LONDON: British opposition Labour leader Keir Starmer was under pressure on Wednesday after 56 of his lawmakers, including several of his policy team, voted with another opposition party to demand the government call for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
The so-called amendment — a proposed addition to the government’s legislative agenda for the next year — to call for a ceasefire in the violence did not pass and so will not become law. But the backing of so many Labour lawmakers showed the levels of disquiet in the party over the Middle East conflict.
Nearly a third of Labour’s 198 lawmakers backed the amendment introduced by the Scottish National Party which said: “(We) call on the government to join with the international community in urgently pressing all parties to agree to an immediate cease-fire.”
Starmer, like Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the United States and the European Union, has called for “humanitarian pauses” to help aid reach Gaza rather than a cease-fire which, they say, would allow Hamas to regroup after its attack on Oct. 7.
Eight members of Starmer’s ‘shadow’ ministerial team left their roles in order to defy the party position.
“On this occasion I must vote with my constituents, my head and my heart,” Jess Phillips, who resigned from her policy role to vote for a cease-fire, said in a letter to Starmer posted on the social media platform X.
“I can see no route where the current military action does anything but put at risk the hope of peace and security for anyone in the region now and in the future.”
It was a blow to Starmer, who is keen to present his party as united, disciplined and ready for power before a national election expected next year which Labour is on target to win, according to opinion polls.
“I regret that some colleagues felt unable to support the position tonight. But I wanted to be clear about where I stood, and where I will stand,” Starmer said after the vote.
Several lawmakers in Britain’s parliament have been pressing Starmer and Sunak to call for a ceasefire to end Israel’s siege of Gaza, where more than 11,000 Palestinians have been killed since the start of war over a month ago.
A large protest by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign outside parliament demanding lawmakers back a ceasefire took place while the vote was going on.
Starmer had put forward a rival amendment, toughening the party’s position to say humanitarian pauses “must be longer to deliver humanitarian assistance ... a necessary step to an enduring cessation of fighting as soon as possible.”
That amendment was backed by 183 lawmakers, with 290 voting against it.
More than 50 UK Labour lawmakers defy leader to back Gaza ceasefire
https://arab.news/wmquw
More than 50 UK Labour lawmakers defy leader to back Gaza ceasefire
- Nearly a third of Labour’s 198 lawmakers backed the amendment
Swiss ‘burqa ban,’ condemned by Muslims, to take effect from Jan. 1, 2025
- Anyone who unlawfully flouts the ban faces a fine of up to $1,144
- Facial coverings remain permitted for reasons relating to health, safety
ZURICH: A contentious Swiss prohibition on facial coverings in public spaces widely known as the “burqa ban” will take effect on Jan. 1, the government said on Wednesday.
Narrowly passed in a 2021 referendum in neutral Switzerland, and condemned by Muslim associations, the measure was launched by the same group that organized a 2009 ban on new minarets.
The governing Federal Council said in a statement it had fixed the start of the ban, and that anyone who unlawfully flouts it faces a fine of up to 1,000 Swiss francs ($1,144).
The ban does not apply to planes or in diplomatic and consular premises, and faces may also be covered in places of worship and other sacred sites, the government said.
Facial coverings will remain permitted for reasons relating to health and safety, for native customs, or due to weather conditions, it said. They would also be allowed on artistic and entertainment grounds and for advertising, it added.
If such coverings are needed for personal protection in exercising freedom of expression and assembly, they should be permitted provided the responsible authority has already approved them and public order is not compromised, it said.
Two separatist militants, two government-run militia members killed in Indian-administered Kashmir
- Militants in the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir have been fighting New Delhi’s rule since 1989
- Many support rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as independent country
NEW DELHI: Two suspected militants were killed in a gunfight with government forces in Indian-administered Kashmir, officials said Friday, while assailants killed two members of a government-sponsored militia elsewhere in the disputed region.
The region, divided between India and Pakistan but claimed by both in its entirety, has experienced an increase in violence in recent weeks.
The Indian military said a joint team of soldiers and police raided a village near northwestern Sopore town late Thursday following a tip about the presence of a group of militants.
The militants “fired indiscriminately” at the troops, leading to a gunbattle in which two were killed, the military said in a statement.
Troops were continuing to search the area, it said. There was no independent confirmation of the incident.
Meanwhile, assailants killed two members of a government-run militia called the “Village Defense Group” in the remote southern Kishtwar area late Thursday, officials said.
Police blamed rebels fighting against Indian rule in Kashmir for the killings.
The two were abducted from a forested area where they had gone to graze cattle on Thursday. Their bodies were found late Thursday, police said.
The militia was initially formed in the 1990s as a defense against anti-India insurgents in remote Himalayan villages that government forces could not reach quickly. As the insurgency waned in their areas and as some militia members gained notoriety for brutality and rights violations, the militia was largely disbanded.
However last year, after the killing of seven Hindus in two attacks in a remote mountainous village near the highly militarized Line of Control that divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan, authorities revived the militia and began rearming and training thousands of villagers, including some teenagers.
The Kashmir Tigers, which Indian officials say is an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad militant group, claimed responsibility for the killings of the two in a statement on social media. The statement could not be independently verified.
Militants in the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir have been fighting New Delhi’s rule since 1989. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.
India insists the Kashmir militancy is “Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.” Pakistan denies the charge, and many Kashmiris consider it a legitimate freedom struggle. Tens of thousands of civilians, rebels and government forces have been killed in the conflict.
Philippine president signs new laws to assert South China Sea rights, sovereignty
- China summons Philippine ambassador to lodge solemn representations over the new laws
- Unclear if laws could reduce incidents with China in Manila’s exclusive economic zone
MANILA: Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed two laws on Friday aimed at strengthening the country’s maritime claims and bolstering its territorial integrity, as tensions with China over disputed areas in the South China Sea persist.
The Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act would define the Philippines’ maritime entitlements and set designated sea lanes and air routes to reinforce sovereignty and maritime rights under international law.
China has summoned the Philippine ambassador to lodge solemn representations over two new laws, its foreign ministry said on Friday.
Marcos hailed the laws as a demonstration of the Philippines’ commitment to uphold an international rules-based order, and protect its rights to exploit resources peacefully in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
“Our people, especially our fisher folk, should be able to pursue their livelihood free from uncertainty and harassment,” Marcos said. “We must be able to harness mineral and energy resources in our sea bed.”
While the two laws were envisioned to help US ally the Philippines to monitor and defend against potential encroachment, questions remain about how they will be enforced and if they will impact Chinese activity in the Philippine EEZ.
China asserts its claim of sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea through an armada of coast guard ships, some of which are accused by its neighbors of aggressive conduct and of trying to disrupt energy and fisheries activity in their EEZs.
Senator Francis Tolentino, one of the authors of the maritime zones measure, said he does not expect tensions in Philippine EEZ will be instantly reduced with the implementation of the new laws.
“China will not recognize these, but the imprimatur that we’ll be getting from the international community would strengthen our position,” Tolentino told a press conference.
China’s embassy in Manila did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the new laws and senator’s remarks.
Tolentino also said the laws would reinforce a 2016 arbitration ruling on the South China Sea, which declared China’s expansive claims had no basis under international law. China has rejected the 2016 decision.
Hungary PM Orban says Europe cannot finance Ukraine war alone
- Viktor Orban: ‘The Americans will quit this war, first of all they will not encourage the war’
BUDAPEST: The United States under the presidency of Donald Trump will “quit” the war in Ukraine and Europe cannot finance this war alone, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban told state radio on Friday before an informal summit of EU leaders in Budapest.
“The Americans will quit this war, first of all they will not encourage the war,” Orban said. “Europe cannot finance this war alone ... some still want to continue sending enormous amounts of money into this lost war but the number of those who remain silent ...and those who cautiously voice that we should adjust to the new situation, is growing.”
United Nations warily awaits Donald Trump’s return to power
- Concerns at UN about Washington’s budget contributions
- Trump expected to withdraw from climate deal again
- UN has done ‘prudent planning’ ahead of Trump return
GENEVA: The United Nations has been planning for the possible return of Donald Trump and the cuts to US funding and engagement with world body that are likely to come with his second term as president.
There was a sense of “déjà vu and some trepidation” at the 193-member world body, said one senior Asian diplomat, as Republican Trump won Tuesday’s US election over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
“There is also some hope that a transactional administration will engage the UN on some areas even if it were to defund some dossiers. After all, what bigger and better global stage is there than the United Nations?” said the diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A US retreat at the UN could open the door for China, which has been building its influence in global diplomacy.
Trump has offered few specifics about foreign policy in his second term but supporters say the force of his personality and his “peace through strength” approach will help bend foreign leaders to his will. He has vowed to solve the war in Ukraine and is expected to give strong support to Israel in its conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah in Gaza and southern Lebanon.
Among the top concerns at the UN are whether the United States will decide to contribute less money to the world body and withdraw from key multinational institutions and agreements, including the world Heath Organization and the Paris climate agreement.
US funding is the immediate worry. Washington is the UN’s largest contributor — with China second — accounting for 22 percent of the core UN budget and 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget.
A country can be up to two years in arrears before facing the possible repercussion of losing its General Assembly vote.
’Extremely hard’
Trump came to power last time proposing to cut about a third off US diplomacy and aid budgets, which included steep reductions in funding for UN peacekeeping and international organizations. But Congress, which sets the federal US government budget, pushed back on Trump’s proposal.
A UN spokesperson said at the time the proposed cuts would have made it impossible to continue all essential work.
“The UN secretariat has known that they could face a Trump comeback all year. There has been prudent planning behind the scenes on how to manage potential US budget cuts,” said Richard Gowan, UN director at the International Crisis Group.
“So (UN Secretary-General Antonio) Guterres and his team are not totally unprepared, but they know the next year will be extremely hard,” he said.
Trump’s team did not immediately respond to a query about his policy toward the UN after he takes office in January.
During his first term, Trump complained that the US was shouldering an unfair burden of the cost of the UN and pushed for reforms. Washington is traditionally slow to pay and when Trump left office in 2021 the US was in arrears about $600 million for the core budget and $2 billion for peacekeeping.
According to UN figures, President Joe Biden’s administration currently owes $995 million for the core UN budget and $862 million for the peacekeeping budget.
“I don’t want to pre-empt or speak about policies that may or may not happen, but we work with member states in the way we’ve always worked with member states,” Guterres’ spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters on Wednesday.
In 2026, the UN Security Council will choose Guterres’ successor, a decision in which the Trump administration will hold a veto power.
’Great news for China’
During Trump’s first term, he was critical of the United Nations and wary of multilateralism. He announced plans to quit the World Health Organization, and pulled out of the UN Human Rights Council, the UN cultural agency UNESCO, a global climate change accord and the Iran nuclear deal.
When Biden succeeded him in 2021, he rescinded the US decision to withdraw from the WHO and returned the US to UNESCO and the climate agreement. Trump’s campaign has said he would quit the climate deal again if he won office.
“It will survive. But, of course, it will probably survive severely undermined,” Guterres told Reuters in September of a second withdrawal from the climate pact by Trump.
Ahead of the US election, a senior European diplomat said a Trump win would be “great news for China,” recalling that during Trump’s first term “the Chinese influence in the UN increased a lot because it was an open bar for the Chinese.”
The diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that if Trump again cuts UN funding and withdraws from international pacts “it will just give China the opportunity to present itself as the supporter number one of multilateralism.”
US funding for some other UN agencies is also in question. One of the first moves by the Trump administration in 2017 was to cut funding for UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the international body’s agency focused on family planning as well as maternal and child health in more than 150 countries.
Trump’s administration said UNFPA “supports ... a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” The UN said that was an inaccurate perception. Biden restored US funding for UNFPA.
If Trump again cuts funding, UNFPA warned that “women will lose lifesaving services in some of the world’s most devastating crises” in places like Afghanistan, Sudan and Ukraine.
Under Trump’s first presidency, the US also opposed long-agreed international language on women’s sexual and reproductive rights and health in UN resolutions over concern that it would advance abortion rights.
A senior African diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, summed up the impending return of Trump for multilateralism and the United Nations: “The heavens help us.”
