Flavio Bolsonaro lands in Miami with his family after Trump offers Brazil exit

Ong Teng Cheong 'stress-tested' EP scheme, showed that establishment figure can act independently: Jayakumar

The former senior minister recounts how younger ministers spoke up against Lee Kuan Yew's original proposal for the elected presidency, and his willingness to modify it.

CChannel Newsasia

Government1h ago

Commentary: Indecisive election reveals the deeper fault lines in Israel politics

The election was seen as a referendum on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and it looks like Likud will remain the largest party in parliament, says NUS Middle East Institute’s Jean-Loup Samaan.

CChannel Newsasia

Government1h ago

Commentary: Election win by Brazil's Lula limits Trump’s Latin American ambition

Brazil’s election outcome tests whether a renewed Monroe Doctrine can survive Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's active non-alignment, says an academic.

CChannel Newsasia

Government1h ago

Remarks by Special Envoy on Myanmar to the General Assembly Third Committee Interactive Dialogue on Myanmar [as delivered] (New York, 28 October 2026)

New York, UN Julie Bishop, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Myanmar Chair, Excellencies, Since assuming the role of Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Myanmar, I have engaged impartially with all those who have a legitimate interest in the crisis. Narratives differ profoundly; facts are deeply contested. Take these examples: The military-backed authorities in Nay Pyi Taw (NPT) claim that the 2020 elections—in which the National League for Democracy won more than 80 per cent of the vote—were fraudulent and required military intervention. The resistance, by which I include community voices, maintains that the 2020 election was legitimate and that the will of the people be respected. Nay Pyi Taw portrays the 2026 elections and formation of a new administration as a return to constitutional government. The resistance call the elections a sham, citing the exclusion of major parties, voting amid conflict and polling limited to military-controlled areas. Nay Pyi Taw claims its continuing aerial bombardment targets terrorist groups. The resistance says aerial attacks are targeting civilians, including women and children. They claim that the military has killed at least 8,500 civilians since February 2021. Nay Pyi Taw acknowledges humanitarian needs and claims it is giving access to UN agencies. The resistance and civil society organisations claim the military blocks aid to areas not in its control. The United Nations estimates that more than 16 million people require humanitarian assistance and over 4 million are internally displaced. Nay Pyi Taw claims to be Myanmar’s legitimate government in transition to a federal democratic union. The resistance claims it is a military regime complicated by the fact that control of 70 per cent of the territory is contested or in non-military hands. It points to Rakhine State, where the Arakan Army holds 14 of 17 townships. Nay Pyi Taw cited a 100-day programme and peace talks focused on the remaining signatories to the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) of 2015 as progress towards a peaceful solution. The resistance say any process grounded in the NCA is defunct and notes the calls for peace talks coincide with ongoing military attacks. Nay Pyi Taw claims it has released some 160,000 prisoners since 2021. The resistance reports that more than 20,000 people remain arbitrarily detained, including the State Counsellor. After international calls, including my personal plea, for verified proof of life, Nay Pyi Taw has recently granted ICRC access to Aung San Suu Kyi and allowed contact with her son. Some note this as progress, while others believe she was imprisoned on trumped up charges and call for her immediate and unconditional release. There can be no dispute that Rohingya have fled Rakhine seeking protection in Bangladesh and elsewhere. While Nay Pyi Taw challenges the term “Rohingya”, it claims it remains committed to facilitating the voluntary return of around 326,000 verified former residents from Rakhine when security and stability improve. Bangladesh says it now hosts more than 1.3 million Rohingya from Myanmar. I made my second visit to the camps in Cox’s Bazar last week. The human suffering is acute. Yet those who remain in Rakhine face armed conflict, landmines, movement restrictions, forced recruitment and severely constrained access to services. Any returns would necessarily require guarantees from the Arakan Army, a non-State actor, currently controlling Rakhine. Conditions for safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return do not exist. Attempts to repatriate refugees without guarantees of safety risk violating international protection obligations. Members will recall that in 2019 The Gambia on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, brought a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which is expected to present findings on alleged breaches by Myanmar of the Genocide Convention. It is to be noted, relevant actors from 2017 remain in leadership positions. Member States should consider the implications of the findings of the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations established by the 1945 Charter. As the first President of the General Assembly, so eloquently put it at the inaugural sitting of the court: “There could be no civilized world, nor any lasting peace, if there be not complete and absolute respect for the International Court and its judgements.” Some Member States have previously declared genocide occurred, while some now appear to be on a path to normalising relations. Others are concerned that a precedent may be set for future cases. Those seeking to normalize relations with Nay Pyi Taw claim that sanctions are being ignored and isolation is not effective. Others claim leaders should not be allowed to act with impunity, and that accountability is a precursor to reconciliation. The United Nations is preparing for a leadership transition. I thank Secretary-General Guterres for his solidarity with the people of Myanmar. I will continue to keep the Myanmar crisis a priority across the System, including within a reinvigorated peace and security pillar. This multidimensional crisis falls squarely within that pillar. The UN continues to support ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus. However, I believe that the consensus requires greater elaboration and I support the establishment of benchmarks to measure progress against the calls for an immediate cessation of violence, humanitarian assistance and constructive dialogue among all parties. I would add as a further indicator, the release of those arbitrarily detained, including Aung San Suu Kyi, as already called for by both the Security Council and General Assembly. I aim to strengthen further my cooperation with the ASEAN Special Envoy. I am urged by some Member States to continue my quiet diplomacy, to avoid public statements, to not apportion responsibility, thereby maintaining channels of communication. Other parties urge an opposite course. I have seen first-hand the suffering of the people of Myanmar, the scale of which speaks for itself. I will not disguise the severity of Myanmar’s crisis. I will continue to emphasise the suffering of civilians including the Rohingya and other minority groups, the regional impact of displacement and the global impact of transnational crime. I challenge the myth that this conflict can be resolved militarily. At a time when the relevance of the United Nations is being questioned, Myanmar presents a test: will the United Nations act before the crisis becomes permanently insoluble? I thank Member States. Watch her segment on UN Web TV here. In response to questions from the Member States: I was asked about practical steps for civilian protection. Neighbouring countries should leverage influence to stop the attacks on civilians. Displacement is having a massive regional impact. And I again call for members to seek to influence the authorities in Nay Pyi Taw to allow unfettered access for UN and its partners. I think the presence of these aid workers will go in some way to guard against the indiscriminate attacks. I have also been asked about what the Member States can do. Those who are seeking to normalize relations with Myanmar/Nay Pyi Taw should take this opportunity to leverage concessions from Nay Pyi Taw. The idea that one seeks to normalize relations after the decades of fighting and human rights abuses without seeking any conditions for the normalization of that relationship, are wasting an opportunity to seek nothing in return. Those seeking to normalize relations should demand an end to the violence, should demand unfettered humanitarian access, and should demand the release of arbitrarily detained prisoners in return for the normalisation of relations. I believe this is a very grave, wasted opportunity. [...] And I do urge member states to take that into account when seeking to normalize relations with Nay Pyi Taw or using their influence to end this crisis.

RReliefweb

Related Stories

Ong Teng Cheong 'stress-tested' EP scheme, showed that establishment figure can act independently: Jayakumar

Commentary: Indecisive election reveals the deeper fault lines in Israel politics

Commentary: Election win by Brazil's Lula limits Trump’s Latin American ambition

Remarks by Special Envoy on Myanmar to the General Assembly Third Committee Interactive Dialogue on Myanmar [as delivered] (New York, 28 October 2026)