middle East.”

Whether Tesla will succeed in Saudi Arabia remains uncertain amid heightened political tensions between the US, Israel and grassroots movements in the region. Regardless of the outcome, Tesla’s investment in Saudi Arabia is likely to draw negative attention to the country and its de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman.

Rwanda has expelled all Belgian diplomats and gave them 48 hours to leave the country.  Belgium has retaliated by expelling Rwandan diplomats from Brussels. The government of President Paul Kagame has accused Brussels of attempting to “sustain its neo-colonial delusions“.   

Belgium hosts the largest Rwandan diaspora in the world —most work in the informal sector. They rely on their embassy for a number of services including registration of births and the renewal of visas and passports. 

The expulsion of diplomats and cancelling of embassy and consular services is going to have a detrimental effect on them. 

Likewise, there are several Belgian companies and many professionals operating in Rwanda who are also going to be negatively impacted by these developments.  

Spats between Belgium and Rwanda are nothing new.  

Rwanda, a former Belgian colony, continues to berate the country about its past atrocities and blames it for the genocide in 1994. This resulted in the deaths of more than 800 000 people. Most of them were Tutsis, a Bantu language-speaking group spread across the eastern part of Africa.  he history of Belgium’s colonisation of the Congo and neighbouring countries was characterised by brutality. When King Philippe of Belgium visited the region in 2022, he expressed regret for the “paternalism, discrimination and racism” of the colonial regime. 

He also reaffirmed his “deepest regrets for the wounds of the past” but stopped short of apologising. 

Belgium was responsible for the drafting of the haphazard map of the Great Lakes region. Traditional tribal foes were lumped together and forced to live with each other. This culminated in political havoc, instability and toxic tribalism. 

The inability of the governments of the day to manage multi-ethnic societies by ensuring equitable access to natural resources, rule of law and political inclusion created a situation ripe for conflict. 

The eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has remained the epicentre of instability in the region since independence in 1960. 

There is a sizeable Tutsis in the eastern DRC , they have strong ties with other Tutsi groups across the border. Tutsis have long seen themselves as victims of the haphazard drafting of borders.  

Although conflicts have tended to be intrastate in the beginning, due to strong cross-border dimensions and transnational ethnic identities, they have often spread to destabilise the whole region. 

Since assuming office in 1994, Kagame has regarded himself as a sort of saviour of the Tutsis in the region. A case in point is his support of the DRC’s March 2023 rebel group, also known as M23.  Notwithstanding his efforts in encouraging national cohesion by promoting Rwandan national identity and making it a crime for Rwandans to describe themselves based on ethnicity, he embraces a different posture outside the borders of the country. In the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Kagame banned people from sharing their ethnic identity.  

The Congolese Tutsi communities, the Banyamulenge, who live mainly in South Kivu, and the Banyarwanda, who live in North Kivu, fought along with Rwanda during that country’s civil war from 1990 to 1994. 

Many Hutus fled Rwanda after the genocide and most settled in the eastern part of the DRC. They included members of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR).  

Many members of the FDLR were part of Interahamwe, the Hutu paramilitary organisation that led the 1994 Rwandan genocide. 

There has been a push by Rwanda to repatriate FDLR members to Rwanda to face justice. 

Importantly, Rwanda would like to destroy the FDLR as it continues to present an existential threat to the country. FDLR members have resisted being repatriated, fearing reprisals and imprisonment. 

The M23, a group made up primarily of Tutsis, has been battling the FDLR and the DRC forces for the better part of its existence. 

Kagame has been accused of arming and supporting the M23. Peace talks between M23, the government of the DRC and other stakeholders were due to take place in Angola on 18 March. However, the M23 pulled out unexpectedly on 17 March. The group has accused certain international institutions of sabotaging peace efforts and making the long-awaited talks impossible. 

Interestingly, M23’s decision to pull out of the negotiations happened almost at the same time as the announcement of the expulsion of the Belgian diplomats from Rwanda were made.  

The DRC has become an example of the new scramble for African resources. China, EU countries, South Africa and the US have business interests there. These countries present opportunities and challenges for the people of the DRC. 

South Africa has been involved in the DRC for over 30 years. It has contributed troops to the UN Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1999 and lent support to the SADC mission deployed to the region in 2023. Notwithstanding this, South African business interests in the DRC have been growing. 

Last year, South African imports from the DRC were mainly iron products and steel. In 2023 R26.6 billion of South African goods went to DRC, compared to R23.6 billion in 2022. South African exports were machinery (R11.1 billion), iron products and steel (R3 billion), chemicals (R2.6 billion) and plastics and rubber (R1.8 billion).  

The EU and the DRC continue to strengthen economic ties. In October 2023, the EU and the DRC signed a strategic partnership on sustainable raw materials value chains. 

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and electronic vehicles (EV’s) has increased the rush for the DRC’s mineral resources. 

Materials essential for the production of smartphones, semiconductors, computer chips and other technology essential in the AI and EV industries are found in abundance in the DRC. Among them are cobalt, coltan and lithium. 

The US and EU countries are keen on securing supplies of these vital resources and have used various methods, including political interference, to secure business from the DRC. Recently, the government offered the US exclusive rights to its critical minerals.  

In conclusion, the expulsion of the Belgian diplomats comes at a critical time in the geopolitics of the region. The EU recently imposed sanctions on Rwanda’s top military brass, prompting a reaction from the country. The US expelled South Africa’s ambassador Ebrahim Rasool a few days ago. Some question whether these events are related, perhaps part of the US’s Southern African strategic plan. 

While the US is doubling down on South Africa, its political ties and strategic partnerships with Rwanda seem to be strengthening.  

According to a retired South African general, M23 rebels fighting the Congolese army in eastern Congo are using advanced weapons and equipment similar to that used by the Israeli army and US special forces. Rwanda and South Africa have had serious tensions over the past couple of months after the killing of South Africa peacekeeping forces in the eastern DRC. 

At the same time, South Africa seems set to strengthen political ties and economic cooperation with the EU, after its president Ursula von der Leyen visited Cape Town recently.  

(This article first appeared in the Mail Guardian)