#why the UN will one day threaten national sovereignty | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

workersolidarity · 4 years ago

Note

Hey I was wondering if you could give us a run down of why you support the DPRK? Not trying to interrogate just curious

I don't know that I particularly support the Kim regime itself. What I support is the right of Korean Marxists to have their own State without being interfered with by Western Colonialists.

How can anyone claim to know what the Kim regime would do if they hadn't had to spend the entire time of the existence of the DPRK worrying about being fire bombed into obliteration or blasted into non-existence by the US? How can we know what good or bad the Kim's would have done for the Korean people were it not for the insane amount of defense spending they've needed to prevent the South from invading? How can anyone claim to know what the Economy in the North would be like without a psychotic amount of sanctions basically snuffing the highly advanced Economy they once had?

After the Korean War, but before the Sanctions began, for the entire three decades the North was roughly able to run a functioning Economy, the North was far more advanced technologically, had better infrastructure, and a far larger Economy than the South.

It was only after those three decades of embarrassment when the Capitalist Dictatorship the US set up in the South that was an obviously failing State, that the US began it's full blown Economic attack against the DPRK while super funding the Economy of the South and transferring massive amounts of highly advanced technology before the South finally caught up with the DPRK's economy and surpassed it. It took an organized attack by an alliance of Western Capitalist Countries sabotaging the Economy of the DPRK while constantly threatening to invade them, thereby forcing the Kim regime to spend enormous amounts of it's budget on its defense.

Just as with the Soviet Union before, the DPRK has become what it has, not because of the failure of the Kims (who don't have nearly the amount of control the Western Media loves pretending they have) and not because of some failure of Marxism, but because of highly organized alliance of Capitalist Countries in the West and in the region constantly sabotaging the Economy and the Right of Marxists States to exist.

The fact of the matter is, no Proletarian State has ever existed without the constant threat of invasion, sabotage, regime change, and other quiet schemes to warp the successful Governance of Communist or Socialist Countries.

It's not a coincidence that they all ended up being destroyed Economically by overspending on National Defense. Rather it's been a consistent organized strategy by the West to prevent the world from ever seeing a successful Proletarian State.

Because the fact of the matter is, if left to their own devices, the Soviet Union would still be around today, along with many more Communist Countries that would have followed their example and fought successful Revolutions.

The only way to make sure people accepted being ruled and oppressed by a tiny elite of super wealthy Capitalists was by making them believe that Socialist Countries were actually evil dictatorships.

And by sticking together to sabotage Communist Nations, the West succeeded in forcing those countries to look more like the evil regimes the Capitalists claimed they were.

So all I can do is study the actions taken by Kim Jung Un. Not the stories blasted in the Corporate news that highly invested in the failure of the DPRK, but instead paying attention to the stories that get little to no attention. Like when last year Kim Jung Un celebrated the opening of a giant Ski Resort that is free for a citizens to go on vacation to. Just like the Soviet Union did many decades ago.

It's hard to sift through the news about the DPRK. Oftentimes, the stories about grandiose murders turn out to be flatly false, but instead of retracting these fake stories, our News corporations just stop talking about a story and shift your attention to some other story. I've found countless quiet retractions on stories about Kim Jung Un in the mainstream newspapers like the NY Times, but the retraction was barely the size of my thumb, and was buried in the back of the paper. For example the story a couple years ago about Kim Jung Un strapping down his General and firing an anti-aircraft weapon at him to supposedly send a signal to anyone trying to challenge his reign. The story was EVERYWHERE in the news for about two weeks and then it just wasn't one day. Almost a year later I found out the story was false, told to newspapers by people in the South Korean Govt with their own reasons for making Kim look like a horrendous murderer. And instead of announcing they'd made a mistake and apologizing for it, they buried the retraction in the back of the paper and the cable news just stopped talking about it completely without ever retracting the story. The same happened a few months back when supposedly the negotiator who failed to make a deal with the Trump Administration had need killed by Kim. It was all over the news for a week, until footage was released showing the same Negotiator watching a Play. But instead of reporting it like that and apologizing, the news channels tried treating the video with skepticism and then dropped the subject completely once it was confirmed he was in fact quite alive and well and still in the inner circle of Kim.

So its nearly impossible to get a clear picture of what the Government in the DPRK is actually like because we're constantly being fed propaganda from invested news sources.

I used have a good friend that grew up under Communist Czechoslovakia. He once told me that the biggest difference between Communist Czechoslovakia and the United States, was that in Czechoslovakia everyone already knew the news was propaganda. He said he was amazed that Americans watched the news and really had no inclination that they're constantly being lied to. That conversation blew my mind and gave me a whole new perspective on the way we're fed Propaganda. And I wasn't remotely Socialist at the time I had that conversation. I was maybe a Liberal Progressive at the time.

So I'm not interested in judging the DPRK, and I feel very strongly about their Right to Sovereignty, and their Right to be Governed however they see fit. If the North Korean people decided they didn't want to be a Communist State, then no amount of violence by the Government will stop them from insurrection. Until that time though, I will defend Marxism Leninism, and defend the Right of Socialist countries to exist.

60 notes · View notes

inick4u · 4 years ago

Text

Tame the Dragon

It was on 9 November 1989, five days after half a million people gathered in East Berlin in a mass protest the Berlin Wall dividing communist East Germany from West Germany crumbled. It culminated in one of the most famous scenes in recent history - the fall of the Berlin Wall. An end to the Cold War was declared at the Malta Summit three weeks later, and the reunification of Germany took place in October the following year. It took US (and west) around 45 years after world war-2 to claim the triumph over mighty Soviet Union when it got dissolved in Dec 1991. The similarities between communist USSR and present day China in their hegemonic, expansionist, tyrannical, authoritarian, Orwellian regimes are not unfathomable.

Rise of China, its Military and Economical Potency

Rise of china started in 1980, due to initiation of economic reforms and trade liberalization with real annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaging 9.5% through 2018, a pace described by the World Bank as “the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history.” Such growth has enabled China, on average, to double its GDP every eight years and helped raise an estimated 800 million people out of poverty and becoming second highest GDP around 13.41 trillion USD in 2018.

In terms of Military strength, Second only to the U.S. and Russia, the Chinese military continues to grow alongside a local burgeoning Military-Industrial Complex with around 21 lakhs active personnel and around 175 billion USD budget.

Threat of China to India and stability of world at large

Chinese leadership interpreted 2008 financial crisis as decline of US supremacy & inadequacy to maintain stability in economy. First manifestation of China asserting its belligerent policies started in March 2010 with its expansive claim over South China Sea. Chinese claim over South China Sea was projected as their core interest and non-negotiable like Tibet and Taiwan. In November 2012 at 18th Party Congress of CCP ,Hu Jintao who was loathe to be seen as weak in foreign policy, especially in the context of a rapidly growing concern about social stability and regime legitimacy was succeed by Xi Jinping. After that number of steps undertook by PRC to increase their stakes in world stability. In series of that, Launching of Belt and road initiative in 2013 widely seen as agenda to threaten sovereignty, export sub-standard norms and practices, ensnaring developing countries with debt dependence and then translating that dependence into geopolitical influence. China’s actions in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Malaysia are central to the “debt trap diplomacy” debates. This was followed by numerous controversies over dubious cyber activities, maritime and land disputes with its neighbor (such as India, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, and Philippines), ethnic atrocities on Uighur Muslims in Xinxiang, curbing anti-china protest in Hong Kong and Trade war with US.

By any parameters, one can safely conclude that china has been overtly challenging US and west domination on world affairs in all facets over a decade now and pose severe threat to regional & world stability.

On domestic front, New Delhi has been very skeptical and apprehensive about Beijing and its hawkish polices after trauma of 1962 war. The event of Doklam, raising Kashmir issue in UN, blocking India’s entry into NSG (Nuclear Supplier Group), Supporting jihadi terrorist on international forums, pact with Pakistan for CPEC with an aim to undermine India’s sovereignty and now killing of 20 Indian soldiers in Ladakh by PLA has unsurprisingly conveyed the devious plot of evil Xi-Jinping regime to destabilize India. China is also following the strategy of containing India in maritime region by establishing bases for the forward deployment of their naval assets and to gain relative advantage and leverage Indo-pacific region.

Now, outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic allegedly originated in wet markets of Chinese city of Wuhan and its information suppressed by China has really triggered the conflict between world and China wide open. The world is now badly suffering with devastating effect of Covid-19 at all fronts and wants to hold the Chinese government responsible for hiding the information unscrupulously.

Infiltration of China in Indian Economy

We need to understand few basic facts about infiltration of China in Indian economy before going into the debate of boycott China campaign. India is running biggest single trade deficit with China comparing to any other country. The imbalance has continuously been widening year after year to reach USD 58.04 billion in 2018. Over time, our raw material-based export commodities of largely agricultural and pharmaceutical products have been overshadowed by Chinese exports of machinery, power-related equipment, telecom, organic chemicals, and fertilizers. Many Chinese electronic, IT and hardware manufacturing companies are also having operations in India. These include Huawei Technologies, ZTE, TCL, Haier etc. Chinese mobile handset companies Xiaomi, Vivo and Oppo, Realme occupy nearly 75% of Indian mobile handset market.

Apart from the bilateral trade, Chinese investments in a country come through direct, routed and through corporate penetration in technology and infrastructure sectors. Officially, China's FDI in India stands at over $2.34 billion. Some observers and think tanks report a higher investment including rerouted ones. They put the Chinese investments in India at over $4 billion. Some of our shining brands having massive Chinese investment are Ola, Flipkart, Swiggy, Paytm, Snapdeal, Zomato etc.

Can Boycotting Chinese Product help?

Any people movement of boycotting Chinese Product is not only going to be very futile engagement with very less dividend but shows our approach of banalisation of very complex international matter with united jingoism. Almost every experts are opining to the contrary and also we don’t have any history of such successful attempt or study of consumer boycotting in attaining self-reliance or penalizing the “enemy” nation.

The range of goods that we import from China is immense: consumer durables such as electronic goods, smartphones, industrial goods, vehicles, solar cells, and essential pharmaceutical products including tuberculosis and leprosy drugs and antibiotics, among many others. It needs to be acknowledged that China has increased its export to Africa, Europe, US and its dependence on export to India is not great (2% of its total exports). So even if Indians boycott all the goods imported from China, it will not make as big an impact on China. On the other hand sudden throwing out Chinese firms may impact Indian industries and tech startups due to lack of investment, raw material and low cost capital investment. Another impact could be further worsen of unemployment rate which currently stands at alarming 24% rate.

USP of Chinese goods has been its affordability and availability. With a careful study of global society’s multi-cultural needs – some of the cheapest saris, toys, Diwali firecrackers and god idols in India come from China. In our country where 75% of population only managed to earn Rs. 33 per day, consumer eventually prefer to go for the cheapest available option in the market. So call for boycotting anyways going to diminish sooner or later without achieving its goal.

Ways to counter the bully

To quote great ancient Chinese General and Military Strategist Sun Tzu “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

Conventional warfare cannot be a viable option to counter a nation which is 5 times bigger in GDP and 3 times bigger in terms of military spending. Hence opening remarks of this article about history explains why India needs a long term, stable, prudent multilateral strategy to counter china and can be classified as follows.

a) Economic Reforms, bilateral and multilateral Trade agreement – It’s not intricate to understand that reason China is able to challenge US is because of their sustained economic growth. And this is an undisputed opinion in the world that India has failed to reach its potential after forced Liberalization of 1991 (explanation needs another article).

An efficient government is one that draws down its intervention where it is distortionary and goes big where it needs to—is a better goal. The Indian state has made the wrong call too often. We have already lost a decade for structural economic reforms and cannot be further delayed. The Clarion call of Atmanirbar Bharat should not be misconstrued to the policy of protectionism and disruption. Though it’s impossible to suggest any magic wand to overturn India’s economic woes (going on now from long time) in few paragraphs but let’s discuss some basic concepts.

India is inadequately formalized, financialised, urbanized, industrialized and skilled. There are fundamentally two different part of economy i.e. Rural and Urban economy. Rural economy is mostly based on agriculture and constitute 65% of population. Agricultural reforms should ensure easier access to inputs like seeds, technology, power, finance and insurance. They should effect greater connectivity, both virtual and through logistic networks, of the farmer to warehouses, rural industry and final consumers.

Some bold steps for Land and labor reforms need to be undertaken. Though some states like MP and UP made some labor reforms but union government’s formulation with wider consultation of industry and trade unions required.

India, with its massive domestic consumption, can hunker down and resolve to boost domestic demand in the coming months. Government must put more money in people’s hands by creating more jobs through huge public investment projects that bring about new national assets. The government also needs to go further in reforming the banking sector & financial institute, including stricter regulations over lending and enhanced supervision from regulators. Government must work on issue like Simplification of GST, elimination of red tapism, avoiding crony capitalism, low tariffs to attract foreign investment, encouragement to startups etc.

India’s Spending on R&D is very low. In the process of self-reliance, it becomes paramount that along with improvement in our education systems we must spend on R&D of technological development. Eg. India has quadrupled its imports of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries. 175 million such batteries were imported in 2016, 313 million in 2017, 712 million in 2018 and 450 million in 2019. About ¾ of this import comes from China causing surge in our import bill. With Robust R&D Infrastructure, increasing import tariffs and assisting our indigenous industry, this can be easily overturned in a span of 3-4 years. Same can be applied to electronics industry, mobile handset industry and some low cost equipment’s which now heavily depending on China.

Trade agreements with like-minded countries in non-sensitive sector will also help in much needed infusion of funds and making our products competitive globally and exportable.

This is long haul process and needs stable, strong vision and may not get us the headlines but surely will help to transform our economy.

(In April, the United Nations’ World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reported that for the first time in 40 years, China had applied for more patent applications than the U.S. including artificial intelligence, brain science, dark matter, genetic engineering and quantum computing and communications. These are areas at the cutting edge of science. No wonder why China’s firm Huawei is pioneer of 5G technology.)

Most of things mentioned here are very conceptual, subjective and aspirational. The downturn of Business friendly Chief Minister to the Prime Minister governing with heavy centralization, rhetoric, popular slogans, Communal division is tragic and still anew in our mind. But hope some sanity prevails because history won’t be as forgiving as present day electorate.

b) Military & strategic Co-operation with World Powers & Alliance with geo-political Anti-China Forces – Well the good news is that in the post COVID era, threats of rise of hegemonic China are acknowledged by all. Many countries including US like Australia, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan have started aggressive opposition of Chinese polices. Hence analogy of Cold war -2 is not mere catchphrase. And threats posed by Beijing demand a ‘more global approach’.

India should realize that higgledy-piggledy strategy against China and non-alignment wouldn’t give the desired result. Strategic military co-operation without compromising the autonomy would play the most vital part in foreign relations. The expansion of G7 is being deliberated and UK is keen to have India join the D10 alliance. India already participates in the Quad (with Australia, Japan, and the U.S.) and in the Indo-Pacific Strategy, both U.S.-led anti-China platforms. Alliances would help to promote a coordinated response between friendly states to challenges posed by the present conduct and future ambitions of the People’s Republic of China. By developing a common set of principles and frameworks (diplomatically and militarily) that transcend conservatism will be able achieve the goals.

Regional players like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are challenging Beijing draconian approach in the region. India should join their voices and the first step would be recognizing Taiwan and setting up diplomatic relation with them. India should also raise the concerns of Chinese policy towards Uighurs , Hong Kong and Tibet on international forums more often than not.

c) Peace on Domestic front – In pursuit of competing with a giant china and its proxies like Pakistan, the importance of peace and law & order on domestic front cannot be over emphasized. The prospects of being a democratic country is our biggest strength vis-a-vis China. However our insidious political class across the country has been indulged in sabotaging the democracy and interested in only grabbing the power. Without really going into the narrative of our Indian ethos and ancient culture of accommodating people of all beliefs, I want to underlay that the basic principle of wealth and prosperity is peace. Dangerous religious and Caste trends could destroy the social fabric of the nation in the long run. Alienation of Minorities should be reversed. Instances of communal riots across states, violent agitation of Jats in Haryana, perpetual violence in Bengal demonstrate very grim portrait of our society. The soft power of demography, importance of communal-social harmony and the need of unity against foreign enemy cannot be overlooked. Though it seems very trivial but in my opinion this is very crucial and hardest step of all.

Lastly it’s not a question of belling the cat, its how well world take snipe shots to kill this beast.

(Views expressed here are mine while source of most figures is google search)

#india #ladakh #China #USA

11 notes · View notes

armeniaitn · 4 years ago

Text

Why Azerbaijanis and Armenians have been fighting for so long

New Post has been published on https://armenia.in-the.news/politics/why-azerbaijanis-and-armenians-have-been-fighting-for-so-long-37065-16-07-2020/

Why Azerbaijanis and Armenians have been fighting for so long

Azerbaijan and Armenia have shared hostilities over various ethnic, religious and political reasons – but the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is the biggest hurdle that exists between the two.

Recent deadly clashes along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border have shown that old and new problems between the two Caucasian nations, carry the dangerous potential of sliding the two states into a fully-fledged regional war.

The two countries have serious historical differences that span issues including religion, ethnicity and of course, politics. Azerbaijan has a Muslim majority population that also houses a heavy Turkic presence. while Armenia is a Christian majority country predominantly populated by ethnic Armenians.

In the late years of the Ottoman Empire, an ethnic conflict emerged between the two nations, particularly in Caucasia and parts of eastern Anatolia, largely based on the territories of the respected regions.

During World War I, the Armenians, backed by Russia and some prominent Western countries, tried to get rid of the Muslim population from Caucasia and Eastern Anatolia in the hope of creating an independent state. This led to an armed confrontation between the Ottomans and Armenians.

Under the Soviet Union, a federative communist state, the conflict between the nations appeared to be paused when the Armenian and Azerbaijani republics existed side by side.

But the Soviet designation of territories between Azerbaijanis and Armenians created other problems, and sowed the seed for future conflicts.

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a major international dispute – it sits among the likes of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, the one concerning former Yugoslavia, and Cyprus, but has not commanded the same level of international attention.

(Zeyd Abdullah Alshagouri / TRTWorld)

The origin of the conflict

After Azerbaijan and Armenia were subsumed into the Soviet Union, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was established within Azerbaijan by the Soviet Union in 1924.

During the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, the question of the future of the region became a source of enmity once again and clashes began between ethnic Azerbaijanis and Armenians in November 1988. Clashes continued on and off until both countries gained independence in 1991.

Karabakh held a referendum in December 1991 over the creation of an independent state, which would mean unilaterally declaring itself separate from the Republic of Azerbaijan. The majority of those who went to the referendum polls voted in favour of independence, however, most of the Azerbaijanis living in Karabakh boycotted it by suggesting the referendum was illegitimate.

Most countries do not recognise the legitimacy of Karabakh’s declaration of independence. This is partly because only fifteen republics of the former Soviet Union could declare sovereignty from the union according to its constitution, and Karabakh was not one due to its status as an autonomous region. Further to this, unilateral declarations of independence are often rejected because they violate international law.

Following the referendum, the conflict escalated into a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. This resulted in at least 30,000 casualties and displaced an estimated 1 million people from both sides by the end of the war in 1993.

Azerbaijan and Armenia reached an unofficial ceasefire in May 1994 through Russian mediation, while Moscow reportedly supported Armenian forces militarily and politically during the conflict.

Since then, occasional clashes, like the most recent ones, continue across the countries’ border and in the occupied-Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Karabakh ‘s Armenian militias stand near a howitzer in Hadrut province in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan on April 5, 2016. (Albert Khachatryan / AP Archive)

Russian involvement

Matthew Bryza, a political analyst, who worked as an American mediator between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the 2000s under the auspices of the White House, finds Russian involvement and meditation in the conflict problematic.

He thinks the Russians, through politicians like Konstantin Zatulin – the first deputy chairman of the committee of the State Duma for the The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) – are trying to provoke conflict.

“Zatulin is a firebrand and a provocateur. In my professional experience, he is always trying to steer the conflicts to create some discord so that Russia can always manipulate the two sides to keep its influence (intact over Armenia and Azerbaijan),” Bryza told TRT World.

“He came with a statement a couple of days ago, that was extremely provocative. He said ‘Well, it’s not clear to whom Nagorno-Karabakh belongs. The Armenian prime minister tells me it’s Armenian. Azerbaijanis say it’s Azerbaijani. Who knows?’”

“In fact, Russia like the US and even Armenia until recently agreed that occupied-Nagorno Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan. So that is a very provocative step taken by Zatulin, who is supposed to represent a country considered an impartial mediator,” he added.

Zatulin, born in Batum of Caucasia like Joseph Stalin, the communist dictator who drew the borders of many Soviet republics and autonomous regions including Azerbaijan and Armenia, has long been known for his pro-Armenian stance.

Konstantin Zatulin, the Chairman of the CIS Commonwealth Committee, listens to the journalist’s question during his press-conference in Moscow on Crimean crisis March 20, 1995. (Reuters Archive)

“As CSTO (The Collective Security Treaty Organization) member states we have obligations to each other. Russia views Armenia as an ally and in the event of an attack the mechanisms envisaged by the CSTO [Charter] will apply to Armenia,” said Zatulin in November 2019, after tensions escalated between Baku and Yerevan.

The Collective Security Treaty Organization was established in 1992 by some members of the CIS, led by Moscow, to create a kind of Russian NATO across Eurasia.

“I would like to note that our 102nd Military Base in the territory of Armenia is not deployed here in vain to solely serve as a ‘beauty accessory’,” threatened the Russian firebrand.

The same Zatulin made similar threatening remarks immediately after the most recent clashes.

Veiled threats toward Turkey

“If anybody now uses force in response to an initial Armenian attack on Azerbaijan, Russia will use force against it to protect its ally, which is Armenia,” Zatulin said, according to Bryza.

Zatulin also appears to threaten Turkey by saying this, a country that has proved Azerbaijan’s strongest ally since its independence.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, left, and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev speak during a press conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan on Feb. 25, 2020. (Credit: Presidential Press Service / AP Archive)

Ankara has recently deployed technologically advanced armed drones, which have been battle-tested in the Libyan civil war on the side of the UN-recognised Government of General Accord (GNA) and in Syria against the Russian-backed Assad regime forces, across Turkish-Armenian border to show its support for Azerbaijan.

“Turkey will continue, with all its capacity, to stand by Azerbaijan in its struggle to protect its territorial integrity,” said a Turkish foreign ministry statement.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also proffered his support on Azerbaijan, saying, “Turkey will show no wavering to oppose any attack toward Azerbaijan.”

Armenia-Azerbaijan clashes have now created another front between Ankara and Moscow.

Turkey and Russia have recently been at odds in several conflicts across the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, from Libya to Syria, and now Azerbaijan, too.

“The major players are Russia and Turkey,” says Bryza, referring to the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict.

Source: TRT World

Read original article here.

#Armenia #Armenians #Karabakh #Yerevan #Politics

0 notes

samanthasroberts · 6 years ago

Text

Thursday briefing: Hurricane Irma flattens Caribbean communities

Atlantics biggest ever storm brings death and devastation the great British beer rip-off and how the aristocracy has kept its vice-like grip on wealth and power

Top story: Mega-storm carves destructive path

Good morning – it’s Warren Murray with the news from near and far.

Hurricane Irma has left a trail of destruction through the Caribbean. The emergency is continuing and so is our live coverage. Tiny nation-states and territories such as Antigua and Barbuda have been among the worst affected thus far by the most powerful storm ever recorded in the Atlantic Ocean.

There has been massive property destruction on the island of Barbuda, while St Martin and St Barthélemy have also been heavily battered. Multiple fatalities have been reported – at least six people died in the French part of St Martin, local officials said. In Puerto Rico 965,000 people were left without power and nearly 50,000 without water.

Play Video

1:10

Hurricane Irma reaches the Caribbean – video report

Irma is heading towards the US mainland and authorities have warned it could strike southern Florida by Sunday afternoon. There are evacuation orders in Miami-Dade county. Donald Trump declared a state of emergency in Florida, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Hurricane Jose has also formed in the open Atlantic, and Hurricane Katia in the Gulf off the coast of Mexico. Jose posed no immediate threat to land at time of writing, according to forecasters, but Katia may threaten the coast of Mexico where officials have issued a hurricane watch.

‘See what happens’ – South Korea has commenced the full deployment of the controversial Thaad missile defence system amid protests, while China has held air warfare exercises off the Korean peninsula as tensions continue to simmer following the North’s nuclear test. The White House says Donald Trump is ready to invoke sanctions against any country that trades with Kim Jong-un’s regime if the UN security fails to take action. Trump said after a phone call with Xi Jinping, the president of China – North Korea’s biggest trading partner – that “we will not be putting up with what’s happening in North Korea”. Asked if he was considering military action against the North, Trump said: “Certainly that’s not our first choice, but we will see what happens.”

As if Asia wasn’t already tense enough, India’s army chief has warned of the potential for simultaneous war with China and Pakistan after his country was involved in a tense 10-week standoff over disputed Himalayan territory. General Bipin Rawat said that situation could still snowball into a conflict with China that Pakistan would be able to exploit. “We have to be prepared … warfare lies within the realm of reality,” Rawat said.

The Brexit leaks – Fallout continues after the Guardian’s exclusive revelations about government Brexit policy papers. This morning we are reporting on leaked documents that show the deep divide between the negotiating positions of the EU and Britain. According to these latest files, Brussels is soon to publish five combative position papers – including one that demands Britain solve the problem of the Irish border, and others setting out demands for protecting EU goods, companies and data. The leaks come a day after the Guardian obtained a draft memo setting out a hardline British position on post-Brexit EU migration that has been heavily criticised as “completely confused”, “economically illiterate” and “catastrophic” for industry – as well as causing deep alarm among EU citizens living and working in the UK.

‘Atrocity’ – Spain’s government is furious after the regional parliament in Catalonia voted to stage an independence referendum. Perennial separatist agitations came to a head in Barcelona when the ruling pro-sovereignty coalition pushed through legislation by 72 votes to 52 to hold the plebiscite on 1 October. Opposition lawmakers walked out of the chamber. Spain’s central government is going to the constitutional court seeking to have the parliament’s vote annulled, and public prosecutors are filing charges against the Catalan speaker for allowing it. Courts have previously banned moves towards Catalan independence as unconstitutional.

Surrey pint is UK’s dearest – London has lost its dubious mantle as the most expensive place to buy a beer. In affluent Surrey, where house prices are double the national average, a pint now costs £4.40, which is 20p more than you will pay in the capital. It is the first time this has happened since 1982. Fiona Stapley, editor of the Good Pub Guide 2018, said the ranking may be skewed slightly by the guide featuring so many smaller, local boozers – making London seem “cheaper” than it really is. London and Surrey are the only two areas officially in the guide’s rip-off category. Herefordshire and Yorkshire are the cheapest at £3.31 for a pint, followed closely by Shropshire.

Load of flannel – At the Guardian Morning Briefing, we are dedicated to tackling the big issues facing the world. Today’s conundrum crying out for some peer-reviewed science: how often to wash your pyjamas. There are actual people who do it every day (“neurotics”) and some who almost never (“mingers”). Professor Sally Bloomfield, from the International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene, says the longer you leave it, the more your risk spreading your personal crop of bacteria and viruses to someone else or, errm, parts of your own body where they might be unwelcome. For most households, says Bloomfield, once a week should be adequate – though her own admission to sleeping in the nuddy may throw her credentials into some doubt.

Lunchtime read: Why the aristocracy are still in charge

While the majority of hereditary peers have been excluded from the House of Lords, the rich, landed and powerful have plenty of other ways to maintain their dominion, writes Chris Bryant.

Lord Grimthorpe and the Duke of Devonshire at Royal Ascot 2015. Photograph: Charlie Crowhurst/Getty Images for Ascot Racecourse

The Labour MP indicts Britain’s aristocracy as historically motivated by “not a noble aspiration to serve the common weal but a desperate desire for self-advancement … They grasped wealth, corruptly carved out their niche at the pinnacle of society and held on to it with a vice-like grip”. Despite social changes, a third of Britain’s land still belongs to them, including some of the most prestigious and valuable real estate in the world. Tax breaks and other forms of official favour preserve their privilege, while British law keeps the full extent of their wealth hidden underground. They still live in castles on sprawling estates, and play with guns, horses and hounds – existing “wrapped in the old aura of entitlement, counting their blessings and hoping that nobody notices”.

Sport

Tennis fans in New York will once again miss out on a Roger Federer-Rafael Nadal encounter after Juan Martín del Potro downed the Swiss to reach the semi-finals at Flushing Meadows. Nadal, the world No1, took just an hour and 36 minutes to beat Andrey Rublev to book his place in the final four.

In the women’s draw, an American champion is guaranteed after all four semi-final spots were taken by home players – Madison Keys, Coco Vandeweghe, Venus Williams and Sloane Stephens – for the first time since 1981. The London 2012 bid team have defended themselves against any suggestion of corruption, insisting they are “as close to certain as possible” the right to host the Olympics in the capital was won cleanly. Manu Tuilagi’s prospects of an England comeback this autumn have suffered another blow after it emerged he is set to undergo knee surgery this week. And Jamie Vardy’s football academy is already bearing fruit with four of its first intake taken on by professional clubs.

Business

Asian stocks bounced back into the black overnight after Donald Trump threw his weight behind a plan to extend the US government’s debt ceiling. But some investors cautioned that it is only a temporary fix until December and could come back to haunt the markets later in the year.

The FTSE100 is expected to see a modest rise when it opens later. The pound is buying $1.304 and €1,093.

The papers

A mixed bag of fronts today, although many papers do feature Hurricane Irma as it carves across the Caribbean. The i has the daunting headline “May God protect us all” – there are millions of people at risk and mass evacuations are under way.

Guardian front page, 7 September 2017.

The FT splashes on disquiet among some of the UK’s biggest companies at perceived “strong-arm” tactics by Downing Street, which wants them to sign a letter praising the government’s approach to Brexit. The Telegraph leads with Brexit as well, saying Theresa May’s plans are “in disarray” as two of her most senior ministers “distanced themselves” from leaked immigration policies.

Those draft policies were leaked to us at the Guardian, and our front pagecontinues with more exclusive revelations about the UK’s and the EU’s conflicting positions on Brexit.

The Sun leads with the headline: “Wazza off the Razza” and says Wayne Rooney has vowed to cut back on his big nights out. The Times leads with “Crackdown on university pay” and says institutions will be fined if they fail to justify paying their vice-chancellors more than the prime minister. The Mail’s mainstory is that half of GPs want to close their patients list because surgeries are full. Lastly, the Mirror splashes with “School bans skirts” and says parents in Lewes are unhappy with the introduction of gender-neutral clothing.

If you would like to receive the Guardian Morning Briefing by email, bright and early every weekday, sign up here.

Source: http://allofbeer.com/thursday-briefing-hurricane-irma-flattens-caribbean-communities/

from All of Beer https://allofbeer.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/thursday-briefing-hurricane-irma-flattens-caribbean-communities/

0 notes

allofbeercom · 6 years ago

Text

Thursday briefing: Hurricane Irma flattens Caribbean communities

Atlantics biggest ever storm brings death and devastation the great British beer rip-off and how the aristocracy has kept its vice-like grip on wealth and power

Top story: Mega-storm carves destructive path

Good morning – it’s Warren Murray with the news from near and far.

Play Video

1:10

Hurricane Irma reaches the Caribbean – video report

Lunchtime read: Why the aristocracy are still in charge

While the majority of hereditary peers have been excluded from the House of Lords, the rich, landed and powerful have plenty of other ways to maintain their dominion, writes Chris Bryant.

Lord Grimthorpe and the Duke of Devonshire at Royal Ascot 2015. Photograph: Charlie Crowhurst/Getty Images for Ascot Racecourse

Sport

Business

The FTSE100 is expected to see a modest rise when it opens later. The pound is buying $1.304 and €1,093.

The papers

Guardian front page, 7 September 2017.

Those draft policies were leaked to us at the Guardian, and our front pagecontinues with more exclusive revelations about the UK’s and the EU’s conflicting positions on Brexit.

If you would like to receive the Guardian Morning Briefing by email, bright and early every weekday, sign up here.

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/thursday-briefing-hurricane-irma-flattens-caribbean-communities/

0 notes

plusorminuscongress · 6 years ago

Text

New story in Politics from Time: President Trump Backs 2-State Solution for Israel in Meeting with Netanyahu

(UNITED NATIONS) — President Donald Trump waded into thorny Middle East politics while at the United Nations on Wednesday, endorsing the two-state solution to bring an end the decades-long conflict between Israel and the Palestinians while poised to denounce the dangers posed by Iran.

Trump, a day after being greeted with laughter by world leaders still uncertain how to manage his “America First” ideology, explicitly backed Israel, leaned in on the importance of moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and suggested that he saw progress on the horizon for long-delayed hopes for Middle East peace.

“I like two-state solution,” Trump said in his most clear endorsement of the plan. “That’s what I think works best.”

Meeting with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump indicated that moving the embassy was “a big chip” the U.S. delivered to the Israelis.

“I took probably the biggest chip off the table. And so obviously they have to start you know we have to make a fair deal. We have to do something. Deals have to be good for both parties.”

Trump said he believed that the embassy “was always the primary ingredient as to why deals couldn’t get done.”

“Now that’s off the table,” Trump said. “Now that will also mean that Israel will have to do something that is good for the other side.”

The two-state “solution” is mostly aspirational. Ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinians over the division of territory, borders and governance has spawned violence going back years and long stymied Mideast peace efforts.

Moving the embassy from Tel Aviv triggered considerable protest from the Palestinians and expressions of condemnation from many American allies who worried about further violence that could destabilize the fragile region. Trump said that his administration’s peace plan, in part helmed by his son-in-law senior adviser Jared Kushner, would be released in the coming months.

Trump’s meeting with Netanyahu came, symbolically, just ahead of his chairing a meeting of the U.N. Security Council about nuclear proliferation. The president had suggested, in a recent tweet, that Iran could be his focus, and he unloaded harsh rhetoric the day before on the nuclear-aspirant nation as a persistent malign influence across the Middle East.

“We ask all nations to isolate Iran’s regime as long as its aggression continues,” said Trump on Tuesday. The president has removed the U.S. from the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, citing the country’s destabilizing actions throughout the region and support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and he accused its leaders on Tuesday of sowing “chaos, death and destruction.”

His national security adviser, John Bolton, went even further in a speech Tuesday, issuing a dire warning to Iran: “If you cross us, our allies or our partners; if you harm our citizens; if you continue to lie, cheat and deceive, yes, there will indeed be hell to pay,” Bolton said.

But despite his tough talk, Trump said he could envision relations with Iran moving along a similar “trajectory” as ones with North Korea. A year ago from the U.N., Trump belittled its leader Kim Jong Un as “Rocket Man” and threatened to annihilate the country but on Wednesday he touted the “the wonderful relationship” with Kim and teased that details of a second summit between the two men could be released soon.

The high-profile Security Council meeting came a day after Trump poured scorn on the “ideology of globalism” and heaped praise on his own administration’s achievements in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly that drew head shakes and even mocking laughter from his audience of fellow world leaders.

“The U.S. will not tell you how to live and work or worship,” Trump said as he unapologetically promoted his “America First” agenda. “We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

Speaking in triumphal terms, Trump approached his address to the world body as something of an annual report to the world on his country’s progress since his inauguration. He showcased strong economic numbers, declared that the U.S. military is “more powerful than it has ever been before” and crowed that in “less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”

Just sentences into the president’s remarks, the audience began to chuckle and some leaders broke into outright laughter, suggesting the one-time reality television star’s puffery is as familiar abroad as it is at home. Trump appeared briefly flustered, then smiled and said it was not the reaction he expected “but that’s all right.”

Later he brushed off the episode, telling reporters, “Oh it was great. Well, that was meant to get some laughter so it was great.”

The leaders’ spontaneous response to Trump’s address only reinforced the American president’s isolation among allies and foes alike, as his nationalistic policies have created rifts with erstwhile partners and cast doubt in some circles about the reliability of American commitments around the world.

The laughter evoked a campaign line Trump frequently deployed against his predecessor Barack Obama — who embraced international engagement — suggesting that due to weak American leadership, “the world is laughing at us.”

In 2014, Trump tweeted, “We need a President who isn’t a laughingstock to the entire World. We need a truly great leader, a genius at strategy and winning. Respect!”

The General Assembly is four days of choreographed foreign affairs were designed to stand in contrast to a presidency sometimes defined by disorder, but they were quickly overshadowed by domestic political crises.

The fate of his second Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, was in fresh doubt after a second allegation of sexual misconduct, which Kavanaugh denies. Kavanaugh and his first accuser testify to Congress on Thursday.

Drama also swirls around the job security of Trump’s deputy attorney general. Rod Rosenstein was reported last week to have floated the idea of secretly recording the president last year and to have raised the idea of using the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. He will meet with Trump at the White House, also on Thursday.

By ZEKE MILLER and JONATHAN LEMIRE / AP on September 26, 2018 at 11:19AM

#Time #politics #PlusOrMinusCongress #±Congress #Indega±#IndegaPlusOrMinus #TimeMag #TimeMagazine

0 notes

ladystylestores · 4 years ago

Text

China-India Dispute, Bolton Book, Premier League: Your Thursday Briefing

(Want to get this briefing by email? Here’s the sign-up.)

Good morning.

We’re covering the failures of England’s contact tracing system, explosive allegations about President Trump in a new book by his former national security adviser and the return of the Premier League.

England’s contact tracing shortfalls

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is betting he can safely reopen a country hit harder by the coronavirus pandemic than any other in Europe.

But he has fielded criticism over a botched school reopening plan, a controversial 14-day quarantine and an inconsistent contact-tracing operation that may risk a second wave of deaths.

The “world-beating” operation was supposed to trace people who had been exposed to the virus, bridging the time between lockdown and a vaccine. But more than a dozen public health officials, local government leaders and contact tracers told our reporters the system was begun on May 28 before it was ready.

Details: Since the operation began, some contact tracers have failed to reach a single person. Many, paid barely above minimum wage, began the work with little to no training. Call handlers have mistakenly tried to send patients in England to testing sites in Northern Ireland. And a government minister threatened to stop coordinating with local leaders if they publicly revealed the operation’s failings, three officials said.

Context: While the virus is cooling in London, infection rates remain high in parts of England, notably the northwest. Other European nations are building systems to pinpoint infection clusters for years to come. Germany, for instance, has hired contact tracers in 375 public health authorities, with doctors on hand to administer tests.

In other news:

Follow our live briefing here.

The Times is providing free access to much of our coronavirus coverage, and our Coronavirus Briefing newsletter — like all of our newsletters — is free. Please consider supporting our journalism with a subscription.

Why backing down is tough for India and China

Prime Minister Narendra Modi broke his silence after 20 Indian soldiers died in a border clash with Chinese troops and issued a stern warning: “India wants peace, but if provoked India is capable of giving a befitting reply.”

China also pledged to avoid a broader conflict, but the foreign minister pointedly told his Indian counterpart that India “must not underestimate China’s firm will to safeguard territorial sovereignty.”

China’s leader, Xi Jinping, and Mr. Modi probably did not intend to ignite the clash on their border, high in the Himalayas, but they now confront a military crisis that could spin dangerously out of control, our correspondents write.

They are both ambitious, nationalist leaders, eager to assert greater roles for their countries. Neither wants to risk losing face.

Explainer: The violence has been decades in the making. Here’s a look at how both countries got to this juncture.

Trump asked Xi for election help, new book claims

In “The Room Where It Happened,” John Bolton, the former U.S. national security adviser, claims the impeachment inquiry into President Trump should have investigated other troubling instances. (Our book critic called it “exceedingly tedious and slightly unhinged.”) The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Mr. Bolton to stop its publication.

Here are a few of the explosive allegations about Mr. Trump’s foreign policy in the book, which our reporters obtained an advance copy of:

Mr. Trump asked Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, to buy a lot of American agricultural products to help him win farm states in this year’s election. Mr. Bolton writes that Mr. Trump was “pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win.”

Mr. Trump did not seem to know that Britain was a nuclear power and asked if Finland was a part of Russia. He never tired of assailing allied leaders and came closer to withdrawing the United States from NATO than previously known.

During Mr. Trump’s 2018 meeting with North Korea’s leader, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slipped Mr. Bolton a note disparaging the president with a vulgarity. A month later, Mr. Pompeo dismissed the president’s North Korea diplomacy as having “zero probability of success.”

According to an excerpt published by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Trump said Mr. Xi should go ahead with building internment camps for Uighurs, a Muslim minority in China’s Xinjiang region. He said he thought it was “the right thing to do,” according to Mr. Bolton.

If you have some time, this is worth it

More than a meal, a theater of experience

Restaurants are about much more than food, as people learned when we lost them during the pandemic. We lost a theater of experience. The Times asked several renowned writers to recount their most memorable meals out. The results are hilarious, sweet and, yes, hunger-inducing.

Alexander Chee dished on waiting tables for celebrities in ’90s New York. Adam Platt reminisced on Sunday family dinners at a Mongolian barbecue in Taiwan. And Bill Buford recalled the bouchons in Lyon, France — eateries that feel “like a vacation from yourself.”

Here’s what else is happening

North Korea: Kim Jong-un’s younger sister, Kim Yo-jong, has taken a leading role in speaking for the nation as tensions flare with South Korea. The 32-year-old is seen as a potential candidate to replace her brother in patriarchal North Korea.

China surveillance: The police in China are collecting blood samples from men and boys from across the country to build a genetic map of its roughly 700 million males, giving the authorities a powerful tool for their high-tech surveillance state.

U.S. protests: In an extraordinary session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on Wednesday, George Floyd’s brother Philonise implored the world body to investigate the killing of black people by the police in the United States. A former Atlanta police officer was charged on Wednesday with murder and aggravated assault in the fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks, a black motorist outside a fast-food restaurant.

Snapshot: Above, Daunt Books in London. Bookstore owners in England are overjoyed to welcome customers back after they were allowed to reopen their businesses on Monday. “This has been fantastic,” one owner said after a sale. “The doom and gloom is going a little.”

Dark matter: A team of scientists has recorded suspicious pings from a vat of liquid xenon underneath an Italian mountain. Could they be tapping out a new view of the universe?

Premier League returns: The absence of the world’s most popular soccer league, which came back on Wednesday, has illustrated to what extent the sport has become England’s driving cultural force.

What we’re reading: This excerpt from Kevin Kwan’s new novel in Vanity Fair. In “Sex and Vanity,” the “Crazy Rich Asians” author revisits the nuances of Asian-American identity, this time in Capri and New York.

Now, a break from the news

Cook: It’s time for French fries. This recipe involves soaking the potatoes to destarch them before blanching and frying, to achieve a heavenly crispness.

Listen: Lil Baby’s new song “The Bigger Picture” addresses police violence and racism. It’s part of this week’s playlist along with tracks by John Prine, Raphael Saadiq, Ambrose Akinmusire and others.

Do: Wearing a mask while exercising can affect your workout. Here are some tips on finding the right mask for exercising in crowded spaces.

At Home has our full collection of ideas on what to read, cook, watch, and do while staying safe at home.

And now for the Back Story on …

Erasing Confederate symbols

Two days before George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis police custody, The Times’s Opinion section published an editorial by Brent Staples that now looks prophetic. It urged the U.S. military to rename 10 military bases in the South that are named for Confederate officers.

In the weeks since Floyd’s death, the issue of Confederate iconography has exploded. Protesters have toppled statues of Confederate leaders. NASCAR has banned the Confederate battle flag from its events. And a Senate committee, defying President Trump, voted to direct the Pentagon to begin the process of renaming the 10 bases.

“If you write about something long enough, the moment comes around when people can grasp it,” said Mr. Staples, whose coverage of race won a Pulitzer Prize last year. “It may be after Trump leaves, but I think this matter is rolling downhill with tremendous speed.”

The 10 bases are among the more than 1,700 Confederate monuments and other named tributes nationwide. The list includes an Alabama high school named for Jefferson Davis; Washington and Lee University in Virginia; and 11 statues in the U.S. Capitol.

That’s it for this briefing. See you next time.

— Isabella

Thank you Theodore Kim and Jahaan Singh wrote the rest of the break from the news. You can reach the team at [email protected].

P.S. • We’re listening to “The Daily.” Our latest episode is about the killing of Rayshard Brooks. • Here’s today’s Mini Crossword puzzle, and a clue: Kind of accent known as a brogue (five letters). You can find all our puzzles here. • Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for The Times Magazine and creator of the 1619 Project, joined Oprah Winfrey to discuss the collective grief of black Americans.

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/2zGJKjk

#World Wide News

0 notes

englishchinesetranslations · 5 years ago

Text

Gwelio 60

Perhaps a better allegory would be, say, if during the Great Depression a communist party had arisen in Canada and, with the financial and military aid of the USSR waged a long and eventually successful war against Canada's parliamentary democracy, forcing the Canadian government to take refuge on Prince Edward Island, whereupon the British navy stepped in and prevented its complete destruction ("liberation" if you're on the side of the Communists). Decades later the situation remained the same - the former Canadian government on P.E.I. and the single-party authoritarian, "People's Republic of Canada" ruling the rest of the country. Would it be wrong to say that P.E.I. is a province of Canada? No. Would it accurate to say that P.E.I. was a province of the "People's Republic of Canada?" No, because it is not and has never been ruled by that government. So, although Taiwan may be geographically (and historically, perhaps, but that, too, is controversial) a province of China, it is definitely not and never has been a province of the "People's Republic of China." Does the PRC have a legitimate territorial claim for Taiwan? Perhaps. ��Does the Republic of China have a legitimate territorial claim for Taiwan? Yes - because the R.O.C. had sovereignty over Mainland China from 1911 to 1949 and has had "control" over Taiwan from 1952 (as per the Treaty of San Francisco, which did not assign sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC, but the Nationalists took it to mean that) to the present. Keep in mind, the ROC has never surrendered to the PRC, so there is no peace treaty between them that assigns territory to one or the other. China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan is just that - a claim - and only that. Realistically, although there may be only one China in the world there are two separate Chinese governments in existence - one on the Mainland and one on Taiwan. Neither side will tolerate diplomatic recognition by any country of both at the same time, so the world has had to take sides, and the PRC, rightfully, has dominated this contest. It's a shame that the UN did not insist on recognizing the legitimacy of the ROC government on Taiwan even as it dismissed their unrealistic claims to be the rightful government of Mainland China. However, had it done so, its almost certain that the PRC would not be a member of the UN today, and that would be a bad situation for the world. So, we have to live with this "One China Policy" that treats a country with the population of Australia as something it is not - a "rogue" state, a "breakaway province" (it can't have broken away, as it was never, ever ruled or occupied by the PRC, but whatever) and turns a blind eye to the rights and well-being of 23 million people living there. Truly, if not for the foreign policy of the United States, the Taiwanese people would not have the freedom and democracy that they cherish today. The ROC on Taiwan is the only full democracy in Asia, and its citizens enjoy the same civil rights and freedoms as Canadians, unlike their "compatriots" across the Taiwan Strait. I live in Taipei, and I can tell you that no Taiwanese under 35 I've met has expressed willingness to give up their hard-won political freedoms, Taiwanese identity and de facto independence under any circumstances (particularly not under any such ruse as, "One Country, Two Systems"). Most I've talked to would not oppose Taiwan gaining de jure independence if it could be accomplished without provoking war with the PRC, but in light of that improbability they are very much OK with the status quo, as long as the PRC respects the (full) 1992 Consensus - which states there is one China but that both sides, PRC and ROC, have differing interpretations of what that means, and, implicitly at least, both sides also consent to respect each other's interpretation. Unfortunately, the PRC tends to leave out that 2nd part, as if the Consensus is more of a declaration of Taiwan's admission that it must work toward reunification with the PRC (again, under President Xi's "One Country, Two Systems" rubric) than an understanding that each side has different interpretations of what "China" means. One thing I find interesting is how President Xi asserts that the only form of government suitable for Chinese people is the single-party, centralized control of the CCP. "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," he euphemistically calls it. The CCP propaganda apparatus portrays Western democracy as incompatible with Chinese culture, demographics, and social diversity. But what about Taiwan? Isn't there a functioning democracy (albeit with all the warts of an open society on full display) on Taiwan? So, does that mean that Taiwan isn't really "Chinese", implying that it is something else and perhaps should be an independent nation, or does it imply that Mainland China could actually be governed by the same democratic, multi-party system ("Multi-party Democracy with Chinese Characteristics") as are the "compatriots" on Taiwan? One or the other, Mr. Xi, you can't have both. Here's a historical fact that some interested in this subject may find enlightening: up until 1943, the official position of the Chinese Communist Party was that Taiwan should be an independent country. Yes, it's true - just look in the history books (or, rather, any history book published outside the PRC). So, while I don't fault any PRC citizen for having believed the propaganda they were force-fed since birth that Taiwan is an "inseparable part of China since ancient times," etc... and that the "rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation can't be complete without the reunification of Taiwan with the Mainland," etc..., they should ask themselves about the rather contradictory history of the CCP's policy regarding Taiwan's political status. Another curious history is that of Mongolia, which was, presumably, a part of China since ancient times (having been ruled by Beijing from 1691 - 1911) but became an independent state in the 20th Century. The only difference between Mongolia and Taiwan is that the independence of Mongolia had the backing of the Soviet Union, the PRC's main military ally in their struggle agains the Nationalists, and the CCP chose not to oppose it. So, you see, such present-day sentiments as that Taiwan must be eventually reunited with the PRC in order for the China to be "whole" are wholly artificial, manufactured, and arbitrary. (BTW, when the independence of Mongolia was recognized by the UN following WWII, the ROC government used its veto power to block it for a time, claiming historical sovereignty, but later rescinded its veto under diplomatic pressure). My opinion is that the well-being of the 23 million people on Taiwan takes precedence over the nationalistic desire of the PRC to swallow-up Taiwan. The UN has recognized many new states under the universal principle of self-determination, and I don't think a case can be made that the Taiwanese somehow don't qualify for that basic human right. Put side-by-side on the moral scale, the right of a people to determine their own future and govern themselves as they desire far outweigh any claims by China of harm caused to its citizens by an independent (particularly de facto under the status quo) Taiwan. They may have gotten away with it in Tibet, but Taiwan has been on its own for too long, in my view, for the PRC to just march in and say, "this territory and these people historically belong to us." Gweilo60 backs sanctions against Taiwan to force it to "come to the table." But Taiwan is and has been at the table for some time - the snag is what the Taiwanese would require from China before agreeing to reunification: freedom and democracy for ALL Chinese citizens under a new constitution that removes the Communist Party from unilateral primacy, plus genuine, unambiguous guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly, association, travel, religion, etc... for ALL citizens (China and Taiwan) backed by an independent court. No, "Citizens must support the Communist Party of China" caveat. You are probably saying to yourself, "Well, that ain't gonna happen." Perhaps so - but that is what is holding up progress, not "anti-China separatists" in Taiwan. Sure, those people exist, but they aren't the majority. There is a big difference between Iran and Taiwan - Iran has offensive missiles, a nuclear weapons program, is ruled by religious extremists and regularly threatens Israel and Saudi Arabia with destruction. Economic sanctions against a country like Taiwan that represents no threat to its neighbors would not be supported by the international community (with the exception of North Korea, of course). Sympathy would overwhelmingly favor the Taiwanese side, and I am rather convinced that China would face unswerving opposition and pressure in the UN by the United States, the EU, Great Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and other global and regional powers. Let me ask you this, Gweilo60 - if China were to say to the Canadian people, "Hey, if you join us, abolish your government and become provinces of the People's Republic of China, it will be great for your economy, you'll get new railroads, highways and bridges, and your college graduates will be able to get good-paying jobs, etc...", would you support that? You'd have to give up your multi-party democracy, privacy, freedom of (political) speech, assembly, free exercise of religion, and, of course, you'd have to unquestionably obey and support the leadership of the Communist Party. Would that be an attractive exchange? Would a majority of Canadian citizens go for that? If not, then why would you expect the Taiwanese people to go for such a deal?

#taiwan #canada #china

0 notes

thisdaynews · 5 years ago

Text

Guterres and Trump embody clashing visions at UN summit

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/guterres-and-trump-embody-clashing-visions-at-un-summit/

Guterres and Trump embody clashing visions at UN summit

NEW YORK — It was a war of words, and a clash of world views, in the well of the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, a lifelong social democrat whose early political career was forged during his native Portugal’s democratic revolution in 1974, opened the annual leaders’ gathering with a fervent plea for greater international solidarity and cooperation — to fight climate change and economic inequality, to resist rising authoritarianism and halt rollbacks in democratic freedoms, to protect those who face discrimination and persecution, and above all to prevent war.

Guterres concluded his speech by calling for a reaffirmation of the principles of multilateralism and international cooperation upon which the U.N. was founded in 1945.

“We are here to advance the common good while upholding our shared humanity and values,” he said. “That vision united the founders of our organization. At a time of division today, we must reconnect with that spirit. Let us restore trust, rebuild hope and move ahead, together.”

In sharp contrast, U.S. President Donald Trump — a Republican by affiliation but often out of step with the party’s historic ideological pillars, whose political career began only with his campaign for president following a career in real estate and reality TV — delivered a forceful defense of nationalism and individual state sovereignty, which also served as a denunciation of globalization and a warning against pluralist compromise that included blustery boasting about U.S. military supremacy.

“The future does not belong to globalists”— Donald Trump, U.S. president

“The free world must embrace its national foundations,” Trump said. “It must not attempt to erase them or replace them. Looking around in all of this large magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see: If you want freedom, take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty, and if you want peace, love your nation. Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.

“The future does not belong to globalists,” Trump added, delivering perhaps the most memorable line of the day in the General Assembly, which is comprised of 193 member states. “The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations, who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences which make each country special and unique.”

Opposing views

Guterres and Trump have been circling each other, trading barbed (albeit indirect) attacks on each other’s world view for months, if not years.

While it’s not clear that the American president gives the understated Portuguese secretary-general much thought, his actions — abandoning the Paris climate accords and the Iran nuclear deal, quitting the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and provoking a series of trade wars — have demonstrated Trump’s scorn for the type of global cooperation that Guterres considers essential to the future of humankind.

Trump, with his wife Melania, speaking to the media at the U.N. General Assembly | Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Meanwhile, it was more than obvious whom Guterres had in mind when he traveled to the summit of G7 economic powers in Biarritz, France last month and complained that the world’s wealthiest nations are not doing enough to fight climate change.

And it was more than clear whom Guterres was thinking of when he spoke on Tuesday of a dangerous new risk of great-power conflict.

“At this time of transition and dysfunction in global power relations, there is a new risk looming on the horizon that may not yet be large, but it is real,” Guterres said. “I fear the possibility of a great fracture: the world splitting in two, with the two largest economies on earth creating two separate and competing worlds, each with their own dominant currency, trade and financial rules, their own internet and artificial intelligence capacities, and their own zero sum geopolitical and military strategies.”

He continued: “We must do everything possible to avert the great fracture and maintain a universal system — a universal economy with universal respect for international law; a multipolar world with strong multilateral institutions.”

In many ways, the secretary-general’s remarks echoed comments by another American president, Harry Truman, speaking in San Francisco on the day in 1945 when global delegates completed work on the U.N. charter. In that speech, Truman made a fierce case for internationalism as the key to ending wars.

“Experience has shown how deeply the seeds of war are planted by economic rivalry and social injustice,” Truman said. “The charter recognizes this fact because it has provided for economic and social cooperation as well. It has provided for this cooperation as a part of the very heart of the entire compact. It has set up machinery of international cooperation which men and nations of goodwill can use to help correct economic and social causes for conflict.”

Like Truman, who was then weeks away from giving the order to drop atomic bombs on Japan, Trump addressed delegates of the U.N. with the possibility of a military strike very much on his mind — a potential attack on Iran that he has threatened on and off throughout his presidency. Trump opened his remarks on Tuesday with a declaration that the U.S. has never been stronger.

“The United States, after having spent over two and a half trillion dollars since my election to completely rebuild our great military, is also by far the world’s most powerful nation,” he said. “Hopefully it will never have to use this power.”

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson | Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

On the one hand, the number seemed unnecessarily exaggerated. The entire U.S. annual defense budget is a bit less than $700 billion. On the other hand, his professed reluctance to using force likely came as a surprise to leaders of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Serbia, Panama and other nations in the General Assembly that have directly felt the impact of the U.S. military’s long reach.

“I have the immense privilege of addressing you today as the elected leader of a nation that prizes liberty, independence and self-government above all,” Trump said. “That is why the United States rigorously defends the traditions and customs that have made us who we are.”

For many leaders in the audience, however, serious doubts about the fundamental principles underpinning U.S. policy have only arisen since Trump took office. And much of their actions, especially among Washington’s traditional European allies, now often seem aimed at appeasing Trump and coaxing him back into the Western fold.

When U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Monday issued two separate statements, one reiterating Britain’s commitment to the Iran nuclear deal and another declaring the deal deeply flawed and urging that Trump help negotiate a new one, officials quickly explained the discrepancy by saying it was partly intended to bring Trump back to the negotiating table with Tehran.

When French President Emmanuel Macron decided to skip the custom of issuing leaders’ conclusions at the G7 summit in Biarritz, it was a strategy designed specifically with the combustible American president in mind.

Disrupters all around

But there was no mistaking just how disruptive and destructive Guterres believes Trump has been to the international order, delivering remarks in which actions by the U.S. president could easily be lumped together with those of authoritarian dictators. Are journalists the “enemy of the people” in Russia and China, or in America? Are environmentalists viewed as antagonists in Brasilia or Washington?

“We see wide-ranging impunity, including for violations of international humanitarian law,” Guterres said in his speech. “New forms of authoritarianism are flourishing. Civic space is narrowing. Environmental activists, human rights defenders, journalists and others are being targeted.

“At a time when record numbers of refugees and internally displaced people are on the move, solidarity is on the run,” Guterres said at another point in his address. “We see not only borders, but hearts, closing — as refugee families are torn apart and the right to seek asylum torn asunder.”

By contrast, Trump, in his own speech, denounced “open-border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice.”

“We are here to advance the common good while upholding our shared humanity and values”— Antonio Guterres, U.N. secretary-general

But it was not just Trump who embodied the disruption that Guterres decried in his speech. As the secretary-general fretted about new forms of authoritarianism, it was Johnson who made arrangements to leave New York early after the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that he had illegally suspended parliament.

Guterres was applauded heartily. Trump’s remarks did not draw laughter as he did last year when he asserted his presidency in two years had accomplished more than any other, nor did his speech draw much applause. Leaders were mostly silent. The U.S. commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, appeared to fall asleep.

Even in their positivity, Guterres and Trump showed their differences.

“We are here to serve,” Guterres said. “We are here to advance the common good while upholding our shared humanity and values.”

Trump took another tack. “Love of our own nations,” he said, “makes the world better for all nations.”

#Foreign #Politics #summit #visions

0 notes

whittlebaggett8 · 6 years ago

Text

Might China Withdraw From the UN Law Of The Sea Treaty?

The shift would arrive with major expenditures – but Beijing may appear to think the gains are value it.

By Mark J. Valencia for The Diplomat

May well 03, 2019

The early April passage of the French frigate Vendémiaire by the Taiwan Strait, amid a significant improve of these kinds of passages by U.S. warships even with China’s objections, presents Beijing a person much more cause to take into account withdrawing from the UN Conference on the Legislation of the Sea (UNCLOS) entirely. Withdrawing would have significant expenses as well as rewards and the two need to be considered.

The thought of withdrawing from UNCLOS (“denouncing it” in lawful parlance) has occur up just before, specifically in regard to China’s nine-sprint line historic assert to a great deal of the South China Sea and an worldwide arbitration panel’s ruling against it as not in maintaining with UNCLOS. China refused to understand or abide by the final result. This in convert weakened China’s intercontinental standing and stirred a domestic nationalist reaction that worried the Chinese management. At the time, some of China’s analysts and army officers quietly questioned why China ratified the Legislation of the Sea Treaty in the to start with position. Component of the clarification is that China assumed — naturally improperly — that it could keep away from the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism by its optional exceptions to the compulsory treatments, and through direct negotiations to settle maritime jurisdictional disputes.

The historic assert concern was generally driven by and had ramifications for nationwide pride and domestic political worries fairly than immediate protection concerns. But now China is struggling with what its military perceives to be very clear and current hazards to its stability in — and from — its vulnerable maritime underbelly, the South China Sea. A prime case in point are the progressively provocative Flexibility of Navigation Functions (FONOPs) that the United States uses to problem China’s claims in the South China Sea. The China-U.S. distinctions above FONOPs are a lot more political and strategic than legal. Yet, the United States characterizes the dispute as “legal” and insists that China is in the wrong. Washington maintains that it is basically performing exercises its “right” to “fly, sail and work where ever worldwide legislation enables,” such as the correct of its warships to sail in innocent passage through overseas territorial seas without prior authorization. China and many other nations in Asia, like Indonesia and Vietnam, require authorization for international warships to enter their territorial seas. Even a lot more egregious from the U.S. viewpoint, India, Malaysia, and U.S. ally Thailand do not enable foreign navy activities in their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) without having permission.

Savoring this report? Click right here to subscribe for comprehensive obtain. Just $5 a thirty day period.

China alleges that these FONOPs are a risk to its sovereignty, integrity and protection. Its legal reasoning is not clear. Potentially it sights FONOPs as a threat of use of power, which is a violation of the UN Charter and cross-referenced in UNCLOS. For China, the danger to its safety really should be enough purpose for the United States to cease and desist. Whatsoever the purpose, there is obviously disagreement as to the interpretation of the appropriate worldwide regulation and who is violating it.

Now — amidst rising stress amongst China and the United States across the board — the stepped-up U.S. warship passages, as very well as that of the Vendémiaire, as a result of the Taiwan Strait have come to the fore as both equally a political and stability problem. Supplied new advancements in military weaponry and intelligence collection technological innovation and techniques, China’s navy possibly thinks that the United States — and now France and soon perhaps the United Kingdom and Japan — are or will be having advantage of what China sees as a loophole in the Law of the Sea to threaten its protection and embarrass its leaders, both at household and overseas.

UNCLOS qualifies the proper of transit passage as a result of straits by stating that “if the strait is fashioned by an island of a Point out bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not utilize if there exists seaward of the island a route by way of the substantial seas or as a result of an EEZ of identical comfort.” In Beijing’s interpretation of the One particular China plan, all the waters in the Taiwan Strait are beneath China’s jurisdiction and comprise its inside waters, territorial seas, and EEZ. Thus Beijing seemingly statements that according to this UNCLOS provision, the appropriate of transit passage does not apply to the Taiwan Strait — warships in specific need to use the choice route “of related convenience” through the Luzon Strait in between the island of Taiwan and the Philippines. The United States, nonetheless, statements substantial seas liberty of navigation and overflight for all vessels and aircraft, like navy vessels and plane, as a result of the Strait regardless of whether or not it is Beijing’s EEZ or Taiwan’s EEZ. To Washington, these types of flexibility of navigation and overflight incorporates connected routines these as anchoring launching and restoration of aircraft and h2o craft or other armed forces devices intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance functions exercise routines maneuvers and “military surveys.” China presumably sees this kind of activities in the Taiwan Strait as a menace to its protection.

Global politics also performed a key part in China’s response to the Vendémiaire passage. In September 2018, presumably at the instigation of the United States, the U.K. performed a FONOP near the Paracels. France’s Taiwan Strait passage — possibly also at the urging of the U.S. — shown that extraregional powers are coming to the political help of the United States from China on this difficulty and Beijing has therefore resolved to impose political costs as a warning to them and many others.

Evidently, China considers the West’s interpretation of some critical facets of the UN Convention on the Regulation of the Sea as benefiting the West to its downside. China and other creating international locations perspective the Treaty as a package offer with lots of “bargains” concerning the maritime powers and the establishing countries, like extensive navigational rights for maritime powers in trade for the deep seabed mining provisions. Whilst some 167 get-togethers, which includes U.S. allies have ratified the Treaty, the United States has not performed so. In China’s perspective, Washington is now finding and picking interpretations of provisions that favor it to the detriment of China’s stability. This — combined with the escalating forceful assertions by the United States and other people of their interpretations — could lead China to re-examine remaining a celebration to the Treaty.

There would be really serious political expenditures for withdrawing from UNCLOS. It would end result in a wave of intercontinental opprobrium and a propaganda coup for anti-China factions in the West and Asia. It would also build panic and even instability in the location and most likely attract some Asian states nearer to the United States as a “balancer” to China.

However there would also be advantages to this sort of an action. China would then be lawfully free to “pick and choose” the Convention’s provisions and interpret them in its favor — just as the United States does now. China’s withdrawal from the Conference would weaken it and the authority of its dispute settlement system. China could welcome that as Beijing — like climbing powers right before it — seeks to change the interpretation of global legislation in its favor. At the minimum, it would give see that China is not to be trifled with.

The United States and its Asian allies will need to be thorough lest they press China into really currently being what a lot of fear most — a different rogue region that correctly engages in coercion in its global relations. Indeed, the proliferation and increasing protection threats of these disagreements might eventually lead China to take into consideration the fees of withdrawing from the Treaty much less than the benefits.

Mark J. Valencia is Adjunct Senior Scholar at the Countrywide Institute for South China Sea Reports, Haikou, China.

The post Might China Withdraw From the UN Law Of The Sea Treaty? appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/05/03/might-china-withdraw-from-the-un-law-of-the-sea-treaty/

#China and UNCLOS #China international law #Taiwan Strait #The Debate #UNCLOS #UNCLOS South China Sea

0 notes

sjohnson24 · 6 years ago

Text

Pour the Foundation, and Keep It Liquid

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned.

Yeats

Not in modern human history have those oft-quoted lines from Yeats “Second Coming” been more applicable to the world than they are today. The old order is crumbling before our eyes.

But what old order? The brief period of post-Cold War American triumphalism? The largely American-built international order, including the UN, WTO and the World Bank? Or the Westphalian nation-state system, dating from 1648?

I’ve maintained that all three are collapsing. But in slow motion enough to allow commentators in America’s most influential newspapers to write inane things like: “If America doesn’t underwrite global security, no one else will. The likely result will be a new global disorder where everyone pursues a ‘me first’ policy and no one looks out for the common good.”

That’s willfully naïve of course. America’s national interests always came first, even it looked like America’s political and economic model had completely prevailed over the communist model.

The problem is, we also lost the Cold War, just in a different way. The external collapse of the Soviet economic and political system was paralleled by the internal collapse of the American culture and people.

After being invited to the USSR on business in January of 1990, I wrote to the Robert Reich during the transition from Bush Senior to Bill Clinton, pleading the case for a modified, magnanimous Marshall Plan for the USSR.

To my surprise, Reich replied, saying the Clinton team had considered the option, but decided to take a multilateral approach with a focus on China.

So, instead of “the best with the best helping the Russians build an ecologically and ethically sound market” (the stated goal of my partners and I), we got the worst with the worst, Putin and Trump.

If American triumphalism under Clinton eroded the international order, Bush Junior’s invasion of Iraq took a wrecking ball to it. Barack Obama, as brilliant as he is, didn’t grasp what had happened at home and abroad. All in all, it paved the way for the Mussolini-like monster that now occupies the White House.

So the post-World War II international order is history. What about the Westphalian system itself?

Trump would find himself right at home in the 17th century with its core premises: “The principle of state sovereignty; the principle of legal equality of states; the principle of non-intervention of one state in the international affairs of another.”

When the Donald threatens to “close the border with Mexico,” he is affirming an archaic, even atavistic view of national sovereignty. It views hard borders and national competitiveness, specifically white nationalism, as the bedrock foundation of our “greatness” as a nation. That’s why to “Make America Great Again” he must appeal to his tribalistic base, no matter how base his base becomes.

Nationalists have to deny, with growing madness, the reality that they live in an interconnected, interdependent world. But despite the ‘globalist’ canard, progressives, and their newfound conservative friends who’ve abandoned the cult-of-Trump Republican Party, cannot envision a world beyond America’s sovereignty and superiority either.

The tribalism of nationalism, and tribalisms within nationalism (as we see in America between the Republicans and Democrats) are ascendant. Educated people know where this is leading, yet are powerless to prevent catastrophe. When prevention is impossible, preparation is imperative.

But what does preparation mean? Building a bomb shelter and becoming a survivalist? Or pouring the foundation for a new way of thinking and feeling within oneself, and keeping it liquid by continually questioning and non-accumulatively learning?

We know only accumulative learning, but there is a kind of learning that is best described as unlearning. In our present context, that means unlearning tribalism and nationalism.

To see how the world as it is can work well enough politically and economically, and how it threatens to go back to the bad old days, we have only to look at the farce of Brexit as it pertains to the division of the island of Ireland.

As has been recently reported, “Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants currently enjoy an uneasy truce, a process the European Union assisted by blurring the border to invisibility.” But if Britain insists on reverting to some dream of bygone sovereignty, a hard border could be restored in Northern Ireland, and ‘the Troubles’ could well return.

To see how the world as it is does not and will work, we need only reflect on Politico’s recent headline: “Trump To Recognized Israel’s Sovereignty Over Golan Heights.”

The root meaning of the word ‘sovereignty’ is: ‘supreme’–a first principle. For nearly four centuries, the basic organizing principle of the world has been national sovereignty. It produced tens of millions of deaths in the 20th century; does it have to produce millions of deaths in the 21st?

The true first principle now is humankind as a whole. When we feel that emotionally, we are no longer contributing to the fragmentation and destruction of the earth and humanity.

Martin LeFevre

0 notes

joannrochaus · 6 years ago

Text

President Trump endorses Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights

President Trump endorsed Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights yesterday, marking what the Wall Street Journal calls a “sharp U.S. policy shift.” The move came during US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to Israel and before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House next week.

Why does the region known as the “Golan Heights” matter to Israel and to the world?

An area twice the size of Dallas

The Golan Heights is an elongated, elevated area approximately forty miles long and twelve miles wide. It comprises 690 square miles (about twice the size of Dallas, Texas). The Golan (as it is known) borders Israel and the Sea of Galilee to the west, Syria to the east, Jordan to the south, and Lebanon to the north.

I have visited the area many times over the last twenty-five years. It is a spectacularly beautiful region dominated by hills and valleys. It is also one of the most strategic military areas in the world.

The Golan was part of Syria until the Six-Day War (June 5–10, 1967) between Israel and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. During the war, Israel gained control of the Golan and soon began settlements there. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Syrian forces overran the southern Golan in a surprise offensive before they were expelled by an Israeli counteroffensive.

Israel and Syria signed a ceasefire in 1974 that left most of the Golan in Israel’s control. In 1981, Israel passed the Golan Heights Law that effectively annexed the territory. The international community rejects Israel’s claim to the region, recognizing it as Syrian territory.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has long claimed that Israel must control the Golan to protect its national security, hailed Mr. Trump’s move. Critics say the president’s announcement will jeopardize peace efforts in the region and violates a UN resolution that rules out acquiring territory by war.

Three millennia of conflicted history

I have been leading a study tour to the Holy Land this week. Each time I come to Israel, I am impressed again by the courage of her people amid this chaotic region.

Each time I come to Israel, I am impressed again by the courage of her people amid this chaotic region.

Israel’s history here begins with God’s promise to Abraham as he journeyed through the land of Canaan: “To your offspring I will give this land” (Genesis 12:7). Abraham’s grandson Jacob fathered twelve sons whose descendants became the twelve “tribes of Israel” when they conquered the Promised Land under Joshua.

The ten northern tribes separated from the two southern tribes in 922 BC, comprising the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah). The Northern Kingdom was conquered by Assyria in 722 BC. The Southern Kingdom was conquered by Babylon, whose armies destroyed Jerusalem in 587/86 and enslaved the people. In 538 BC, the Persian conqueror of Babylon, Cyrus the Great, allowed the Jews to return to their homeland.

Israel remained under the dominance of the Persians, then the Greeks. The Jews revolted in 167 BC, regaining their independence until 63 BC, when the Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem and brought Israel under Roman control.

The Jews revolted against Rome in AD 66, an uprising that led to the destruction of their temple in AD 70. After a failed second revolt (AD 132–35), many Jews were sold into slavery, and Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina. The Roman emperor Hadrian changed the country’s name from Judea to Syria Palestina.

The region was successively controlled by the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Crusaders, the Mamluks (Egypt), the Ottoman Empire, and the British. It would be known as Palestine until 1948, when the State of Israel declared its independence.

To summarize: Israel has been enslaved and dominated by foreign powers for most of the last three millennia. The nation won its hard-fought independence seventy-one years ago and has been threatened by various enemies ever since.

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!” (Psalm 122:6)

Modern-day Israel is a tiny country (approximately the size of New Jersey). About 6.5 million Jews live in the country, along with 1.8 million Arabs and four hundred thousand others.

Hamas controls the Gaza Strip to the southwest and is pledged to the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah (a proxy of Iran) controls Lebanon to the north and is pledged to the same. Iran continually calls for Israel’s destruction.

In the face of such threats, the Israeli people are remarkably resilient. If you had been traveling with me this week, you would have encountered a vibrant culture on the cutting edge of technological innovation. The people are passionately committed to their nation and will do whatever it takes to defend themselves.

I pray daily for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6). But I also pray daily for the Palestinian people. Our group traveled to Bethlehem Wednesday to visit the Church of the Incarnation and meet some dear Palestinian friends with whom I have worked on study tours for many years. These friends are committed Christians; their people deserve to live in peace and security as well.

The most important battle in this world

How will lasting peace come to the conflicted region?

That’s not for me to determine. But I can say this: true peace is impossible apart from the Prince of Peace.

The greatest need in Israel is for her people to make Jesus their Messiah and Lord. The greatest need for the Palestinian people is for them to make Isa (Arabic for Jesus) their Savior and Lord.

As political vitriol in the US and the Brexit controversy in the UK illustrate, no nation has been or will ever be free from conflict and turmoil. But Christians are fighting a different battle:

The most important battle in this world is not for this world but for the next.

“Though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:3–5).

The most important battle in this world is not for this world but for the next.

The post President Trump endorses Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights appeared first on Denison Forum.

source https://www.denisonforum.org/columns/daily-article/president-trump-endorses-israels-sovereignty-over-the-golan-heights/ source https://denisonforum.tumblr.com/post/183627025227

0 notes

denisonforum · 6 years ago

Text

President Trump endorses Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights

Why does the region known as the “Golan Heights” matter to Israel and to the world?

An area twice the size of Dallas

Three millennia of conflicted history

I have been leading a study tour to the Holy Land this week. Each time I come to Israel, I am impressed again by the courage of her people amid this chaotic region.

Each time I come to Israel, I am impressed again by the courage of her people amid this chaotic region.

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!” (Psalm 122:6)

Modern-day Israel is a tiny country (approximately the size of New Jersey). About 6.5 million Jews live in the country, along with 1.8 million Arabs and four hundred thousand others.

The most important battle in this world

How will lasting peace come to the conflicted region?

That’s not for me to determine. But I can say this: true peace is impossible apart from the Prince of Peace.

The greatest need in Israel is for her people to make Jesus their Messiah and Lord. The greatest need for the Palestinian people is for them to make Isa (Arabic for Jesus) their Savior and Lord.

As political vitriol in the US and the Brexit controversy in the UK illustrate, no nation has been or will ever be free from conflict and turmoil. But Christians are fighting a different battle:

The most important battle in this world is not for this world but for the next.

The post President Trump endorses Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights appeared first on Denison Forum.

source https://www.denisonforum.org/columns/daily-article/president-trump-endorses-israels-sovereignty-over-the-golan-heights/

0 notes

clubofinfo · 6 years ago

Text

Expert: The Helsinki Summit – or the Treason Summit, as some call it – of the 16th of July, has come and gone. It left a smell of burning hot air behind. President Trump opened the meeting by saying that up to now relations between the United States and Russia were bad, and confessing that the US was to blame for it. He wanted them to improve and hoped that this meeting – he indicated that others of similar nature may follow – may be a first step towards normalizing relations between the two atomic super-powers which together, he said, control 90% of the world’s nuclear destructive force. A timely admission, but ignoring the most dangerous and unpredictable atomic power, the rogue nation of Israel. If ever the promising dream-like sounds of Donald Trump of denuclearizing the globe were to see the light of day, Israel would have to be among the first countries to be de-nuclearized, which would be a real step towards world security and peace in the Middle East. During the later Press Conference, Trump though voicing his appreciation for the ‘fine’ secret services of his country, admitted that he trusted more Putin’s word on Russia’s non-interference than that of his secret service — “why would they interfere?” — for which he was trashed at home by his adversaries, the MSM, the democrats and even the Republicans. Now, back home, Trump has to accommodate the public, telling them he mispronounced ‘would’; he really meant “wouldn’t”… a first rate spectacle of idiocy that, surely, after a while will go away, as everything does that has no solution, but gambles with dishonesty. There is no winning in the indoctrinated and brainwashed to the bones American public. It couldn’t be more obvious how the media are rallying the American people for war with Russia. The greedy military needs war and the economy of the US of A also needs war to boost her GDP, or rather for sheer economic survival. The topic of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Elections will just not be dropped. After a zillion of proven false accusations, in a reasonable world it would fade away. Not in the US. It is a clear sign of the decline of the empire. It’s the desperate hopelessness of the naked emperor that speaks. So, they call Trump treacherous towards his country – a President who dares saying the truth publicly is called by the slimy Democrats and the yet slimier Republicans and foremost by the mainstream media – a case for impeachment. There is an internal battle raging in the United States. It pulls the country apart. It’s the want of making America Great Again, by concentrating on internal production for local markets, versus the globalized aspirations – the drive for a dollar world hegemony and the full and total subjugation of the peoples and their resources of this globe. The latter will not be possible without an all-out war – and the elite doesn’t really want to live underground perhaps for years in protection of a nuclear fallout nobody knows how long it may last. Trump’s handlers are aware of the alternative, ‘building from within’. Is what Trump is propagating, “America First”, the right approach? Maybe not, but the concept might be right, given the destitute state of the world, where sanctions and trade wars, also initiated by Trump, are creating havoc among former partners. A regrouping of nations, aiming at self-sufficiency and selective trading partners according to cultural and political similarities might bring back national sovereignties, abolishing the corporate globalized approach that has been doing harm to 90% of the people. WTO, the monster made by the west to further advance corporate power over the weak, should and would become obsolete. Trump’s contradictions are what defeats his credibility. He admonishes Madame Merkel for being enslaved by Russia for buying Russian gas instead of the US’s environmentally destructive fracking gas. “We put NATO in Europe to protect you from the enemy, Russia, yet you prefer buying Russian gas than dealing with those who protect you”. It didn’t occur to any of the European NATO halfwits to tell Trump that all that NATO has done so far is destroying countries throughout the Middle East and the world, and that they, the Europeans, have supported the US in their senseless destruction, creating a flood of refugees which now threatens to suffocate Europe. There was nothing, but nothing about protection by NATO. If anything, NATO was an aggressive force, moving ever closer to Russia and flanking China on the eastern front. None of this was said, though, by the European NATO puppets. Trump then goes to Helsinki, meets Putin and says he likes him and he wants to be friends and make peace with Russia. Of course. We all want peace. But who can believe him, when a few days before he accused Germany of playing into the hands of the enemy, Russia? Remember, a year ago at the G7 summit in Hamburg, Trump was shaking Putin’s hand and said ‘I like him’. At the recent disastrous G7 conference in Canada, which turned out to be a G6+1 summit, before running off to Singapore to meet North Koreas Kim Jong-Un, Trump dropped a little bomb, “why not converting the G7 again to the G8 and include Russia?” He left the group stunned and speechless. So, his drive towards improved relations with Russia is nothing new. It’s just not accepted by the warriors in Washington. The Helsinki summit looked and sounded like a summer show just to continue the attention deviation maneuvers of the World Cup that ended the day before in Russia. What’s going on behind the scenes? It’s one of those hot summers when nobody wants to think, just to be entertained, never mind the farces and lies. Like during Roman Empire times it’s the modernized Colosseum, adopted to the age of cell phones, tablets and micro-chips. The Colosseum is the all-so transparent veil that should shield the world’s eyes from the empire’s auto-destruction. Today’s gladiators are the peoples of entire countries, continents, slaughtered or made homeless by the millions, by teleguided missiles and bombs, causing the largest migration streams – by far – in modern history; 70 million worldwide and upwards are on the move. Generations without homes, education; generations without a future, drifting across the seas in desperate hope of survival. Mr. Putin’s words in Helsinki were words of wisdom, propagating peace as a good thing and dismissing Russian interference in the American elections. Not even discussing the re-inclusion of Crimea. Period. He could have mentioned, instead, the hundreds of elections and regime changes that Washington initiated, manipulated and manufactured around the globe within the last 70 years alone, but he didn’t. Wise man; non-aggression. It is obvious, the “muttonized” world of Americans and European vassals don’t even think that far anymore. For them it’s natural that the ‘exceptional nation’ does what she wants with impunity but the same rights wouldn’t apply to others. President Putin handed Trump a list of steps and actions to consider to embark on a denuclearization process. Trump and those of the deep state elite whose love for life is too great to risk a nuclear war, may just take advantage and do something about it. The enigma Trump is perfect for the Deep Dark state. He is a roller-coaster of confusion and contradictions. To the NATO members, at the recent Brussels NATO summit, he ordered “pay up, or else’’ which could mean or we pull out of NATO. Though that is the desire of a large majority of Europeans, for Trump it’s a contradiction as he pretends that NATO is supposed to defend Europe against her arch-enemy, Russia. But, then, in turn, Mr. Trump moves on, courting this very “arch-enemy’’, by responding to the peace bells Mr. Putin has been offering ever since he came to power, never a negative word against Washington, calmly calling the demonizers ‘our partners’. Confused people can easily be taken off-guard and manipulated. Who knows what the real agenda of the Trump handlers has in store. Trump’s bold statements on the side of President Putin will make his demonization at home easier. Though the people at large clearly want peaceful relations between the two nations, everybody fears war, but they will continue to be indoctrinated by the CNN-NBC-BBC’s of this world. Let’s face it, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was and is no reason to make Putin and Russia America’s enemy. But Putin’s assertiveness in bringing Russia to the fore and onto the world stage again, was a good reason to upset the self-appointed Uni-Power, US of A. The US super-power lives of wars, and this lifestyle requires enemies. Russia and China are ideal, as they control huge land masses with almost unlimited natural resources. They have done nothing of what the mainstream accuses them of. And if the President of the United States annuls the key enemy, turning him from foe to friend, such a President becomes a liability for the swamp of Washington – a liability, indeed – “or else”. http://clubof.info/

0 notes

fudu30 · 6 years ago

Text

I Have Given Up on the Philippines

by Howard Tuanqui 💔🇵🇭

I have given up on the Philippines. It was a hard decision, but there's not much of a choice right now, is there? The national situation is a lost cause. And a hopeless case as of yet. I do not see any solution to this in the near future. Nothing auspicious, nor does anything bodes positive. Even if Duterte dies or his term ends, whoever replaces him, be it the opposition or worse, any of his cohorts, the Philippines has nowhere to go but down, because of how Duterte has made the country plummet to an all-time low. It will be really hard to recover or bounce back if we even could. And to be honest, I blame every single Filipino, even my friends, and family, who had supported and still support Duterte. It's a sad thing.

Imagine, despite the open pronouncements he had about his atrocious character and evil deeds, people still supported and voted and glorified him, and still continue to up to this day?! Unbelievable.

They did that out of protest against PNoy and the dilawans. How shallow! They voted the worst candidate because they hated the president then for being elite, rich and was not empathetic enough. Of course, they wanted someone who can relate to their lowly standards and way of living.

Allow me to make the following points because I am exhausted and have been keeping this for the longest time.

1. DRUGS. They voted Duterte in the hopes of curtailing drugs. Has Duterte curtailed drugs? No, he hasn't. He said he will address the drug issues in the country in 3-6 months. He's 2 years into his presidency, and drugs have only gotten worse. In fact, drugs have become all the more accessible because it is sanctioned by the highest powers that be. The biggest drug lords and drug smugglers are sleeping in the same bed as the president, and are being coddled in Malacañang. Let us try to remember. Was it not because of De Lima that we found out about the luxurious lifestyles of the biggest drug lords in Bilibid? Was it not because of De Lima, in her stint as justice secretary, that we were kept in the loop of how the drug trade in the Bilibid was so organized and systematic? Wasn't it during her term that it was publicized and exposed? Yet when Duterte assumed the presidency, with all the machinations and powers at his disposal, they turned the tide in their favor, devouring De Lima and the opposition for resisting his oppression and fascist tendencies. You're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame.

2. TRAFFIC, MRT, and LRT. They voted Duterte because of his motherhood statements--giving the people false hopes--telling them he will immediately solve traffic and the transportation problems, also in 3-6 months. Music to the ears. Of course, the gullible Filipinos, being shortsighted and not looking at the bigger picture, immediately bit the bait. Tell me if traffic and the transport system in Manila is any better, safer and more convenient. You're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame.

3. OFWs. Statistics have it that one of Duterte's market base really are the OFWs. It also shows in several surveys and polls. They voted Duterte because he was astig and he's the only president who cursed at other world leaders--the Pope, the US President, the EU, and UN. Simplistic borderline stupid. Not even out of any promise to have them come home and no longer be away from their families? If Duterte is so concerned about OFWs, then why are there still a staggering number of OFWs abroad? Because they have no work here. And if Duterte has any concern about our OFWs at all, then why did the diplomatic debacle with Kuwait happen? It endangered the lives of our countrymen, for Christ's sake. And that uncalled for lasciviousness in South Korea was a green light to foreign employers that our women OFWs are easy to get and can easily be groped and advanced upon because the president of our own country treats them as such. You're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame.

4. CORRUPTION. They voted Duterte because they said PNoy, or at least some of his men were corrupt. Provided there could have been people under PNoy which were corrupt, I personally believe the former president was not. But now, this administration screams corruption. Glaring and obvious. The corruption in DOT under Wanda Teo and Cesar Montano. The multi-million placement for the Tulfos. The NYC. Wiguirre's department of Injustice. The almost 1000% increase in the budget of the Office of the President. And the out of this world exorbitant junkets and budgets of offices under the president. Recycling corrupt officials, pretending to initially fire them, yet reassigns them to other agencies. And what is bigger corruption than freeing the country's top plunderers and like Napoles, Arroyo, Enrile, etc. and appointing inefficient and stupid officials in high-paying government posts being paid by people's money? Glaring graft and corruption. Imagine the president being in cahoots with the Arroyos and the Marcoses and other big time plunderers? And look no further. Duterte could not sign a simple waiver opening to the public his bank accounts to once and for all prove otherwise his detractors. Plunder. Graft. Corruption. Disgusting. Gross. You're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame.

5. HUMAN RIGHTS. They voted Duterte because he's human, he feels for the ordinary Filipino people. Sure he could be, but he's definitely inhumane. Anti-poor and anti-people policies. The non-stop killings. The fake war on drugs. The countless human rights violations. He definitely outdid Marcos insofar as violation of human rights are concerned. And don't get me started on this. You're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame.

6. DIPLOMACY. They voted Duterte because PNoy's diplomatic policies were hostile. Really now? And you what do you call Duterte's? Imagine, from the great top Diplomat Secretary Albert Del Rosario, we're down to an ass-licking and inefficient secretary of foreign affairs who's a defender of our oppressor, peddles lies as official statements and conceals truth from our countrymen. Speaking of inefficacy, he and their proud propagandists-bloggers were also behind the botched operations in Kuwait which strained our relationship with the state and endangered the lives of our OFWs there. And what an idiotic ideology to only have 'war' in mind as the only sanction if we assert our sovereign rights which makes it easy for them to conveniently give our territories away. Whatever happened to international laws, statutes and agreements? To diplomatic protests? Is their main diplomatic policy gearing towards a Philippines being a province of China? Because it seems to be the case. Imagine, having to totally veer away from our usual allies to give unusual accommodation and consideration of China, to the point of being solely reliant and dependent to China despite the overwhelming and apparent debt trap? Guess what. You're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame.

7. SOVEREIGNTY. They voted for Duterte because PNoy fought China and Ninoy Aquino gave away Sabah. What is the connection? I've never seen a winner, especially in a court battle, not invoke and uphold his/her win against a criminal. Just like our victory in the arbitral tribunal, it is our biggest leverage agains the illegal encroachment of China in our seas, but the usual Chinese puppet Duterte doesn't deem it necessary because his small brain can only think of going to war with China as the only resolution to the conflict in the disputed waters. Imagine, other small countries like Indonesia and Vietnam are not afraid of upholding and asserting their rights against China, while we, despite having the leverage at our disposal, is being allowed by the strongman to be bullied by China. Ironic. Or should I say moronic. You're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame.

8. ECONOMY. They voted Duterte despite the economic placement of the Philippines in the world as the Rising Star of Asia or Asia's Rising Tiger during PNoy's administration. Of course, because they said those were all facts and figures and it didn't matter because the people did not feel it and it didn't

trickle down to the masses. Although to some extent true, a person in his right mind would not expect the economy to be staggering after a decade of corruption from the preceding administration. We were recovering, but PNoy made the economy a stable and competitive one. All in 6 years. Yet everything cannot be done in 6 years. The Philippines needed sustainability and an economist to drive the economy further to greatrr heights and glory. But no. The Filipinos did not want that. Bcause they didn't feel it. Or maybe they did, but they were not content and they wanted more. Despite the low prices of fuel and gasoline, and basic commodities, and the regular dole outs? The Philippines got to lend money to the world Bank, IMF and other countries. That's how stable the economy was. Traffic became worse because more people had the buying power to avail cars. 4Ps sought to alleviate poverty. The conditional cash transfer was a thorough study conducted and based on the models of Mexico and Brazil which proved it to be an effective mechanism to address the poverty in the country, yet the president has threatened to remove this. What will happen now to its beneficiaries? This is the first time that in 16 years that the Philippine peso has plunged to an all time low. The Philippine peso is now the worst-performing currency in all of Asia. And the TRAIN? It did not affect the minimum wage earners and the poor at all. Because to begin with, they had no tax to be scrapped off from them, so no money will be added to their take-home pay, instead, inflation has made the price of basic commodities and other staple food more expensive that it even diminished the buying power of the minimum wage earners, the underprivileged and the impoverished. It did not help them, yet it made living harder for them and their lives more miserable. And Duterte's chief economist just conveniently tells them to work hard to survive in the Philippines. And that 10 a month will suffice for a family of 5. Seriously? Have they checked their privilege? You're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame.

9. CHARACTER. They voted Duterte because they hated PNoy and Mar for the reasons that they were elite, were rich and therefore did not know how it felt like to be poor, and they were disconnected to the common masses. They voted Duterte because he is an ordinary man, a guy for the masses, they wanted a guy they can connect with. They said they wanted a poor guy because someone who hailed from poverty definitely knows the travails of poverty. So they voted a poor man. Or so they thought. How many times have we had a 'poor' man at the helm? Erap. Binay. Duterte. What did they di to the country? What do they have in common? Have you ever thought of supporting and rooting for the candidate fittest for the job in terms of education and qualifications? An economist and technocrat? Of course not. Because to you, that doesn't matter. People voted Duterte because they were fuming mad at PNoy for being heartless, in reference to the botched Mamasapano encounter where 44 of our brave men were killed by opponents in line of duty but did not die in vain because Marwan was also killed right then and there. But in Marawi, how many of our soldiers were killed by our own government due to failure of intelligence? Remember when the camp of our soldiers were bombed, killing many of our own men? Considering the billions in intelligence fund. And how long did that siege take? How many soldiers did we lose because of Duterte's pronouncements that made Marawi a war zone? Way more than the fallen 44. But did we hear the PNoy critics rage about our fallen soldiers because of Duterte's impulsiveness? No? Because you're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame.

10. MORALITY and VALUES. They voted Duterte simply because they hated PNoy and Mar. Superficial and irrational. So look at where we are right now? Are we better off as a nation under Duterte than we were during PNoy's time? I've never witnessed, nor read from the annals of our country's history of a leader who has brought out the worst in the Filipinos. We've never been more divided. Nowadays, we so conveniently throw away our values and principles out of blind fanaticism of a false messiah. We have become so immoral as a nation that misogyny, rape, killings, fascism and other atrocities are regular things in our midst. The double standard and hypocrisy are too obvious they're glaring. Castigating De Lima on immorality for falling in love with a married man and even floated the fakery of an alleged sex video which they even considered showing in Congress are equally or even more immoral and filthy old men who have mistresses, grope women in public, accused of rape, etc. Our moral compass has vanished when Duterte assumed office and we have become a sorry nation in limbo. You're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame.

Those among others. You're stupid. And admit it or not, you've been fooled by Duterte. And you are to blame. You inflicted this upon us, the whole country, including me and the majority who abhor, detest and did not and still do not support the monstrous and adversarial administration of Duterte. We are now at a point of no return. And I can say I've done my part for as long as I could. After all, no matter what happens, I'm pretty sure I can still eat more than 3 times a day, buy some stuff I need and want, go to places I've never been to, and afford myself some luxuries I deserve. I can't say the same to you especially those who voted for Duterte. I'm done. I've fought long and hard enough for you. You deserve him. Very much. I pity you, but you deserve him, really.

0 notes

reseau-actu · 7 years ago

Text

Russian spy: White House backs UK decision to expel diplomats

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionTheresa May announces the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats from the UK

The White House says it "stands in solidarity" with the "its closest ally" the UK and supports its decision to expel 23 Russian diplomats.

Theresa May said the diplomats would be expelled after Moscow refused to explain how a Russian-made nerve agent was used on a former spy in the UK.

Moscow continues to deny any involvement in the poisoning.

President Trump's spokeswoman accused Russia of undermining the security of countries worldwide.

BBC's North American editor Jon Sopel said the White House statement was "notable in the unqualified support they offer Theresa May - but significant too in the way President Trump is prepared to talk about Russia".

"This is language we have not heard before from the White House."

In the statement, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the US wanted to ensure "this kind of abhorrent attack does not happen again".

She described the expulsion of Russian diplomats from Britain as "a just response"

"This latest action by Russia fits into a pattern of behaviour in which Russia disregards the international rules-based order, undermines the sovereignty and security of countries worldwide, and attempts to subvert and discredit Western democratic institutions and processes," she said.

The White House statement echoed earlier comments made by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who cited the "special relationship" between the two countries and said the US would "always be there" for the UK.

Also addressing the UN Security Council, Britain's deputy UN ambassador, Jonathan Allen, said he had heard the threats from Russia but that the UK would not be deterred.

"We will stand by the values which are shared by the overwhelming majority of those in this council in this United Nations and we ask you today, to stand by us," he added.

In response, the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, denied Moscow's involvement in the attack and demanded "material proof" from Britain to support its charge.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionThe UK, US and Russia all addressed the UN over the use of a nerve agent on UK soil

The expulsion of the diplomats is the largest since 31 were ordered out in 1985 after double agent Oleg Gordievsky defected.

Former spy Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter, Yulia Skripal, 33, remain critically ill in hospital after being found slumped on a bench on 4 March.

Mr Skripal came to the UK in 2010 as part of a "spy swap" after he had been convicted by Russia of passing information to MI6.

Image copyright EPA/ Yulia Skripal/Facebook

Image caption Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, are in a critical condition in hospital

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow would co-operate in the case if it received a formal request for clarification from the UK under the Chemical Weapons Convention, which sets a 10-day time limit for a response.

Moscow refused to meet the UK's deadline to co-operate, prompting Mrs May to announce the diplomats' expulsion and other measures intended to send a "clear message" to Russia.

These include:

Increasing checks on private flights, customs and freight

Freezing Russian state assets where there is evidence they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents

Ministers and the Royal Family boycotting the Fifa World Cup in Russia later this year

Suspending all planned high-level bilateral contacts between the UK and Russia

Plans to consider new laws to increase defences against "hostile state activity"

In a statement to MPs Mrs May said that Russia had provided "no explanation" as to how the nerve agent came to be used in the UK, describing Moscow's response as one of "sarcasm, contempt and defiance".

The use of a Russian-made nerve agent on UK soil amounted to the "unlawful use of force", she said.

She said it was "tragic" that Russian President Vladimir Putin had "chosen to act in this way".

Russia's foreign ministry said the statement was "an unprecedentedly crude provocation" and that the UK government had "seriously aggravated" relations by announcing a "whole set of hostile measures".

Image copyright PA

Image caption Soldiers wearing protective clothing prepare to lift and recover a vehicle in Gillingham, Dorset

In other developments:

Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman has said there is not yet definitive proof the Russian state was behind the attempted murder of a former spy in Salisbury.

The Foreign Office updated its advice on travel to Russia, saying Britons should "be aware of the possibility of anti-British sentiment"

The FA said it would work closely with the UK government and authorities regarding its participation in the World Cup in June

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionThe BBC's Paul Adams looks at why the UK is expelling 23 Russian diplomats

Article complet: BBC News - Home — http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43411332

#Actualité #English

0 notes