US allows UN denounce Israeli settlements

December 24, 2016

United Nations, Dec 24: Defying heavy pressure, the US today allowed the UN Security Council to pass a resolution demanding Israel to halt settlements in Palestinian territory as it abstained from wielding its veto in the powerful world body.

israelThe 15-nation Council adopted yesterday the resolution by a vote of 14 in favour and with one abstention from the US.

In a rare step, the United States instead abstained, enabling the adoption of the first UN resolution since 1979 to condemn Israel over its settlement policy.

The resolution had been put forward by Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela.

In the resolution, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard".

As the resolution, which had more symbolic value and is unlikely to change the situation on ground between Israel and Palestine, was adopted, the Council broke into a huge round of applause as envoys of the permanent and non-permanent members lauded the decision.

The adoption of the resolution and Washington's abstention was seen as a huge rebuke to Israel, which has traditionally been a staunch US ally.

Trump had put pressure on the Obama administration to veto the UN resolution critical of Israel.

A day before the vote, Trump said in a post on social network Facebook that the resolution being considered at the UN Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed.

"As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis," he had said.

Following the adoption of the resolution, Trump made his displeasure clear, tweeting "As to the UN, things will be different after January 20," referring to the day when he is sworn in as the next US President.

"There is one president at a time," Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security adviser, told reporters, dismissing Trump's criticism.

US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, in Washington's explanation of vote on the resolution, said the vote for US was "not straightforward" because of "for as long as Israel has been a member" of the UN, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations.

She said it is America's commitment to Israel's security that makes the United States believe it cannot stand in the way of this resolution as it seeks to preserve a chance of attaining the long-standing objective: two states living side-by-side in peace and security.

"The settlement problem has gotten so much worse that it is now putting at risk the very viability of that two-state solution. The number of settlers in the roughly 150 authorized Israeli settlements east of the 1967 lines has increased dramatically.

Yet rather than dismantling these and other settler outposts, which are illegal even under Israeli law, now there is new legislation advancing in the Israeli Knesset that would legalize most of the outposts – a factor that propelled the decision by this resolution's sponsors to bring it before the Council," she said.

Power added the US did not veto the resolution because it reflects the facts on the ground and is consistent with US policy across Republican and Democratic administration throughout the history of the State of Israel.

Outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the adoption of the resolution which stated that the establishment of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, have "no legal validity", constitute a "flagrant violation" under international law and are a "major obstacle" to a two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

"The resolution is a significant step, demonstrating the Council's much needed leadership and the international community's collective efforts to reconfirm that the vision of two States is still achievable," the UN chief's spokesperson said in a statement.

"The Secretary-General takes this opportunity to encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to work with the international community to create a conducive environment for a return to meaningful negotiations," the spokesperson added.

Israel's Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon responded harshly to the American decision not to veto the UN Security Council resolution: "Neither the Security Council nor UNESCO can sever the tie between the people of Israel and the land of Israel".

Danon added that it was "expected" that Israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that "we share and that they would have vetoed this disgraceful resolution".

"I have no doubt that the new US administration and the incoming UN Secretary General will usher in a new era in terms of the UN's relationship with Israel," he said.

Leading human rights group Human Rights Watch lauded the adoption of the resolution saying the US abstention is a welcome shift away from past practice of "using its Security Council veto to shield Israel from criticism despite longstanding US policy opposing settlements".

The Council vote "rebukes" those seeking to reverse universally accepted international law on the illegality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

UN Director at Human Rights Watch Louis Charbonneau said indications that Trump may change US policy on settlements "reinforces" the need for a steadfast Security Council position, adding that Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela should be commended for pushing this resolution forward after Egypt "balked under political pressure before voting in favour of the final resolution".

The Council also underlined that it will not recognize any changes to the June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.

The resolution called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, and for accountability in that regard, as well as for both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and previous agreements and obligations, "to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric".

Comments

shaji
 - 
Sunday, 25 Dec 2016

UN should also levy penalty on israel and make them pay for allt he losses they did to palestinians since 1967. Israel should withdraw from all the ocupied land.

shaji
 - 
Sunday, 25 Dec 2016

UN should pass a bill to curb and halt terorists state of Israel from occupying palestine land and withdraw immedaitely. As there is no chance that terror israel state will give any attention to US Resolution, i reqeust UN to pass on a resolution to isolate Israel and ban all flight servicdes to and from this terror state. However, even if this terrorits state do not honour UN resolution, UN should give freedom to Nato forces to attack israel. Isolation will definately work. Let this terrorist state suffer. Any country supporting Israel should also be given warning.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 3,2020

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 2,2020

Jun 2: A new female billionaire has emerged from one of Asia's most-expensive breakups.

Du Weimin, the chairman of Shenzhen Kangtai Biological Products Co., transferred 161.3 million shares of the vaccine maker to his ex-wife, Yuan Liping, according to a May 29 filing, immediately catapulting her into the ranks of the world's richest.

The stock was worth $3.2 billion as of Monday's close.

Yuan, 49 this year, owns the shares directly, but signed an agreement delegating the voting rights to her ex-husband, the filing shows. The Canadian citizen, who resides in Shenzhen, served as a director of Kangtai between May 2011 and August 2018. She's now the vice general manager of subsidiary Beijing Minhai Biotechnology Co. Yuan holds a bachelor's degree in economics from Beijing's University of International Business and Economics.

Kangtai shares have more than doubled in the past year and have continued their ascent since February, when the company announced a plan to develop a vaccine to fight the coronavirus. They slipped for a second day Tuesday following news of the divorce terms, losing 3.1% as of 9:43 a.m. in Hong Kong and bringing the company's market value to $12.9 billion.

Du's net worth has now dropped to about $3.1 billion from $6.5 billion before the split, excluding his pledged shares.

The 56-year-old was born into a farming family in China's Jiangxi province. After studying chemistry in college, he began working in a clinic in 1987 and became a sales manager for a biotech company in 1995, according to the prospectus of Kangtai's 2017 initial public offering. In 2009, Kangtai acquired Minhai, the company Du founded in 2004, and he became the chairman of the combined entity.

China's rapidly growing economy has been an engine for the country's richest, and Du is not the only tycoon who's had to pay a steep price for a divorce. In 2012, Wu Yajun, at one point the nation's richest woman, transferred a stake worth about $2.3 billion to her ex-husband, Cai Kui, who co-founded developer Longfor Group Holdings Ltd. In 2016, tech billionaire Zhou Yahui gave $1.1 billion of shares in his online gaming company, Beijing Kunlun Tech Co., to ex-wife Li Qiong after a civil court settlement.

Sometimes, a goodbye can be time-consuming too. South Korean tycoon Chey Tae-won's wife filed a lawsuit in December asking for a 42.3% stake in SK Holdings Co. valued at $1.2 billion. That would make her the second-largest shareholder of the company should she win the case, which is still ongoing.

The most expensive divorce in history is that of Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos. The Amazon.com Inc. founder gave 4% of the online retailer to Mackenzie, who now has a $48 billion fortune and is the world's fourth-richest woman.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 1,2020

Jun 1: The new coronavirus is losing its potency and has become much less lethal, a senior Italian doctor said on Sunday.

"In reality, the virus clinically no longer exists in Italy," said Alberto Zangrillo, the head of the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan in the northern region of Lombardy, which has borne the brunt of Italy's coronavirus contagion.

"The swabs that were performed over the last 10 days showed a viral load in quantitative terms that was absolutely infinitesimal compared to the ones carried out a month or two months ago," he told RAI television.

Italy has the third-highest death toll in the world from COVID-19, with 33,415 people dying since the outbreak came to light on Feb. 21. It has the sixth-highest global tally of cases at 233,019.

However new infections and fatalities have fallen steadily in May and the country is unwinding some of the most rigid lockdown restrictions introduced anywhere on the continent.

Zangrillo said some experts were too alarmist about the prospect of a second wave of infections and politicians needed to take into account the new reality.

"We've got to get back to being a normal country," he said. "Someone has to take responsibility for terrorizing the country."

The government urged caution, saying it was far too soon to claim victory.

"Pending scientific evidence to support the thesis that the virus has disappeared ... I would invite those who say they are sure of it not to confuse Italians," Sandra Zampa, an undersecretary at the health ministry, said in a statement.

"We should instead invite Italians to maintain the maximum caution, maintain physical distancing, avoid large groups, to frequently wash their hands and to wear masks."

A second doctor from northern Italy told the national ANSA news agency that he was also seeing the coronavirus weaken. "The strength the virus had two months ago is not the same strength it has today," said Matteo Bassetti, head of the infectious diseases clinic at the San Martino hospital in the city of Genoa.

"It is clear that today the COVID-19 disease is different."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.