Al Jazeera – May 9, 2025
India-Pakistan tensions surge as both sides trade attack claims
By Ted Regencia and Alastair McCready
Pakistan has denied claims by India’s armed forces that “military stations” in Indian-administered Kashmir’s Jammu and Udhampur, and in Punjab state’s Pathankot, were targeted in drone and missile attacks. No casualties were reported.
Pakistan’s information minister says his country has engaged only in a “defensive response so far” to India’s attacks on his country, as Pakistan’s military said India launched attack drones into Pakistan on Thursday, killing at least two civilians.
At least 48 people have been reported killed so far – 32 of them in Pakistan – since India launched missiles on Wednesday that it said targeted “terrorist camps” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Pakistan retaliated with a barrage of artillery strikes.
The clashes follow escalating tension between the two nuclear-armed countries since aﾠdeadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmirﾒs Pahalgam on April 22, which India blamed on Pakistan. Pakistan has denied any involvement.
Pakistan downs 25 Indian drones as tensions with archrival climb
Pakistani officials announced Thursday that the country's air defense systems shot down over two dozen Indian drones overnight, including one that struck a military site near Lahore, injuring soldiers and causing damage.
The latest exchanges come a day after India said it hit targets inside Pakistan in the early hours of Wednesday, two weeks after it accused the neighboring country of involvement in an attack in India-ruled Kashmir in which 26 people were killed.
Islamabad had denied the accusation and vowed to retaliate against the missile strikes, also saying it shot down five Indian aircraft. The Indian embassy in Beijing termed reports of fighter jets being shot down as "misinformation."
Pakistan shot down 25 Israeli-made drones from India at multiple locations, including the two largest cities of Karachi and Lahore, and their debris is being collected, Pakistan military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said.
One drone was also shot down over the garrison city of Rawalpindi, home to the Pakistan army's heavily fortified headquarters, he said.
Another drone hit a military target near Lahore and four personnel of the Pakistan army were injured in this attack, Chaudhry said.
"Indian drones continue to be sent into Pakistan airspace ... (India) will continue to pay dearly for this naked aggression," he said.
The Indian Defense Ministry said Pakistan attempted to engage several military targets in northern and western India on Wednesday night and early Thursday and they were "neutralized" by Indian air defense systems.
In response, Indian forces targeted air defense radars and systems at several locations in Pakistan on Thursday, it said in a statement, adding that the "Indian response has been in the same domain with the same intensity as Pakistan."
Pakistan also increased the intensity of its firing across the cease-fire line, the de facto border, in Kashmir and 16 people, including five children and three women, were killed on the Indian side, the statement said.
The relationship between India and Pakistan has been fraught with tension since they gained independence from colonial Britain in 1947, and the countries have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir, and clashed countless times.
Both acquired nuclear weapons in the 1990s.
Trading was halted on Pakistan's benchmark share index after the index slumped 6.3% on news of the drone attacks. Indian equities, rupee and bonds fell sharply in late afternoon trading after the Indian Defense Ministry statement.
India reiterates warning
Pakistan says at least 31 of its civilians were killed and about 50 wounded in Wednesday's strikes and in cross-border shelling across the frontier in Kashmir that followed, while India says 13 of its civilians died and 59 were wounded.
On Thursday, Indian government ministers claimed in a meeting of political parties in New Delhi that the strikes on Pakistan had killed over 100 alleged terrorists and that the count was still ongoing, government sources said.
In the Kashmir valley, the cable car in Gulmarg, a major tourist attraction, was shut due to its proximity to the border with Pakistan. A hotel manager there who did not want to be named said police had ordered the hotel vacated on Wednesday night.
Blackout drills were conducted in India's border regions on Wednesday night.
Local media reported panic buying in some cities in the Indian state of Punjab, which shares a border with Pakistan, as people hoarded essentials, fearing a Pakistani retaliation to the Indian strikes.
Pakistan's aviation authority "temporarily suspended" flight operations at airports in Lahore, Karachi, and the northeastern city of Sialkot until noon (7 a.m. GMT). It did not give a reason for the suspension.
Although Pakistan's federal government has pledged to respond to India's strikes, Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif told The New York Times on Wednesday that Pakistan was ready to deescalate.
Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said New Delhi did not intend to escalate the situation. "However, if there are military attacks on us, there should be no doubt that it will be met with a very, very firm response," he said at an India-Iran Joint Commission Meeting.
With India saying it would "respond" if Pakistan "responds," global powers have urged a calming of tensions. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he hoped the countries could "work it out," adding he "will be there" if he can help.
China urged both countries to act in the larger interest of peace and stability, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson saying that Beijing was ready to work with the international community "to avoid actions that further complicate the situation."
Russia and the U.S. have also urged restraint.
The current escalation comes at a precarious time for Pakistan's $350 billion economy, which is still recovering from an economic crisis that brought it to the brink of defaulting on external debt obligations in 2023 before it secured funding from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
World Socialist Web Site – May 8, 2025
South Asia on knife’s edge after Indo-Pakistani clash
India and Pakistan, South Asia’s rival nuclear-armed powers, are teetering on the precipice of all-out war after their largest military clash in decades left dozens of civilians dead.
Pakistan announced Wednesday that its National Security Council has “fully authorized” the country’s military to respond to India’s Tuesday night (May 6-7) aerial assault “at a time, place and manner of its choosing.”
Soon after, New Delhi let it be known that any Pakistani military action would cause India to respond in kind, underscoring the likelihood of escalating tit-for-tat attacks, which could rapidly spin out of control and into all-out war. Summarizing what India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval had communicated to China, the US, Britain and other foreign governments, an Indian official said India “is well-prepared to retaliate resolutely should Pakistan decide to escalate.”
Amid the growing din of threats and counter-threats emanating from political and military leaders on both sides, Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif raised the spectre of a nuclear conflict. If India “imposes an all-out war on the region,” Asif told Geo News, “and if such dangers arise in which there is a stand-off, then at any time a nuclear war can break out.”
Early Wednesday morning, India attacked multiple targets deep inside Pakistan, in what New Delhi claimed was retribution for an April 22 terrorist attack near Pahalgam in Indian-held Kashmir that killed 26 tourists. Within hours of the Pahalgam attack, India’s Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government charged Pakistan with masterminding it, yet to this day it has provided no evidence to support its claim.
Conflicting claims
India and Pakistan are now making conflicting claims about the fighting on the night of May 6-7, with each side boasting about its military prowess.
What can be said with certainty at this point is that India mounted a large-scale attack involving, according to Islamabad, upwards of 75 warplanes, and struck targets in at least six and possibly as many as nine different towns and villages—three of them in Pakistan’s Punjab province and the remainder in Azad or Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
India’s bloody attack immediately triggered artillery and mortar barrages across the Line of Control that divides Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) from Pakistani-held Azad Kashmir, resulting in the deaths of at least 12 people in J&K, according to Indian news reports.
Pakistan has accused India of targeting civilian areas for its airplane and drone missile strikes in the name of attacking “terrorist camps.” It says 31 civilians, including a seven-year-old, were killed and 57 others injured in India’s Tuesday night attacks.
Islamabad is also claiming to have felled three Indian warplanes and two drones.
New Delhi has to this point remained silent on the Pakistani claims of Indian military losses, but various news organizations, including the Hindu and the New York Times, have confirmed evidence of felled aircraft and cite unnamed Indian officials as admitting to losses including of an advanced French-made Rafale fighter jet.
India is boasting that its attack on Pakistan—which it dubbed Operation Sindoor—was much larger, more potent and far more militarily sophisticated than the cross-border strikes it mounted in 2016 and 2019, both of which brought the subcontinent perilously close to all-out war.
For the first time in decades, India struck at targets near major cities in Punjab, rather than restricting its attacks to Pakistan-held Kashmir, that is, to territory which New Delhi claims, as part of its reactionary dispute with Islamabad over Kashmir, to be rightfully its own. And it did so without crossing over into Pakistani air space using fighter jets and hover drones.
Writing in the Indian Express, Pankaj Saran, a former ambassador and Deputy National Security Advisor, claimed that with its latest attack on Pakistan, the Narendra Modi-led BJP government had changed the rules of the game in respect to India’s strategic conflict with its historic rival.
Saran wrote:
India is no longer impressed by Pakistan’s threat of an all-out war, uncontrolled escalation and massive retaliation, or more importantly, its brandishing of the nuclear threat. … Operation Sindoor, and before it, the responses in 2016 and 2019, have shown that there are military and other choices available to India.
India has claimed that its attack was “focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature,” but it is clearly readying for a larger war.
On Wednesday, for the first time since the 1971 India-Pakistani war, India staged civil defence drills across the country. Drills were held in some 250 of India’s 780 districts—those that are deemed most susceptible to attack, either because of their proximity to the border or because they house major military bases, nuclear plants or other critical infrastructure. As part of the drills, 15-minute power cuts were instituted in major Indian cities, including Delhi, to practice protection from air raids.
There has been no suggestion from anyone in India’s government that it is prepared to enter talks with Islamabad, let alone roll back any of the other “retaliatory” measures it has taken against Pakistan. These include suspending all trade and closing the principal land-crossing with Pakistan, and most provocatively of all, suspending India’s participation in the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.
Since the treaty came into force 65 years ago, India has fought two declared wars with Pakistan, several undeclared wars and countless border skirmishes. However, never before has it suspended the treaty, which allocates the resources of the headwaters of the Indus, which run through India, so vital is it to Pakistan’s agriculture and power supply. Last weekend, India began adjusting the water flow through dams on two of the Indus’ tributaries, with the stated aim of cutting off 90 percent of the water reaching Pakistan, which would severely disrupt the current planting season downstream in Pakistan.
Amplifying threats from BJP ministers to cut off Pakistan’s water supply, Modi declared Tuesday, just hours before India’s cross-border attack on Pakistan, that henceforth India’s water will be used solely in the “national interest” and “will no longer flow outside.”
The India-Pakistan conflict is a reactionary dispute between rival capitalist powers. Its roots lie in the 1947 communal partition of the subcontinent into an expressly Muslim Pakistan and a Hindu India, which was itself part of the process whereby Stalinism, connived with imperialism and the national bourgeoisie in the colonial countries to suppress social revolution and restabilize capitalism in the aftermath of the Second World War.
Over the past eight decades, the rival bourgeois regimes have squandered countless lives and resources in pursuing their predatory conflict for power and advantage in South Asia. At the same time they have used the conflict to fan communal reaction and divert the social tensions born of mass poverty and acute social inequality outward.
Washington’s incendiary role
During the past two decades, the Indo-Pakistani conflict has become ever more enmeshed with the strategic-conflict between US imperialism and China, adding to it a new explosive dimension, including the possibility it could trigger a global conflict. Under both Democratic and Republican presidents from George W. Bush to Trump today, Washington has aggressively courted India to harness it to US imperialism’s drive for global hegemony and build it up as a counterweight to China.
Consequently, the US has dramatically downgraded its ties with Pakistan, once its principal South Asian ally, compelling the latter to double down on its “all-weather” partnership with China, leading to increased frictions with both Washington and New Delhi.
In recent days, and especially since Tuesday night’s clash between India and Pakistan, there have been alarmed calls from all the great powers and from governments in the broader region, including Iran, Bangladesh and the Gulf States, for immediate de-escalation.
As always these calls are shot through with hypocrisy, as each state pursues its own self-interest and seeks to maintain its freedom of action.
Thus none of the imperialist powers have denounced the Modi government’s patently illegal cross-border attack on Pakistan or its provocative suspension of the Indus Water Treaty or criticized it for its virulent opposition to Islamabad’s proposal for an international investigation into the Pahalgam terrorist attack.
In 2016 and 2019, first under Obama and then Trump, the US emphatically declared its support for New Delhi’s cross-border attacks on Pakistan, claiming its ally had the same “right” to abrogate international law in the name of “self-defence” and “fighting terrorism” as it and its Israeli attack-dog have.
To date, US officials have limited themselves to belated calls for “de-escalation,” with the bulk of the onus for doing so placed on Pakistan.
“It’s so terrible,” said US President Donald Trump Wednesday. “I want to see them stop. And hopefully they can stop now.”
Echoing to a large degree New Delhi’s narrative of the conflict, he then continued. “They’ve got a tit-for-tat, so hopefully they can stop now,” before suggesting in the vaguest of terms that he would “help,” “if I can do anything.”
The fascist president’s attempt to pass himself off as a man of peace is a sham in the South Asian theatre as in every other.
The actions Washington has taken to secure its anti-China “global strategic partnership” with New Delhi have enormously emboldened India in its pursuit to become the regional hegemon.
In addition to the aforementioned greenlighting of India’s 2016 and 2019 strikes, these include:
* arming of India with high-tech US weapons;
* securing for it access to trade in civilian nuclear technology, enabling it to concentrate it indigenous nuclear program on weapons development;
* supporting its development of a blue water navy;
* integrating it into an ever-wider web of bilateral, trilateral and quadrilateral military-security exchanges with its most important Asia-Pacific allies, Japan and Australia;
* and endorsing the Modi government’s 2019 constitutional coup in disputed Kashmir, which stripped J&K, India’s lone Muslim-majority region, of its special autonomous status, and reduced it to a central government-controlled Union Territory.
Workers in India and Pakistan must oppose the reactionary war-mongering of their respective governments and ruling classes and the transformation of South Asia and the India Ocean region into a central arena in the US-led imperialist struggle to repartition the world.
An Indo-Pakistani war would be a catastrophe for the masses of South Asia and indeed the entire planet, as underscored by the cavalier fashion with which ruling class spokespersons on both sides speak of the possibility of it leading to a nuclear conflict.
Moreover, external aggression goes hand in hand with the intensification of class war. By whipping up jingoism and the communalism with which it is inextricably entwined in South Asia, the governments of India and Pakistan are seeking to intimidate and silence all opposition to their drive to intensify workers exploitation to attract global capital.
The critical question in South Asia, as around the world, is the building of a global working class-led anti-war movement that links opposition to war to the fight for social equality and the defence of democratic rights—that is, a political offensive for socialism.
World Central Kitchen Halts Gaza Meals as Israel Blocks Aid at Border
Gaza (Quds News Network)- World Central Kitchen (WCK) has stopped cooking meals and baking bread in Gaza after running out of supplies. The group says Israeli border closures since early March have blocked food and fuel deliveries, making continued operations impossible.
Over the past 18 months, WCK served more than 130 million meals and baked 26 million loaves of bread in Gaza. Until recently, it was still producing 133,000 meals and 80,000 loaves each day, using alternative fuels like wood pallets and olive husk pellets to stretch its dwindling resources. But now, “we have reached the limits of what is possible,” WCK said in a statement.
The group’s two large field kitchens have shut down, and its mobile bakery — the last working bakery in Gaza — has no flour left. More than 80% of WCK-supported community kitchens have also stopped working due to a lack of food and fuel. Only water deliveries remain active where possible.
WCK says its trucks filled with food and fuel have been waiting at the Gaza border for over a month. More aid is ready to ship from Jordan and Egypt, but none of it can enter Gaza without Israeli approval. “Our pots may be empty, our cooking fires snuffed out — but World Central Kitchen will keep serving,” said founder José Andrés.
“The borders need to open,” said Wadhah Hubaishi, WCK’s Gaza Response Director. “If given full access, we could provide 500,000 meals a day to families in Gaza.”
The collapse of WCK’s operations comes amid a deliberate Israeli starvation campaign in Gaza. Israel’s total closure of border crossings since early March has choked off food, fuel, and water. Multiple other community kitchens and aid organizations have also announced they can no longer operate due to a lack of supplies.
Famine in Gaza: Will We Continue to Watch as Gaza Starves to Death?
The situation in Gaza today starkly highlights Israeli exceptionalism. Israel is employing the starvation of two million Palestinians in the blockaded and devastated Gaza Strip as a tactic to extract political concessions from Palestinian groups operating there.
On April 23, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)ﾠdescribed the current humanitarian situation in Gaza as “the worst ever seen throughout the war”. Despite the severity of these pronouncements, they often appear to be treated as routine news, eliciting little concrete action or substantive discussion.
Israeli violations of international and humanitarian laws regarding its occupation of Palestine are well-established facts. A new dimension of exceptionalism is emerging, reflected in Israel’s ability to deliberately starve an entire population for an extended period, with some even defending this approach.
The Gaza population continues to endure immense suffering, havingﾠexperienced the loss of approximately 10 percent of its overall numbers due to deaths, disappearances and injuries. They are confined to a small, largely destroyed area of about 365 square kilometers, facing deaths from treatable diseases and lacking access to essential services, and even clean water.
Despite these conditions, Israel continues to operate with impunity in what seems to be a brutal and protracted experiment, while much of the world observes with varying degrees of anger, helplessness, or total disregard.
The question of the international community’s role remains central. While enforcing international law is one aspect, exerting the necessary pressure to allow a populationﾠfacing starvation access to basic necessities like food and water, is another. For the people of Gaza, even these fundamental needs now seem unattainable after decades of diminished expectations.
During public hearings in The Hagueﾠstarting on April 28, representatives from many nations appealed to the International Court of Justice to utilize its authority as the highest court to mandate that Israel cease the starvation of Palestinians.
Israel “may not collectively punish the protected Palestinian people,”ﾠstated the South African representative, Jaymion Hendricks. The Saudi envoy, Mohammed Saud Alnasser, added that Israel had transformed the Gaza Strip into an “unlivable pile of rubble, while killing thousands of innocent and vulnerable people.”
Representatives fromﾠChina,ﾠEgypt,ﾠAlgeria,ﾠSouth Africa, and other nations echoed these sentiments, aligning with the assessment of Philippe Lazzarini, head of UNRWA, whoﾠstated, last March, that Israel is employing a strategy of “weaponization of humanitarian aid”.
However, the assertion that the weaponization of food is a deliberate Israeli tactic requires no external proof; Israel itself declared it. The then Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, publiclyﾠannounced a “complete siege” on Gaza on October 9, 2023, just two days after the start of the genocidal war.
Gallant’s statement – “We are imposing a complete siege on (Gaza). No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel – everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly” – was not an impulsive outburst but a policy rooted in dehumanizing rhetoric and implemented with extreme violence.
This “acting accordingly” extended beyond closing border crossings and obstructing aid deliveries. Even when aid was permitted, Israeli forces targeted desperate civilians, including children, who gathered to receive supplies, bombing them along with the aid trucks. A particularly devastating incidentﾠoccurred on February 29, 2024, in Gaza City, where reports indicated that Israeli fire killed 112 Palestinians and injured 750 more.
This event was the first of what became known as the “Flour Massacres”. Subsequent similar incidents took place, and, in between these events, Israel continued to bomb bakeries, aid storage facilities, and aid distribution volunteers. The intention was to starve Palestinians to a degree that would allow for coercive bargaining and potentially lead to the ethnic cleansing of the population.
On April 1, an incident occurred where an Israeli military droneﾠstruck a convoy of the World Central Kitchen, resulting in the deaths of six international aid workers and their Palestinian driver. This event led to a significant departure of the remaining international aid workers from Gaza.
A few months later, starting in October 2024, northern Gaza wasﾠplaced under a strict siege, with the aim of forcing the population south, potentially towards the Sinai desert. Despite these efforts and the resulting famine, the will of the Gazan population did not break. Instead, hundreds of thousands reportedly began returning to their destroyed homes and towns in the north.
When, on March 18, Israelﾠreneged on a ceasefire agreement that followed extensive negotiations, it once again resorted to starvation as a weapon. There was little consequence or strong condemnation from Western governments regarding Israel’s return to the war and to the starvation policies.
“Using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” isﾠclassified as a war crime under international law, explicitly stated in the Rome Statute. However, the relevance of such legal frameworks is questioned when those who advocate for and consider themselves guardians of these laws fail to uphold or enforce them.
The inaction of the international community during this period of immense human suffering has significantly undermined the relevance of international law. The potential consequences of this failure to act are grave, extending beyond the Palestinian people to impact humanity as a whole.
Despite this, hope persists that fundamental human compassion, separate from legal frameworks, will compel the provision of essential supplies like flour, sugar, and water to Gaza. The inability to ensure this basic aid will profoundly question our shared humanity for years to come.
Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is ‘Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out’. His other books include ‘My Father was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth’. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net
Vatican crowds hail Leo XIV as new pope of the Catholic Church
Experts say Pope Leo is likely to carry forward the legacy of his predecessor Francis, while forging his own path.
Vatican City – It felt like the square could talk in one voice: “Leone! Leone! Leone!
”
Thousands of people in St Peter’s Square chanted in chorus the name adopted by Robert Prevost as he ascended to the papacy on Thursday: Leo XIV.
Just an hour and a half earlier, white smoke had billowed from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, announcing that a conclave of cardinals had elected a new leader for the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics.
Now, it was time to meet Pope Leo himself. A solemn silence fell across the square. The faithful waited to hear the pope’s first message, which would set the tone for his papacy.
“Peace be upon you,” said Leo XIV, appearing on the central balcony of St Peter’s Basilica.
He proceeded to repeat a blessing uttered by his late predecessor, Pope Francis, just weeks earlier: “God loves us, God loves everyone, and evil will not prevail. We are in the hands of God.”
It was a closely watched moment, with red-hatted cardinals poking out of nearby windows to catch their first glimpse at the newly minted pontiff.
Pope Leo XIV was elected on the second day of the conclave, and his opening remarks as leader signalled continuity with Francis, who died on April 21 at age 88. But experts say he is likely to strike a middle path, between furthering Francis’s inclusive agenda and embracing Vatican tradition.
“Peace” was one of the most used words in his brief speech — a choice meant to echo the words that Jesus pronounced after Easter, as Vatican spokesperson Matteo Bruni explained during a news briefing.
Leo XIV called on Catholics to seek “a disarmed peace and a disarming peace” through “dialogue” and “building bridges”, in a brief speech heavy with themes of unity.
“Bravo! That is what we need!” one audience member in the square shouted as the new pope spoke.
Another, 29-year-old Kasper Mihalak from Denmark, was squeezed in the middle of the crowd hoping to catch a glimpse of the first North American pope.
“I am really excited. Cardinal Prevost, now Leo XIV — it’s gonna be amazing! He said a lot about peace during his speech. I think the world now really needs it,” Mihalak said.
Rosaria Venuto could hardly hold back her tears. Early in the morning, she picked up her two children and drove four hours from Ascoli Satriano, a small town in the southern Italian province of Apulia, to be in St Peter’s Square.
“I am deeply moved to have the chance to be here and live through this joy and be a small part of this historical event,” she said.
His own man
Born in Chicago, a midwestern city in the United States, Leo XIV spent more than two decades in Peru, where he acquired dual citizenship.
There, he worked in some of Peru’s poorest areas, and he eventually became the bishop of Chiclayo, in the country’s agricultural north. Then, in 2023, Pope Francis appointed him to lead a powerful office that manages bishops across the world.
Phil Pullella, a Vatican expert who has covered the papacy for more than four decades, said that background offers a degree of continuity with Francis, who hailed from Argentina and advocated against poverty.
“He knows about poverty in Latin America,” Pullella said of Leo XIV. “So, he’s not the same thing as if they had elected some cardinal of New York, for example.”
That continuity was likely appreciated by conservative camps at the Vatican, as well as liberal-leaning ones, Pullella added.
“He comes from the wealthy world, but he witnessed firsthand the problems of the Global South in a poor country,” he said.
Still, Pullella noted that the way Leo XIV dressed showed that “he is going to be his own man”.
Instead of the simple white cassock that Pope Francis wore in 2013 when he was elected, Leo XIII added a traditional red cape over his vest, symbolising the spiritual and temporal powers of his office.
“In a sense, he is going back a little bit to that kind of tradition,” Pullella said. “He would not have been elected had he not had the votes of the conservative bloc.”
A unifying figure
Leo XIV’s election came as a surprise to many. Many observers were betting on a new pope by nightfall, but few expected only three rounds of voting.
The crowd was stunned when white smoke started to pour out of the tiny chimney by early evening, at around 6:09pm local time (16:00 GMT).
That was the signal that — of the 133 cardinals under the age of 80 who were eligible to vote — a candidate had received the two-thirds majority needed to become pope.
This year’s conclave had the distinction of being the most international in the Vatican’s history: The participating cardinals hailed from more than 70 countries, representing divergent views for the Catholic Church’s future.
The diversity was part of the legacy of Pope Francis, who appointed cardinals from underrepresented countries like Laos and Haiti to broaden the church’s global appeal.
Francis spent 12 years as head of the Catholic Church, shaking up the establishment by adopting a distinct style and tone, focused on austerity and advocacy for marginalised populations.
The late pope’s efforts caused excitement among reformers but also dismay among conservatives, who accused him of diluting the Church’s teachings. Experts say that led to a deep polarisation within the church, with some members criticising Francis for decentralising the church’s authority.
Those experts point out that Leo XIV’s experience in the Roman Curia — the church’s government — was likely a selling point among conservative conclave voters looking for stability in the years ahead.
What’s in a name?
While Pope Leo XIV’s first moves are yet to be revealed, his choice of name is noteworthy.
Bruni, the Vatican spokesperson, noted that “Leo” is a direct reference to Pope Leo XIII, who adopted a new social doctrine in the late 19th century.
In 1891, Pope Leo XIII wrote an encyclical — or papal letter — known as the Rerum Novarum. It called on Catholics to address the “wretchedness” facing the working class, amid the upheavals of industrialisation and political changes like the unification of Italy.
That encyclical marked a radical new approach to workers, and it triggered the creation of Catholic newspapers, social cooperatives and banks — a social movement that is still alive today.
Bruni said the current Pope Leo hoped to draw a parallel to that time, with its technological revolutions.
“It is not a casual reference to the men and women of their work at a time of artificial intelligence,” Bruni explained.
Robert Orsi, a professor of religious studies at Northwestern University, said the name choice could also signify other historical parallels.
Leo XIII “strongly put down a movement called Americanism,” said Orsi.
“This movement was a kind of nationalist impulse within Catholicism, with national churches claiming to have their own identities, their own particular ways of doing things,” he explained. “And I think by choosing the name Leo XIV, this pope was, without a doubt, signalling a return to a global Catholicism.”
Pullella also believes it is noteworthy that, while Leo XIV mentioned his parishioners in Peru, he avoided highlighting his ties with the US.
“I think it’s very significant that he did not give a shout-out to the United States. He didn’t say, ‘I’m from America.’ He didn’t speak in English,” Pullella said.
That sent a message that “basically he’s not owned by the United States”, Pullella added. Leo XIV has previously been critical of the administration of US President Donald Trump over issues like nationalism and migration, just as the late Pope Francis was.
Still, Orsi predicted the Vatican under the new Pope Leo would be “subtle and wise” in how he deals with Trump in the years to come.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/9/leone-vatican-crowds-hail-leo-xiv-as-new-pope-of-the-catholic-church
Global Research - May 07, 2025
Revolution from the Soil: Anti-Imperialism and Food Sovereignty in Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso, under President Ibrahim Traoré, has become a focal point for anti-imperialist sentiment and political renewal in Africa. Traoré’s government has taken bold steps to assert national sovereignty, including the expulsion of French military forces, the denunciation of Western interference and the forging of new regional alliances with Russia and Sahelian neighbours.
These actions have resonated across the continent, reigniting hopes for a new era of African dignity and self-determination in the postcolonial age. Traoré’s vision draws inspiration from the revolutionary legacy of Thomas Sankara, whose leadership in the 1980s prioritised food sovereignty, agroecology and the empowerment of rural communities.
The roots of Burkina Faso’s food system stretch back centuries, to societies that developed adaptive, resilient agricultural systems rooted in local knowledge, communal land management and crop diversity. Millet, sorghum and other indigenous staples formed the backbone of both food security and cultural identity. These systems were not only productive but also sustainable, built on the principles of reciprocity, ecological balance and community stewardship.
French colonial rule, however, upended these systems. Colonial administrators and missionaries imposed new crops and farming methods, often prioritising exports and the needs of colonial urban centres over local food needs. The introduction of market gardening, irrigation schemes and export-oriented production disrupted traditional practices and began a long process of dependency on external inputs and distant markets. The colonial legacy was not simply one of resource extraction but of profound social and ecological transformation — a legacy that continues to shape Burkina Faso’s food system today.
After independence in 1960, Burkina Faso’s food system remained vulnerable. The country experienced cycles of drought, cereal deficits and reliance on food imports and international aid. Governments experimented with various strategies, but negative cereal balances and regional disparities in food access persisted. It was during the revolutionary period of the 1980s, under Thomas Sankara, that Burkina Faso articulated one of Africa’s clearest visions of food sovereignty.
Image: Thomas Sankara (Licensed under Fair Use)
Sankara’s government rejected food aid, promoted agroecology and sought to empower rural communities through mass mobilisation and local production. Sankara famously declared “He who feeds you controls you”, encapsulating the deep link between food and national sovereignty. However, his assassination in 1987 cut short these reforms.
Today, President Traoré invokes Sankara’s legacy with ambitious initiatives like the 2023-2025 Fishing and Agropastoral Offensive, a $981 million plan to boost production of rice, maize, potatoes, wheat, fish, meat, poultry and mango. The initiative aims to create at least 100,000 jobs for youth, women and internally displaced people and to achieve food self-sufficiency by reducing reliance on imports. Mechanisation, the distribution of tractors and motor pumps and the mobilisation of thousands of young people into farming are central features. The government has also established a food sovereignty fund to support agropastoral actors and encourage local initiatives.
Gates Foundation and AGRA
On the surface, these efforts appear to align with the anti-imperialist vision of national self-reliance. However, a closer look reveals that the underlying strategy is somewhat influenced by the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and the Gates Foundation. AGRA, which has operated in Burkina Faso for more than 15 years, promotes a model centred on commercial seeds, synthetic fertilisers and integration into global value chains. The Gates Foundation, AGRA’s principal funder, argues that this is the fastest path to increased yields and food security.
The Gates Foundation, primarily through AGRA, had invested at least $16.7 million directly into agricultural transformation in Burkina Faso as of 2019, with broader agricultural commitments totalling nearly $70 million from 2010 to 2018.
As of 2025, the most recent publicly documented figure for Gates Foundation investment in Burkina Faso via AGRA is approximately $37 million up to 2021.
The Gates Foundation’s grants database confirms ongoing support to AGRA, with grants as recent as October 2024. However, these grants are typically for AGRA’s multi-country programmes, and the precise allocation for Burkina Faso is not specified in public sources.
AGRA’s largest investments have historically gone to countries with bigger populations and agricultural economies (e.g., Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Ghana). While important, Burkina Faso has a smaller population of about 22 million (2024), and its agricultural sector is less diversified and less commercialised compared to AGRA’s primary focus countries.
Although the amounts invested in Burkina Faso by Agra may seem modest, given the timescales involved, AGRA and the Gates Foundation often use their funds to catalyse or leverage much larger sums from governments, private investors and other donors. For example, AGRA reports that its $37 million investment in Burkina Faso helped unlock over $500 million in additional public and private sector investments. Much of AGRA/Gates funding is used for pilot projects, technical assistance, policy reform (political influence) and ‘capacity building’, rather than direct large-scale subsidies or infrastructure.
It must also be noted that AGRA and the Gates Foundation publish only selected financial details. The $37 million figure is what’s publicly documented for Burkina Faso.
Yet, the model of agriculture promoted by AGRA/Gates has come under sustained criticism from African civil society and food sovereignty advocates. Reports by US Right to Know (USRTK) and other watchdog groups have found little evidence that AGRA’s interventions have delivered on their promises in Burkina Faso. USRTK’s analysis, based on internal AGRA documents and independent evaluations, reveals that while AGRA’s programmes have led to some increases in maize sales, there has been no significant improvement in farmer incomes or food security based on AGRA’s activities.
Moreover, across Africa, AGRA’s emphasis on commercial seeds and fertilisers has deepened dependency on external inputs, undermining the very autonomy that Traoré’s government wants to champion. USRTK’s findings are echoed by African civil society groups, faith leaders and food sovereignty advocates, who have called for an end to AGRA funding and a shift toward agroecological, locally controlled food systems.
The Gates Foundation has long partnered with major agribusiness corporations — including Cargill, Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont — to roll out industrial agriculture based on genetically modified (GM) crops, patented seeds and heavy agrochemical use. AGRA’s interventions have opened African markets to these corporations, often by influencing national seed laws and agricultural policies to favour commercial, chemical-dependent seed systems over farmer-saved seeds.
This shift undermines the traditional practice, still responsible for more than 80% of Africa’s seed supply, of farmers recycling and exchanging seeds and risks consolidating control of seed research, production and distribution in the hands of a few multinationals.
The Gates Foundation’s approach is part of a broader neoliberal project: the appropriation of the commons-land, seeds, water and knowledge — transforming them into marketable commodities and driving rural populations off the land.
AGRA and the Gates Foundation frame their interventions in philanthropic terms or position them as ‘development’, when in reality they are enabling the consolidation of Western agro capital, the erosion of biodiversity and the disenfranchisement of smallholder farmers.
The Gates Foundation is not as a benevolent actor; it is driver of a toxic, unjust and dependency-creating food regime.
Seed Sovereignty
Both AGRA and the Gates Foundation have actively sought to influence seed laws and policies in Burkina Faso. AGRA’s own strategic documents and external evaluations confirm that it has supported the government of Burkina Faso in developing and reforming seed laws. AGRA’s 2023–2027 Strategic Plan for Burkina Faso explicitly states its aim to “support the completion of the seed law reforms”, working with government agencies and seed companies to improve the certified seed system and strengthen distribution and production channels.
AGRA played a role in the “re-alignment of our seed law in line with the ECOWAS Seed Regulation,” (Economic Community of West African States) as acknowledged by Burkina Faso’s Minister of Agriculture. This alignment is part of broader efforts to harmonise national laws with regional and international standards, which often prioritise commercial seed systems and intellectual property protections.
Furthermore, AGRAhas provided technical and financial support to government ministries and research institutes to advance seed sector reforms and promote the adoption of hybrid seed varieties.
AGRA’s stated goal is to create “seed policy and regulatory reforms that enable investment and growth of private sector seed businesses”, which typically involves legal frameworks that favour commercial seed companies and restrict the exchange or sale of traditional, farm-saved seeds.
Independent evaluations and civil society organisations have criticised AGRA’s approach, arguing that these policy reforms can undermine traditional farmer-managed seed systems, reduce seed diversity and make farmers more dependent on purchasing commercial seeds each season.
AGRA’s influence on seed laws is not unique to Burkina Faso but is part of a broader strategy across Africa to promote private sector-led seed systems, often in line with corporate-driven international agreements that strengthen breeders’ rights and can restrict farmers’ rights to save and exchange seeds.
Who, then, is providing the seeds and agrochemicals that underpin Burkina Faso’s current strategy? The supply is coordinated through a combination of government programmes, AGRA-backed seed companies and agro-dealers, international organsations such as the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the EU and local/regional input suppliers.
AGRA is a central player in strengthening Burkina Faso’s seed system, supporting both government and private seed companies to improve the availability and quality of certified seeds for crops like maize, rice, sorghum, cowpea and soybean. The government itself is a major distributor of chemical fertilisers, with recent initiatives allocating substantial quantities to farmers.
AGRA’s network of agro dealers also plays a role in distributing fertilisers and agrochemicals alongside seeds. International organisations (FAO, EU etc.) in collaboration with private corporations provide seeds to vulnerable farmers, especially during food crises, and support local seed multiplication and certification.
It would be naive to think that corporate interests act out of a sense of benevolence here. For instance, back in 2000, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, in his article ‘Sowing the Seeds of Famine in Ethiopia, argued that international aid and trade policies, particularly those promoted by global corporations and institutions like the WTO, have undermined Ethiopia’s traditional agricultural systems and contributed to chronic food insecurity.
These policies encouraged the dismantling of state programmess, such as emergency grain stocks, seed banks and extension services, paving the way for multinational agribusinesses to introduce commercial and genetically modified seeds into Ethiopia.
This shift pressured Ethiopian farmers to adopt corporate seeds, often at the expense of local varieties and traditional practices, thereby increasing their dependence on external suppliers and making them more vulnerable to market fluctuations and food crises. Such interventions sow the seeds of further vulnerability by eroding local food sovereignty and resilience.
The real power of AGRA, Gates and the global agribusiness interests they are aligned with lies in their ability to shape the rules of the game through seed laws, input supply chains and the global architecture of food trade. AGRA’s partnerships with these corporations and its role in promoting seed and input systems favourable to their interests mean that Burkina Faso’s food sovereignty strategy may never be too far from the reach of global agro capital.
Anti-imperialism vs Technocratic Pragmatism
Why, then, does Traoré’s government align with a strategy that risks deepening dependency on external actors? Several factors are at play.
First, Burkina Faso faces urgent and severe challenges: widespread food insecurity, displacement due to conflict, climate challenges and a legacy of colonisation. The government is under intense pressure to deliver rapid, visible results. Mechanised farming, large-scale deployment of youth and the distribution of inputs are seen as ways to quickly boost yields and create jobs. These approaches are easier to scale in the short term than agroecological transitions, which require more time, training and local adaptation.
Second, the dominance of the AGRA/Gates model in African agricultural development means that funding, technical support and international legitimacy are more readily available for input-intensive, market-oriented projects. Agroecological transformation, by contrast, demands significant investment in farmer training, research and institution-building resources that are often lacking or harder to mobilise at scale.
Third, there is a powerful political symbolism in mass mobilisation and mechanisation. Traoré’s initiatives, such as recruiting thousands of youth into mechanised farming, serve as rallying points for national pride and unity. These visible, high-impact projects are easier to communicate to both domestic and international audiences than the slower, less tangible gains of agroecological reform.
Yet, the risks of this approach are considerable. By deepening reliance on commercial seeds, synthetic fertilisers and global players, Burkina Faso risks locking itself into a new cycle of dependency. AGRA’s own strategic plan for the country emphasises “crowding in private investment” and scaling up partnerships with commercial banks and microfinance institutions.
At the same time, however, agroecological and community-led approaches are also being piloted in Burkina Faso with promising results. Organisations such as the International Water Management Institute and local NGOs promote integrated farming systems that combine crop diversity, soil health and water management. Government-led land restoration projects rehabilitate degraded soils using anti-erosion measures and agro-silvo-pastoral systems (combining agriculture, forestry and livestock grazing on the same land, creating a mutually beneficial and sustainable land use approach).
Community cooperatives, such as those supported by the NEER-TAMBA initiative, strengthen local value chains and empower over 1,500 peasant organisations. These models have demonstrated significant socioeconomic and environmental benefits, outperforming conventional input-heavy approaches.
This is highly promising because let’s not forget that agroecology under Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso was very successful during his brief presidency (1983–1987), both in immediate outcomes and in its enduring legacy for food sovereignty and environmental consciousness.
Sankara’s agroecological reforms rapidly increased food production and achieved self-sufficiency in basic foodstuffs. Through land redistribution, the mobilisation of rural communities and the encouragement of local production over imports, Burkina Faso saw wheat yields rise from 1,700 kg per hectare to 3,800 kg per hectare in just a few years, a remarkable achievement given the country’s frequent droughts and technological limitations.
Sankara was influenced by agroecology pioneer Pierre Rabhi and sought to make agricultural ecology a national policy. He supported the establishment of agroecological centres and promoted scientific approaches that integrated agricultural development with environmental regeneration. The ‘one village, one grove’ programme encouraged every community to plant trees, reviving pre-colonial traditions and embedding ecological stewardship in Burkinabè culture.
To combat desertification and recurring drought, Sankara launched a massive tree-planting campaign, resulting in the planting of over 10 million trees in just 15 months. This grassroots, people-led reforestation effort became a model for environmental restoration and remains a lasting part of the country’s social fabric.
Sankara’s agroecological vision was deeply participatory and linked to broader social justice goals, including women’s empowerment and public health. He created the country’s first Ministry of Water and aimed to provide every Burkinabè with “two meals a day and clean water”, a radical target in the drought-prone Sahel. His approach to food justice and environmentalism was ahead of its time, emphasising the need for endogenous development and the dangers of dependency on food aid.
While Sankara’s reforms were cut short by his assassination in 1987, their legacy endures. Tree planting and ecological consciousness remain embedded in Burkinabè society and organizations such as Terres Vivantes–Thomas Sankara continue to draw inspiration from his pioneering agroecological commitments.
Moreover, crop diversity in Burkina Faso improved significantly under Thomas Sankara’s leadership. His agrarian reforms and agroecology agenda reversed the narrowing of crop diversity caused by colonial and postcolonial emphasis on cash crops.
So, while it is crucial to scrutinise the risks of dependency and the influence of external actors, it’s equally important to recognise the significant progress Burkina Faso is making through its ambitious national initiatives and community empowerment projects. The government’s focus on job creation, mechanisation and local value chains is already yielding positive social and economic impacts. Furthermore, the revival of agroecological principles and investment in land restoration demonstrate a commitment to sustainable, locally adapted solutions.
However, for Burkina Faso to truly honour its anti-imperialist rhetoric, it must move beyond the AGRA/Gates model by investing further in agroecological transformation, land restoration and cooperative models that put power and resources in the hands of local communities. It must ensure that its quest for food sovereignty is not compromised by the very forces it seeks to resist.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/anti-imperialism-food-sovereignty-burkina-faso/5886219
