LONDON: Prime Minister Theresa May is safe, for now. She has survived a no-confidence vote engineered by her own Conservative Party, and can’t be challenged again for a year, but that has not brought Britain’s Brexit battle any closer to resolution.
May was in Brussels on Thursday, imploring European Union leaders help her sell the UK-EU divorce bill to a skeptical British Parliament.
UK lawmakers were supposed to approve the plan, painstakingly worked out by May and the European Union for Britain’s orderly departure from the 28-nation bloc, in a vote that had been scheduled for Tuesday, but May postponed it rather than face certain defeat.
With the EU insisting the withdrawal agreement can’t be reopened, May faces a struggle to win enough changes to assuage hostile British politicians.
Britain’s road out of the EU has been anything but smooth as Britain heads for the Brexit ramp and the way ahead still looks bumpy.
Britain joined the European Economic Community — now the EU — in 1973, but has long been an ambivalent member. The UK never adopted the euro as its currency, and British politicians have been cool to the bloc’s calls for ever-closer political union.
In 2013, then-Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to hold a referendum on Britain’s EU membership “to settle this European question” once and for all — and to silence the loud euroskeptic wing of the Conservative Party which had long clamored for a membership vote.
Cameron was confident voters would choose to remain in the EU, but on June 23, 2016, they voted by 52 percent to 48 percent to leave. Cameron resigned, leaving his successor, May, to deliver on voters’ decision. Last year, May triggered the two-year countdown to departure for March 29, 2019.
Every divorce involves paperwork. Britain can leave without an agreement, a so-called no-deal Brexit — but it won’t be pretty. Departure will tear up thousands of laws and rules stitched together over more than four decades, covering every aspect of British life and the economy.
If Britain and the EU can’t agree to new rules, there could be chaos. Planes would lose permission to fly, British motorists would find their driver’s licenses invalid on the continent, medicine supplies could run short. British officials have warned of gridlock at ports, the need to charter vessels to bring in essential goods and shortages of imported foodstuffs.
The Bank of England has warned that a worst-case “no deal” Brexit would plunge Britain into its worst recession for decades.
With compromises on both sides, Britain and the EU managed to reach agreement on many contentious issues. But one has proved intractable: the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, which will be the UK’s only land border with the EU after Brexit.
During Northern Ireland’s decades of violence, the border bristled with soldiers, customs posts, smugglers and paramilitaries. But since a 1998 peace accord, the border has become all but invisible. That’s helped by the fact that Britain and Ireland currently are both EU members, meaning goods and people can flow across the border with no need for customs checks.
Brexit could end all that, disrupting lives and businesses on both sides of the border and potentially undermining the peace process.
To avoid that, the withdrawal agreement includes a border guarantee, known as the “backstop.” It stipulates that if no other solution can be found, the UK will remain in a customs union with the EU after Brexit to avoid the need for a hard border. Both sides hope the backstop will never be needed: The agreement gives them until 2022 to reach a permanent new trade deal that could render it unnecessary.
But pro-Brexit British politicians hate the backstop, because Britain can’t get out of it unilaterally; it can only be ended by mutual agreement. So potentially it could endure indefinitely, binding the UK to EU customs regulations, unable to make new trade deals around the world.
Pro-EU lawmakers hate it too, because it leaves Britain subject to rules it has no say in making — an inferior position to remaining in the bloc, they say.
Not much. May says she is seeking “legal and political assurances” at this week’s summit that will satisfy Parliament’s concerns about the backstop. But EU leaders are adamant they will not re-open the legally binding, 585-page withdrawal agreement.
But politics is also about theatrics, and the EU may well offer Britain some sort of wording — a note, an addendum or a codicil — that “clarifies” issues around the backstop. It is possible the spectacle of May under siege from her own party will encourage EU leaders to offer slightly more generous terms to try to keep the process on track.
The British government says it plans to bring the deal, with whatever changes May achieves, back to Parliament for a vote before Jan 21. If it passes, it still must be approved by the European Parliament, but that is not expected to be a problem.
If it fails, Britain is in uncharted waters. Possible outcomes include a no-deal Brexit, a postponed Brexit, a second referendum on Brexit, or a reversal of the decision to leave the EU. All those options have supporters in Parliament, but it’s not clear whether there’s a majority for any of them.
And if May’s plan falls, it’s possible she will too — via a no-confidence vote in Parliament that would trigger a national election. Then it would fall to her successor to try to sort out Britain’s Brexit mess.
May Day: British leader’s respite won’t end Brexit mess
May Day: British leader’s respite won’t end Brexit mess
- May was in Brussels on Thursday, imploring European Union leaders help her sell the UK-EU divorce bill to a skeptical British Parliament
- Britain’s road out of the EU has been anything but smooth as Britain heads for the Brexit ramp and the way ahead still looks bumpy
Moscow warns the US over allowing Ukraine to hit Russian soil with longer-range weapons
KYIV, Ukraine: The Kremlin warned Monday that President Joe Biden’s decision to let Ukraine strike targets inside Russia with US-supplied longer-range missiles adds “fuel to the fire” of the war and would escalate international tensions even higher.
Biden’s shift in policy added an uncertain, new factor to the conflict on the eve of the 1,000-day milestone since Russia began its full-scale invasion in 2022.
It also came as a Russian ballistic missile with cluster munitions struck a residential area of Sumy in northern Ukraine, killing 11 people and injuring 84 others. Another missile barrage sparked apartment fires in the southern port of Odesa, killing at least 10 people and injuring 43, Ukraine’s Interior Ministry said.
Washington is easing limits on what Ukraine can strike with its American-made Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMs, US officials told The Associated Press on Sunday, after months of ruling out such a move over fears of escalating the conflict and bringing about a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.
The Kremlin was swift in its condemnation.
“It is obvious that the outgoing administration in Washington intends to take steps and they have been talking about this, to continue adding fuel to the fire and provoking further escalation of tensions around this conflict,” said spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
The scope of the new firing guidelines isn’t clear. But the change came after the US, South Korea and NATO said North Korean troops are in Russia and apparently are being deployed to help Moscow drive Ukrainian troops from Russia’s Kursk border region.
Biden’s decision almost entirely was triggered by North Korea’s entry into the fight, according to a US official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, and was made just before he left for the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Peru.
Russia also is slowly pushing Ukraine’s outnumbered army backward in the eastern Donetsk region. It has also conducted a devastating aerial campaign against civilian areas in Ukraine.
Peskov referred journalists to a statement from President Vladimir Putin in September in which he said allowing Ukraine to target Russia would significantly raise the stakes.
It would change “the very nature of the conflict dramatically,” Putin said at the time. “This will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia.”
Peskov claimed that Western countries supplying longer-range weapons also provide targeting services to Kyiv. “This fundamentally changes the modality of their involvement in the conflict,” he said.
Putin warned in June that Moscow could provide longer-range weapons to others to strike Western targets if NATO allowed Ukraine to use its allies’ arms to attack Russian territory. After signing a treaty with North Korea, Putin issued an explicit threat to provide weapons to Pyongyang, noting Moscow could mirror Western arguments that it’s up to Ukraine to decide how to use them.
“The Westerners supply weapons to Ukraine and say: ‘We do not control anything here anymore and it does not matter how they are used.’” Putin had said. “Well, we can also say: ‘We supplied something to someone — and then we do not control anything.’ And let them think about it.”
Putin had also reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to use nuclear weapons if it sees a threat to its sovereignty.
Biden’s move will “mean the direct involvement of the United States and its satellites in military action against Russia, as well as a radical change in the essence and nature of the conflict,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said.
President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office Jan. 20, has raised uncertainty about whether his administration would continue military support to Ukraine. He has also vowed to end the war quickly.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave a muted response Sunday to the approval that he and his government have been requesting for over a year, adding, “The missiles will speak for themselves.”
Consequences of the new policy are uncertain. ATACMS, which have a range of about 300 kilometers (190 miles), can reach far behind the about 1,000-kilometer (600-mile) front line in Ukraine, but they have relatively short range compared with other types of ballistic and cruise missiles.
The policy change came “too late to have a major strategic effect,” said Patrick Bury, a senior associate professor in security at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom.
“The ultimate kind of impact it will have is to probably slow down the tempo of the Russian offensives which are now happening,” he said, adding that Ukraine could strike targets in Kursk or logistics hubs or command headquarters.
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, agreed the US move would not alter the war’s course, noting Ukraine “would need large stockpiles of ATACMS, which it doesn’t have and won’t receive because the United States’ own supplies are limited.”
On a political level, the move “is a boost to the Ukrainians and it gives them a window of opportunity to try and show that they are still viable and worth supporting” as Trump prepares to take office, said Matthew Savill, director of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
The cue for the policy change was the arrival in Russia of North Korean troops, according to Glib Voloskyi, an analyst at the CBA Initiatives Center, a Kyiv-based think tank.
“This is a signal the Biden administration is sending to North Korea and Russia, indicating that the decision to involve North Korean units has crossed a red line,” he said.
Russian lawmakers and state media bashed the West for what they called an escalatory step, threatening a harsh response.
“Biden, apparently, decided to end his presidential term and go down in history as ‘Bloody Joe,’” lawmaker Leonid Slutsky told Russian news agency RIA Novosti.
Vladimir Dzhabarov, deputy head of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of parliament, called it “a very big step toward the start of World War III” and an attempt to “reduce the degree of freedom for Trump.”
Russian newspapers offered similar predictions of doom. “The madmen who are drawing NATO into a direct conflict with our country may soon be in great pain,” Rossiyskaya Gazeta said.
Some NATO allies welcomed the move.
President Andrzej Duda of Poland, which borders Ukraine, praised the decision as a “very important, maybe even a breakthrough moment” in the war.
“In the recent days, we have seen the decisive intensification of Russian attacks on Ukraine, above all, those missile attacks where civilian objects are attacked, where people are killed, ordinary Ukrainians,” Duda said.
Easing restrictions on Ukraine was “a good thing,” said Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna of Russian neighbor Estonia.
“We have been saying that from the beginning — that no restrictions must be put on the military support,” he told senior European Union diplomats in Brussels. “And we need to understand that situation is more serious (than) it was even maybe like a couple of months ago.”
But Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, known for his pro-Russian views, described Biden’s decision as “an unprecedented escalation” that would prolong the war.
Members of UN Security Council call for surge in assistance to Gaza
- “The situation is devastating, and frankly, beyond comprehension, and it’s getting worse, not better,” Lammy said
NEW YORK: Members of the United Nations Security Council called on Monday for a surge in assistance to reach people in need in Israeli-basieged Gaza, warning that the situation in the Palestinian enclave was getting worse.
British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said there needs to be a “huge, huge rise in aid” to Gaza, where most of the population of 2.3 million people has been displaced and health officials in the coastal enclave say that more than 43,922 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s 13-month-old offensive against Hamas.
“The situation is devastating, and frankly, beyond comprehension, and it’s getting worse, not better,” Lammy said. “Winter’s here. Famine is imminent, and 400 days into this war, it is totally unacceptable that it’s harder than ever to get aid into Gaza.”
The war erupted after Hamas-led gunmen attacked Israel in October last year, killing 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.
US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the Security Council that Washington was closely watching Israel’s actions to improve the situation for Palestinians and engaging with the Israeli government every day.
“Israel must also urgently take additional steps to alleviate the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza,” she said.
President Joe Biden’s administration concluded this month that Israel was not currently impeding assistance to Gaza and therefore not violating US law, even as Washington acknowledged the humanitarian situation remained dire in the Palestinian enclave.
The assessment came after the US in an Oct. 13 letter gave Israel a list of steps to take within 30 days to address the deteriorating situation in Gaza, warning that failure to do so might have possible consequences on US military aid to Israel.
Thomas-Greenfield said Israel was working to implement 12 of the 15 steps.
“We need to see all steps fully implemented and sustained, and we need to see concrete improvement in the humanitarian situation on the ground,” she said, including Israel allowing commercial trucks to move into Gaza alongside humanitarian assistance, addressing persistent lawlessness and implementing pauses in fighting in large areas of Gaza to allow assistance to reach those in need.
Danny Danon, the Israeli ambassador to the US, said Israel had facilitated the entrance of hundreds of aid trucks a week but there had been a failure of aid agencies to collect that aid and Hamas had looted trucks. Hamas has denied the accusation.
“Not only must the UN step up its aid distribution obligations, but the focus must also shift to Hamas’ constant hijacking of humanitarian aid to feed the machine of terror and misery,” Danon said.
Two UN aid agencies told Reuters on Monday that nearly 100 trucks carrying food for Palestinians were violently looted on Nov. 16 after entering Gaza in one of the worst losses of aid during the war.
Tor Wennesland, the UN coordinator for the Middle East peace process, said humanitarian agencies face a challenging and dangerous operational environment in Gaza and access restrictions that hinder their work.
“The humanitarian situation in Gaza, as winter begins, is catastrophic, particularly developments in the north of Gaza with a large-scale and near-total displacement of the population and widespread destruction and clearing of land, amidst what looks like a disturbing disregard for international humanitarian law,” Wennesland said.
“The current conditions are among the worst we’ve seen during the entire war and are not set to improve.”
EU top diplomat has ‘no more words’ on Mideast suffering
- Borrell said a majority of the 27 European Union states had — as expected — rejected his call to suspend political dialogue with Israel over the Gaza war
BRUSSELS: The EU’s outgoing top diplomat Josep Borrell said Monday he had “no more words” to describe the crisis in the Middle East as he delivered a bleak assessment at his swansong foreign ministers’ meeting.
At a somber press briefing after the Brussels talks, Borrell said a majority of the 27 European Union states had — as expected — rejected his call to suspend political dialogue with Israel over the Gaza war.
Barely concealing his frustration at the EU’s failure to weigh on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his five-year mandate, Borrell earlier said he had “exhausted the words to explain what’s happening.”
“This is a war against the children,” the 77-year-old foreign policy chief told reporters after the talks. “The most frequent age of the casualties in Gaza is five years old.”
He described an “apocalyptical situation in Gaza, where 70 percent of the death toll is being paid by children and women,” with two million people displaced. He also acknowledged the suffering of Israeli hostages held by Hamas and other militant groups since the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel.
The Hamas attack resulted in the deaths of 1,206 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of Israeli official figures. The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza says that 43,922 people, mostly civilians, have been killed there since October 7.
Borrell’s proposal to suspend the EU’s political dialogue with Israel — part of a wider agreement governing trade ties — had been expected to hit opposition from numerous member states including key powers France and Germany.
“Most of the member states considered that it was much better to continue having diplomatic and political relationship with Israel,” Borrell confirmed.
But he said his services had “at least put on the table” all the information produced by UN bodies and international organizations on the ground “in order to judge the way the war is being waged.”
Since Israel unleashed its devastating retaliatory offensive in Gaza, EU states have been deeply divided over the conflict — with Borrell often an outlier in denouncing what he views as Israel’s excesses.
On Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Borrell likewise voiced frustration at the shortcomings in Europe’s response as the conflict reaches its 1,000th day.
“It’s not only 1,000 days. It is 4,000 days since Putin attacked Ukraine the first time,” Borrell said.
“Maybe our response should have been firmer, stronger since the beginning,” he said.
“It’s clear that each step that is being left without reaction encourages Russia to escalate further,” he warned — pointing at Russia’s use of drones from Iran, weapons and troops from North Korea, and dual-use goods from China.
Moscow’s all-out assault in February 2022 upended European security and came to dominate Borrell’s time at the helm of the bloc’s diplomacy.
Since then the EU has spent billions of dollars on arming Ukraine and Russia has been hit by repeated sanctions despite regular obstacles from reluctant EU states such as Hungary.
But Borrell leaves the stage at a perilous time — with the re-election of Donald Trump in the United States heralding challenges for Europe and Russia advancing in Ukraine.
“If we want to be a geopolitical player, if we want to use the language of power, we have to be more united,” warned Borrell, who is to hand over to former Estonian prime minister Kaja Kallas in December.
“It’s time for Europe to take their strategic responsibilities,” Borrell said. “It’s time for Europe to step up.”
Phone documentary details Afghan women’s struggle under Taliban govt
- Taliban authorities have banned post-secondary education for girls and women, restricted employment and blocked access to parks and other public areas
LOS ANGELES, United States: A rare inside account of the Taliban authorities’ impact on Afghan women hits screens next week with the smartphone-filmed documentary “Bread & Roses.”
Produced by actress Jennifer Lawrence (“The Hunger Games“) and Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, this feature-length film immerses the viewer in the daily struggles endured by half the population of Afghanistan since the withdrawal of US troops paved the way for Taliban leaders to seize power.
“When Kabul fell in 2021 all women lost their very basic rights. They lost their rights to be educated, to work,” Lawrence told AFP in Los Angeles.
“Some of them were doctors and had high degrees, and then their lives were completely changed overnight.”
The documentary, which debuted at Cannes in May 2023, was directed by exiled Afghan filmmaker Sahra Mani, who reached out to a dozen women after the fall of Kabul.
She tutored them on how to film themselves with their phones — resulting in a moving depiction of the intertwined stories of three Afghan women.
We meet Zahra, a dentist whose practice is threatened with closure, suddenly propelled to the head of protests against the Taliban government.
Sharifa, a former civil servant, is stripped of her job and cloistered at home, reduced to hanging laundry on her roof to get a breath of fresh air.
And Taranom, an activist in exile in neighboring Pakistan, who watches helplessly as her homeland changes.
“The restrictions are getting tighter and tighter right now,” Mani told AFP on the film’s Los Angeles red carpet.
And hardly anyone outside the country seems to care, she said.
“The women of Afghanistan didn’t receive the support they deserved from the international community.”
Since their return to power, Taliban officials have established a “gender apartheid” in Afghanistan, according to the United Nations.
Women are gradually being erased from public spaces: Taliban authorities have banned post-secondary education for girls and women, restricted employment and blocked access to parks and other public areas.
A recent law even prohibits women from singing or reciting poetry in public.
The Taliban authorities follow an austere brand of Islam, whose interpretations of holy texts are disputed by many scholars.
“The Taliban claim to represent the culture and religion while they’re a very small group of men who do not actually represent the diversity of the country,” Yousafzai, an executive producer of the film, told AFP.
“Islam does not prohibit a girl from learning, Islam does not prohibit a woman from working,” said the Pakistani activist, whom the Pakistani Taliban tried to assassinate when she was 15.
The documentary captures the first year after the fall of Kabul, including moments of bravery when women speak out.
“You closed universities and schools, you might as well kill me!” a protester shouts at a man threatening her during a demonstration.
These gatherings of women — under the slogan “Work, bread, education!” — are methodically crushed by Taliban authorities.
Protesters are beaten, some are arrested, others kidnapped.
Slowly, the resistance fades, but it doesn’t die: some Afghan women are now trying to educate themselves through clandestine courses.
Three years after the Taliban fighters seized power from a hapless and corrupt civilian administration, no countries have officially recognized their new government.
In the wake of Donald Trump’s re-election to the US presidency, Taliban leaders have made it known that they hope to “open a new chapter” in relations between Kabul and Washington, where a more transactional foreign policy outlook is expected to prevail.
For Mani, that rings alarm bells.
Giving up on defending the rights of Afghan women would be a serious mistake — and one the West could come to regret, she said.
The less educated Afghan women are, the more vulnerable their sons are to the ideology that birthed the Al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001.
“If we are paying the price today, you might pay the price tomorrow,” she said.
“Bread & Roses” begins streaming on Apple TV+ on November 22.
Australian writers send Middle East reading list to MPs to boost understanding of region
- Initiative, named Summer Reading for MPs campaign, aims to encourage wider and more nuanced reading on Middle East conflicts
LONDON: More than 90 Australian authors and literary figures have sent a list of books to every federal parliamentarian in a bid to foster a deeper understanding of the Middle East among political leaders, it was revealed on Monday.
The initiative, named the Summer Reading for MPs campaign, aims to encourage wider and more nuanced reading on the history and complexities of the region’s conflicts.
Each of Australia’s 227 MPs and senators will receive the same set of five books, encompassing nonfiction, fiction, and reference works, The Guardian reported.
Notable writers such as Tim Winton, Charlotte Wood, Michelle de Kretser, and JM Coetzee are among the campaign’s supporters. The book selection has also received endorsements from the Jewish Council of Australia and the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network.
The five chosen books are: “Balcony over Jerusalem” by journalist John Lyons; “A Very Short History of the Israel-Palestine Conflic by Jewish historian and political scientist Ilan Pappe; “The Hundred Years’ War” by Palestinian-American historian Rashid Khalidi; “Palestine A-Z,” an alphabetized reference by Irish author Kate Thompson; and “The Sunbird,” a novella by Lebanese-Australian writer Sara Haddad.
In an accompanying letter to MPs, the group underscored the importance of these “authoritative, highly readable books” in addressing what they see as a deficit in the public’s and politicians’ understanding of the conflict.
“The political debate in Australia and internationally rarely touches on the issues, events, and historical analyzes that these books reveal — despite their direct relevance to what is happening today,” the letter highlighted.
The writers stressed that the campaign was not about shifting opinions but broadening perspectives.
“We’re not asking anyone to change their personal opinions or public positions. We just ask that politicians consider reading one or more of these books in the hope that they might inform and illuminate discussion on the ghastly situation we have been watching unfold across the Middle East,” they said.
Melbourne architect Marcus O’Reilly, one of the campaign’s initiators, said frustration over the quality of political discourse and media reporting on Middle Eastern issues spurred the project.
“It just occurred to me that if people were reading some of these books, people’s responses might be amped up a bit more,” O’Reilly said. “They’re not pushing a particular direction and that was the whole idea.”
Aviva Tuffield, a publisher and fellow originator, highlighted the role reading plays in fostering empathy and understanding.
“The summer is for reading. There’s well-known summer reading lists like Obama’s, and the Grattan Institute’s. It might be good for politicians who aren’t engaged (on this issue) and only get the talking points to do some reading (of their own),” she said.
In recent weeks, campaign organizers have met with a cross-section of MPs and senators from all parties, delivering the books in person where possible.
Many MPs expressed a degree of caution when addressing the Middle East conflict publicly, with one regional MP noting it was the issue that drew the most constituent correspondence. Despite this, the initiative has been welcomed.
“All, so far, had been receptive to receiving history books and literature as a measured way to learn more about the issues,” Tuffield confirmed.
The campaign has also garnered support from a wide range of Australian authors, including Kim Scott, Anna Funder, Nam Le, Chloe Hooper, Anita Heiss, and Trent Dalton.
