 The executive body of the World Health Organization has passed a resolution on the situation in Gaza. What were the debates around the resolution? A UN peacekeeping force is leaving Mali after 10 years. Why did this force become so unpopular? This is the Daily Debrief. These are your stories for the day. And before we go any further, if you're watching this on YouTube, please hit the subscribe button. The executive body of the World Health Organization adopted a resolution on the health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territories. This was during a rare special session. Now the final resolution calls for the immediate, sustained and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief, including access of medical personnel to Gaza. Now the debates around this resolution were in many ways a mirror of similar debates in various global fora, countries of the global north, different in Israel, while countries of the global south called for a ceasefire. We go to Anna to understand the debates around the issue. Anna, thank you so much for joining us. Various agencies of the UN have been in the forefront of pointing out the humanitarian disaster, the extent to which this Israeli genocidal attack is damaging, is destroying every aspect of life in Gaza, and for that matter even in the West Bank. So could you maybe take us through what the discussions at the Executive Board of the World Health Organization were like? Well, it was a rare occasion if we can say that. So the Executive Board is not so keen on meeting at special sessions. And now what happened here was that a number of member states as well as the director general of the WHO were quite vocal in the past weeks about the necessity of a ceasefire in order to get enough medical supplies in order to restore some sort of health system in the Gaza Strip. And essentially what they managed to do is to push for this special session to discuss on the humanitarian situation in Gaza and then there to propose a resolution that would address some of the aspects that they knew were most problematic from the point of view of health. So on the one hand, you had the technical discussions. Of course, there is a technical introduction given by the appropriate WHO program, which is based on what they're observing on the ground, because we know that the WHO teams are there with the other UN agencies. They are working together with other Palestinian organizations in order to ensure that some kind of health care can be provided in the hospitals and in the primary health centers that remain in Gaza. Now, of course, we also know that the number of those hospitals, the number of those health centers is declining by the day as the team of health emergencies reported there. There were only three hospitals in the south of Gaza on Sunday, which were able to deliver surgical care, which of course, we don't have to point it out here, is that it's essential, it's crucial at moments like these. So again, the WHO teams, the WHO secretariat makes a point of raising what the occupation of Palestine, what the war on health in Palestine means for the health workers, what it means for the health infrastructure in Palestine in all the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as for the people who are now dislocated, they are living in overcrowded shelters. They're more and more exposed to epidemics, to outbreaks of infectious disease. So again, this kind of the technical part of the meeting, it reassess what WHO has been saying all along that if it continues like this, we can hope only for a worse situation to appear when it comes to public health. Now on the political side, what's interesting is that many of the members inside WHO have been calling for a ceasefire, especially those in the region. On the other hand, we have the member states like the US, we have member states like the European Union who have been calling for something very different. So what was the biggest success of this meeting essentially was that the executive board meeting was concluded by consensus. So there was no voting on the resolution which was put in place afterwards. All the AB members agreed that it was necessary to call for unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, although many of them of course made a point that they did not agree with the final language and were agreeing to this only in the interest of supporting something that all member states could stand behind. And an interesting point you mentioned at the end, in the name of of course compromise, there are both sides in various ways. But let's look at the side you talked about which is the US and its allies and we know what they have sort of across the world in various fora been the narrative they've been pushing, the excuses they've been giving. In the context of the World Health Organization, EB, what was the argument that the representatives of countries supporting Israel were giving? Well, again, it was not much news there. So it's always the same argument that the countries from the global north repeat when this is concerned. So of course, there were representatives from Palestine and from Israel in the room speaking. And what was interesting to hear, although not surprising again, is that the US and Israel representatives put forward very similar arguments. There was a lot of talk about human rights. There was a lot of talk about 75 years of the UN Charter on Human Rights. There was also a lot of calling out people in the room for not respecting the current human rights framework because they were speaking against Israel. But then on the other hand, there were quite a few moments at the meeting because if we look at the UN meetings, the language is very boring. It kind of drains all content out and all interest out. But then there are those moments where representatives say things from where we as people who are devoted to human rights stand should never be said. And so one of those moments I think was when the US representative, sorry, said, repeating what the Israeli delegation was arguing before is that a ceasefire would not only be unrealistic at this point, it would also be harmful. It would also be counterproductive. Essentially, after hearing all the reports coming from the representatives of the members of the WHO who were exposed directly to US-led wars, hearing something like that coming from a number of delegations, it made quite an impact because it essentially shows how much the perception of the US in international spaces like the WHO is disconnected from what we are observing on the ground. Rana finally could also maybe take us a bit through what the latest reports are saying regarding the health conditions in Gaza. You of course mentioned the lack of hospitals, but what is the other information that we have? Well, just yesterday there was a new statement released by the Palestinian Medical Relief Society, which again, all the reports including this one, they tend to repeat what has been reported on health for the past weeks with the very important difference that things tend to get worse and worse. So now what the Palestinian Medical Relief Society is saying is that of course, bad occupancy rates at hospitals, including in intensive care units, are way off charts. So they're close to 300% in all hospitals that are operating right now. The health workers, they have not had a break since the attacks began at the beginning of October. They're tired. They're working without supplies. They are working with patients who require quite specific care without being able to provide them with anything. So essentially, now one of the most pressing concerns of course is also addressing the living conditions of people who have been displaced, who are now living in UN schools, who have taken shelter in hospitals because we do know that the incidence, so the number of cases of people with infectious diseases is rising. That's also something that the WHO has been warning about is that in addition to people having increased cases of diarrhea, of respiratory infections, now we're also talking, for all of this time, we have also been talking about populations like pregnant women, like children who essentially have no way to access the care that they need. Right, thank you so much for that update. We'll come back to you in the coming days as well. The UN multidimensional integrated stabilization mission in Mali or Minusma is leaving the country after 10 years. This comes after Mali's government demanded that the forces leave in June. The mission which numbers around 14,000 was initially welcomed as people believed they could fight rebels who were wreaking havoc in the country. However, 10 years later, their stock is pretty low and there was widespread support for the government's decision to ask them to leave. We go to Abdul for the details. Abdul, thank you so much for joining us. Mali has been at the center of many geopolitical developments over the past few years and has played an important role even after the Niger coup which took place in recent times. So the role of the UN forces was something that was very closely watched across the world. So now the UN forces are officially leaving. So could you maybe give us some context as to why these forces were there and what led to the leaving? Ever since the war broke out in Livia following the NATO intervention in 2011, there had been a different, there had been a regional repercussion for that war. A large number of militias emerged which basically spread all across the region and Mali was one of, since it shares the border, it was one of the victims of you can say the war of the war in Libya. So ever since that war, a kind of separatist movement basically emerged within Mali, of course backed by the weapons and the fighters coming from through Libya. And basically after that the then government in Mali basically appealed the United Nations for interventions in the way that a peacekeeping force was required and then peacekeeping force was deployed at that time. Ever since then, though despite the fact that there were thousands of peacekeeping forces called Minisma were there in the Mali, but the objective of peace of course did not materialize. The violence continued finally in 2015 and the government had to sign an agreement with the forces, what in generally called the separatist forces in Algeria. And since then there was an increasing demand that these international forces, all the international forces including the French troops which were also there for from the same time onwards, which should withdraw because their presence leads to different kinds of problem, particularly the killing of innocents become an issue and therefore they should leave. So in June after a military coup, when the new government came to power in mid, sorry in 2021, and in June this year basically they demanded that the UN forces should withdraw after of course asking the French to withdraw from the country. So French troops have already left the country and now the UN troops are leaving though officially the mission ended on Monday. Of course there are few more troops and few more stations left which of course are not official anymore and that they will be dismantled in coming days. So this is the context in which the UN forces were deployed and the reason behind their leaving is the current government in Mali does not think that presents any beneficial for the people of Mali and there is a growing strong sentiment against the presence of any foreign troops in the country. Well, Abulul, in fact seeing a similar situation taking place in the Congo which is not very far away and very far away in Haiti there's a lot of opposition to the possibility of a UN force. So UN forces I think in many parts of the world are seen with considerable amount of skepticism especially considering that their goal is supposed to somehow be peacekeeping and stuff like that and it does not seem to have worked out. But how do you see this also in the context of the geopolitical developments that are taking place in the region? We know there is a closer integration of countries in that part. Well, ever since the incident of what we generally call the coups in Niger earlier this year which led to a kind of emergence of a coalition between Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and some of course some other countries backed it. Basically this should be seen in the context of their historical experiences with the first the colonial powers intervening in their internal matters and exploiting their resources and of course deploying forces to basically claim legitimacy in the name of fighting terrorism or fighting quote-unquote separatist militias. Sometimes they also claim that this reason the presence of foreign troops are required primarily to kind of protect the people in these in these reasons from the extremist global terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and so and so forth. Of course these arguments have been the people in these reasons have seen the bogus you can say emptiness of these arguments because these troops have done nothing more than kind of sustaining the colonial occupation in the region and that realization has led to emergence of a strong popular sentiment in the region against all kinds of foreign external prisons primarily the presence of ex-colonial powers though the Minusma forces are were not made of the French troops of course but because of the French troops presence of the French troops and because of the press their historical the legacy with which they had been there in the reason has basically led to kind of some kind of you can say skepticism about the even forces as well and that basically should be seen in the larger context of their colonial experiences. So yeah the emergence of the the new set of rulers come emergence of the new set of rulers in these reason there are understanding of the colonial past and and basically has led to a much more closer cooperation among them and that cooperation is primarily anti-colonial one should remember and when we say anti-colonial of course both political as well as economic aspects of it should be should be remembered and and therefore one should not be looking at what is happening to the even forces as a something as a as a you can say the the short-sightedness of these of the these ruling establishment because there is an argument that the withdrawal of the troops may lead to further violence in the reason but they are ready to deal with that violence domestically they are ready to basically start negotiations with the what asked hitherto separatist groups but they are not ready to compromise with the presence of the colonial powers in the region and that is the clear politics which has emerged in last few years particularly since the the coming power of the new set of rulers in in the region. President Abdullah also I think important to note that these ruling establishments especially the military governments are very strongly backed it would seem by a mass public support as well. Exactly exactly a very strong public support in fact the in Mali just to say just to give an example there was a referendum in June which basically more than 70% 80% people voted in favor of the current establishment and their plans to kind of transit from the military rule to the popular popular rule with their anti-colonial policies complete adherence to their anti-colonial policies so one should not see it as something the rulers are only military people from the military establishment they have a strong popular backing which has been reflected in the large scale of mobilization in support of them as well as the institutional measures they have taken for example their elections and the friendams whenever they have initiated a huge enthusiasm has been shown by the people in those measures. Well thank you so much for joining us that's all we have in this episode of daily debrief we'll be back for another episode tomorrow in the meantime do visit our website peoplesdispatch.org and follow us on all the social media platforms.