 Saudi Arabia and Iran resume full-fledged diplomatic relations after a gap of nearly seven years since 2016. What does the exchange of ambassadors mean for the two countries and for peace and cooperation in the region? Russian President Vladimir Putin skipped the BRIC summit and will not be in New Delhi for the G20 heads of government meet either. But he did meet with Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan this week. What was on the agenda at this meeting? And in a vital court case, the extent to which South Africa was bullied into signing one-sided contracts with big pharma to procure the COVID-19 vaccine for its people has come to light. Why is this bullying so alarming and what must governments do to win back sovereignty from big pharmaceutical companies? Salam your watching daily debrief coming to you as it always does from the People's Dispatch studios here in New Delhi. Before we begin the show, we ask you to like, subscribe and share and also don't forget to follow us on the social media platforms of your choice. First up in a deal several months in the making, Saudi Arabia and Iran have exchanged officially. Ambassadors for the first time since relations went awry back in 2016, leading to a long-term diplomatic impasse. Now based on a new understanding that took shape at meetings between the two nations in Beijing in March this year, full ties have been resumed. This means many things for the region of course, including most immediately good news for football fans in the region. Clubs from the two countries as well as their respective national teams will now visit each other and play games on the regular home and away basis. These games were till now being played at neutral venues. Given the Saudis' major push on the sporting front as a tool of its soft power in the recent past, this means the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo, Neymar and Karim Benzema will visit Iran with their respective clubs when the Asian Champions League begins play in the coming weeks. The AFC, which is the organization that runs football on the Asian continent on Monday, praised a groundbreaking agreement between Saudi and Iranian football federations. Ronaldo's Al Nasser is scheduled to play continental rivals Persepolis in Tehran on the 19th of September. Dr Abdul Rahman covers the region for People's Dispatch and joins us now for less of the football of course, but the most serious details on the deal and the response to skeptics as well. Abdul Gupta, I have you on Daily Debrief as always. I will be discussing two important stories with you. First among those, of course, is the latest in the rapprochement, the diplomatic re-engagement between the nations of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Can we view the latest developments, Abdul, as the culmination of a long diplomatic process, by some of which of course has also been mediated by China and now we see the two countries exchanging ambassadors and hopefully full-fledged diplomatic relations? Well, Siddhan, the significance of this particular event should not be underestimated. Given the fact that there were already speculations in the western media in particular about the sustainability of the rapprochement which was reached in March, there were claims that this may not last long and there is a greater chance that this will break out because of the different outstanding issues, disagreements between both the countries, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Given the fact that both the countries have been attempting to kind of create some kind of regional presence for them and were involved in a very competitive geopolitical maneuvering in the larger West Asia or the Arab world. Of course, there are possibilities of disagreements, no doubt about it, but the resumption of diplomatic relationship and they are also joining BRICS together and there are also speculations that Saudi Arabia may join another group which is called Shanghai Cooperation Organization of which Iran became full-fledged member this year, earlier this year. So, given the fact that now they are cooperating and sitting together on multiple diplomatic forums, international diplomatic forums gives them, gives the relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia despite the competition over the regional geopolitics, despite the differences over various smaller issues in Persian Gulf or in Yemen or in other places. Despite all those differences because now that they have a full-fledged diplomatic relation and they are sitting together on multiple forums where the chances of addressing their grievances politically and through negotiations are much more higher than what was there before. This gives kind of makes it very significant and very important that now the relationship between both the countries will be much more sustainable. It also creates the possibilities of larger peace and cooperation in the West Asia region in particular because the disagreements and the conflict between both these, the largest, one of the largest economies, largest military power, them having the influence across the region. If there were disagreements and there were no venues for them to have a diplomatic relation, diplomatically solve those disagreements then of course that would lead to different kinds of conflicts and different kinds of which would basically add to the instability in the region. So if they are cooperating and if there is a full-fledged diplomatic relationship between both the countries, this basically gives a greater hope for the larger regional peace and stability and larger avenues for further kind of cooperation and that of course will is good for the region, good for the global peace and also basically creates better hopes for future of the South-South cooperation. There have of course Abdul Bin skeptics of this new deal or the new understanding that these two countries have come to particularly those who have their own interests in the wider region in West Asia and other parts of the world. How do you view the longevity of the process that is now sort of well underway and the understanding that the Saudis and the Iranians seem to have reached? Let us have done the diplomatic initiative which was taken in China in March, which led to the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran after a gap of more than 7 years and kind of created a possibility of rebuilding this relationship between both of them. Seems to have come to a logical conclusion on Tuesday when the ambassadors of each of these countries basically went to their respective embassies in Tehran and India and which were functioning of course which were functioning at least since last month and kind of assumed the full-fledged diplomatic relations. One should remember that this is what happened on Tuesday is basically a result of a very long process because as I said before the agreement kind of understanding between Iran and Saudi Arabia was reached in March this year and this is September. So in between there were visits and counter visits of senior diplomats including the Foreign Minister of Iran who visited Saudi Arabia earlier this month and all this happened basically it seems that both the countries were preparing for a very long-term and sustainable relationship and that basically you can say led to this delayed exchange of ambassadors. Ideally it was assumed that immediately after the agreement was signed in March there will be exchange of ambassadors to each other but no it took almost 5 months and but in these 5 months both the countries have basically agreed on certain basic principles related to their disagreements on issues in the Persian Gulf or issued in the larger region. In meanwhile they also have basically come together joined the BRICS they were included as a full-fledged members in the BRICS summit which happened earlier this month. They also sorry last month they have also basically it seems though it is not very clear that there has been some kind of understanding between both the countries related to one of the crucial issues of contention between both of them which is in Yemen the war in Yemen. So if you see it seems that even ever since the rapprochement happened in March there was a kind of solid work going on behind the scenes which ultimately led to the culmination of the resumption of full-fledged diplomatic relations on Tuesday. Thanks Abul we will ask you to stick around for just a minute and we will be coming back to you to talk about another important international meeting a bilateral meeting that has taken place back with you in a second. After the 3 hour long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin his Turkish counterpart announced that the all-important Black Sea grain deal is back on the anvil and that the deal can be resumed if Russia's misgivings and reservations are addressed. Erdogan said he was working on a revised plan along with the United Nations and the shortcomings which led to Russia pulling out of the deal in July should be addressed. Abul is still with us of course waiting for us to get back to him. Let's go across for more details. So Abul added time when sort of conversation and sort of the isolationist approach towards Russia seems to be peaking in the context of the war in Ukraine. We know of course that the Black Sea grain deal has also fallen out Russia has withdrawn from that. What sense did you got from discussions between the two leaders in the Russian resort town of Sochi? It seems that despite the fact that Turkey is a member and has basically willingly or unwillingly has been supporting NATO's actions against Russia it seems that there is a booming relationship between Turkey and Russia. And this was reflected in the meeting with Putin as well. In the meeting Putin agreed to open a new power plant in Turkey which is the second one. It has also agreed to use basically use Turkey's ports and create a regional natural gas hub basically to export using Turkey export Russian gas all across the world and Turkey is already doing it but now it seems there is an attempt to increase the amount of that Russian gas export using the Turkish route. It was also, it is very important that both Turkey and Russia have very several fronts on which there is some kind of military kind of engagement and from the opposite side. For example, in Libya there is a presence of the Wagner forces and there is a presence of the Turkish forces there. And there is also Syria where Russia is basically helping the Basarist government to basically regain control over the lost territories and Turkey has been supporting the anti-Assad forces. So during the meeting, these issues were also discussed in detail and it seems that Russia which has been trying to create some kind of negotiation channel between Turkey and Syria so that Turkey withdraws from the Syrian territories it has occupied and there is some kind of end of Turkish support to the anti-Basarist forces. All these issues were discussed in detail as per the reports but whether the Russian attempt to restart the negotiation between Turkey and Syria will materialize or not I think we will have to wait and watch but of course there is an increasing Russian attempt to basically end Turkish involvement in war in Syria and that is one of the major issues which were discussed there in the meeting between Erdogan and Putin. Alright Abdul, thanks very much for those updates on both those stories and thanks for continuing your work and coming to us with regular updates on daily debrief. And finally the Health Justice Initiative, a dedicated health and law initiative in South Africa won a major victory for pandemic transparency and for the world's understanding of just how all powerful Big Pharma has become as part of the information sought by the initiative the Pretoria High Court ruled in their favor and compelled South Africa's National Department of Health to provide access to the COVID-19 vaccine procurement contracts. These contracts highlight the inequitable, unethical and downright racist way in which pharma companies dealt with the South African demands for COVID-19 vaccines at a time when the world was supposed to be coming together to fight a global health emergency. Jyotsana Singh has been following this critical story. Let's go over to her now for details. Jyotsana, good to have you with us on daily debrief this evening. Tell us first about these contracts that have now or the details of which have now been revealed. Of course, pretty scathing indictment coming from the AJ Act, calling it unconscionable, imperial, unethical revealing sort of the extent to which South Africa was really bullied in the context of these contracts. Yes, that's correct. So just to explain in short, Health Justice Initiative, it is a South Africa based organization. They went to court and asked for the contracts which were signed between the vaccine companies and the South African government during COVID-19. They asked them basically to be put in public domain that had not been done. All the contracts across the world were always in secret. So that was this was a big thing. And it is good that the government of South Africa actually did not appeal in the Supreme Court and agreed with the High Court's decision. And that is also what HGI notes in their statements. But what it has revealed, of course, there are some certain new things. But what we already knew from certain leaked documents from other countries, say Columbia, Brazil, etc. It confirms that South Africa had to go through the same bullying by the pharmaceutical companies. For example, a complete indemnity that is if anything goes wrong and it involves money, then it is the government which will pay for it and the companies will not pay. So all of that we had already known the ways of vanity of the countries were questioned. So the analysis of HGI regarding the South African contracts, what it shows is the price difference of the vaccines, the way they were sold. And it is really astonishing and unethical that a developing country like South Africa had to pay a lot more than actually many developing countries. And it wasn't only the companies from the global north, unfortunately, but Serum Institute of India also did the same thing. And somewhere it is max of racism. And that's what activists have been saying for many years now. So for example, Serum Institute sold its vaccine. The cost was 2.5 times more for South Africa than the similar vaccine which was sold by AstraZeneca in the UK. Now these are different companies, but it both were Oxford vaccines. So there is no logic to it at all. It also shows that J&J's vaccine was sold at 33% more. It also shows that Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was sold for 33% more amount than it was sold to the African Union. It also shows that J&J actually charged more, a lot more than the price at which J&J vaccine was available in European Union and many other western nations. So basically the desperation of the countries, I mean South Africa had one of the worst COVID outbreaks and it went through really bad stuff throughout. So the government was actually very desperate and all of these contracts were also being signed during the third wave. So whatever the price the companies were asking the South African government had to agree to it and they really pleased the government. So that's one thing what we also see which is again really worrisome is the way any responsibility or any penalty that was waived off for these companies. Again if you see the government had to pay 40 million dollars to the company as an advance payment and only 20 million would be returned if the vaccines are not delivered. 20 million even without delivering and there is no penalty if the vaccine is not delivered, if the vaccine is delivered late in the middle of a pandemic. These are the contracts and the terms of contracts which we see. So as yesterday Fatima Hassan from HGI, she said this is probably the biggest scandal of the century because the companies said once the government has bought the vaccine, the government cannot sell it to any other company, any other country. The government cannot reroute it for something else or to some other geography. However, the company said that on us there is no penalty. We can actually give the doses to some other country, divert it but we cannot be penalized because actually the vaccine during the third wave of South Africa, the doses which were meant for South Africa were diverted to European Union and not given to South Africa. But there is no penalty that could be charged if they do not deliver. So this is one of the biggest scandals and I think this is. It's astounding Jyotsana how this has sort of played out and like you said it kind of reiterates some of what we already knew but now gives concrete evidence to it. In that sense, you would imagine that this case would have some significance even outside of the realm of South Africa of course and not just limited to the COVID-19 pandemic that is sort of now at least in the past. Tell us a bit more on that. What are the repercussions that are likely to sort of go from here? Yes. So the court case and this judgment, it has a lot of relevance of course. Again, it also shows that some of these conflicts were not even according to the legal laws within South Africa. They were according to the Welsh law or the English law which is the governments across the world have to take note of that because you make laws in your country which comes through a lot of deliberations and the civil society participates, activists participate. And then but a pharmaceutical company from some other country can come in and say that we don't agree with this, you have to work according to some other laws which will be less pro people which will be more anti people. So that's what has happened. So this is one thing the government should start to say no to and worldwide should take note of. Number two, at the moment the pandemic treaty discussions are happening at the level of global health governance and this should feed into it. We cannot have price differentials like this when internationally you're trying to deal with a pandemic or any health issue and it cannot be so non-transparent. The contracts cannot be so non-transparent. That is the other thing. Of course, the governments have to come together and work on it. Also, for the activists and civil society across the world, it shows that they should probably also go to court and start demanding more transparency and accountability. There was a transparency resolution at the WHO, which was passed in 2019 or 2019, and it should be implemented, which would have taken care of some of these things if they had implemented. It is a law before the COVID that was passed at an international level. It should be implemented at the earliest. Apart from that, for me and for I think largely a lot of health activists, the most important thing is it shows how the governments were bullied and the South African ministers and ministers of many other countries, developing countries, always said that at that point when the countries asked for something we had to give because we could not choose between people's lives as compared to, I mean, we had to choose people's lives over fighting the pharma. But the point is why have we created a scenario where pharma companies have become the private companies or transnational companies have become so much more powerful than the governments. And the governments have to claim their sovereignty back in that sense and not really depend on them, create your own R&D. The R&D in any case is done by the governments primarily and they spend a lot of money, claim manufacturing, do local production and have your own production companies, which was the case before in many other countries. And that is the only way to go forward. That's what these contracts show. Thank you very much for that very important update this afternoon on Daily Debrief. And that's a wrap for this episode of the Daily Debrief. As always, we ask you to head to our website peoplesdispatch.org for details on these stories, of course, and all of the other work we do. Don't also forget to give us a follow on the social media platform of your choice. We'll be back with more news and analysis, same time, same place tomorrow. Until then, thank you very much for watching. As always, stay safe. Goodbye.