Trump stated that lowering oil prices would immediately bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, arguing that the high oil prices are prolonging the conflict. He emphasized that Gulf nations should have taken such measures long ago, as they bear partial responsibility for regional developments.

During his campaign, Trump frequently highlighted the need to end the Ukraine war. Earlier this week, he warned that if an agreement on Ukraine is not reached soon, he would impose heavy taxes, tariffs, and sanctions on goods imported from Russia into the U.S.

Reuters reported that as Trump increases pressure on Moscow to end the war, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed concern about the economic strain the conflict has placed on Russia, a country heavily reliant on oil and gas exports.

Trump also called on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to increase Saudi investments in the U.S. from $600 billion to $1 trillion, calling the crown prince “an extraordinary man.” He expressed confidence that Riyadh would agree, citing strong relations between the two nations.

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, nearing its third year, has no clear resolution in sight. Trump’s proposals highlight the interplay between global oil markets, geopolitical tensions, and economic strategies as potential levers to end the conflict.

Trump’s push for increased Saudi investment and his call to lower oil prices reflect his broader strategy of leveraging economic influence to achieve political goals. However, the effectiveness of these measures in addressing the Ukraine conflict and stabilizing global markets remains uncertain.

The post Trump urges Gulf Nations to lower Oil Prices and $1 Trillion Saudi investment in US appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

The number of non-Korean nationals leaving the island without authorization, along with brokers facilitating their illegal entry, is increasing steadily. Non-Koreans entering Jeju Island via the visa-free system may stay without a visa for up to 30 days, but are generally not permitted to travel to the mainland, which is just 83 kilometers away.

According to the Jeju Coast Guard, there were seven cases of unauthorized attempts to reach the mainland in 2024 involving individuals who entered Jeju Island through its visa-free entry system.

A total of 18 people, including foreign nationals and Korean brokers, have been caught, while authorities believe many more have evaded detection. Among them, eight were Chinese, one was Vietnamese, five were Indonesian and four were Korean brokers accused of facilitating the illegal departures. Sixteen of the suspects have been arrested.

The number of such cases surged compared to 2023, when only two incidents were reported, leading to the arrest of four individuals.

In recent years, there have been growing concerns about foreign nationals abusing visa systems in other Northeast Asian countries like Japan. According to Japan’s immigration statistics, nearly 150,000 foreign nationals overstayed their visas in 2020, with a significant number entering on short-term tourist visas and then staying in the country illegally. In 2020, Korea reported around 80,000 foreign nationals overstaying their visas, with many entering on short-term tourist visas and staying illegally, according to the Korea Immigration Service.

Jeju Island implemented a visa-free entry system to promote tourism, allowing travelers from 111 countries to stay for up to 30 days without a visa, with the goal of boosting tourism. The program was temporarily suspended in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic but began to be gradually reinstated in April 2023.

However, authorities have noted a growing number of cases where individuals exploit the policy to leave the island illegally to enter the mainland and engage in illegal activities such as unauthorized employment.

Many are using ports, where inspections are less stringent than at airports, to evade detection. Police warn that these methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

On Jan. 15 this year, police arrested 11 Vietnamese nationals attempting to depart Jeju Island for the mainland, along with a Korean broker who helped them.

The group — seven men and four women — was caught hiding inside a 5-ton cargo truck at Pier 6 of Jeju Port, attempting to board a ship bound for Wando, an island county in southwestern Korea. Investigators believe they entered Jeju under the visa-free entry system with the intention of working in other parts of Korea.

Many unauthorized departures follow a similar pattern, with individuals concealing themselves in vans or trucks to evade detection. Some hide inside cargo trucks carrying tangerines from Jeju, while others endure long periods inside freezer truck iceboxes to avoid detection.

The brokers receive a fee of around 2.5 million won ($1,746) per person from the visitors, often lowering the fee through negotiations when facilitating group departures. They have been profiting from these illegal activities by arranging unauthorized exits.

An official at the Jeju Coast Guard reported that the number of illegal movements by non-Koreans entering Jeju visa-free has been rising since last year. The crimes are becoming more sophisticated and organized, involving transportation networks, mediation groups and overseas brokers.

In response, authorities plan to intensify their crackdown on maritime border crimes by analyzing evolving patterns. Police have also urged the public to report any suspicious ships or vehicles related to visa violations to nearby coast guards, immigration offices or maritime fisheries management teams.

The post More travelers abuse Jeju’s visa-free system to enter Korea illegally appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

When Dayana Castro heard that the U.S. asylum appointment she waited over a year for was canceled in an instant, she had no doubt: She was heading north any way she could.

The 25-year-old migrant, her husband and their 4- and 7-year-old children had nothing left at home in Venezuela. They already had trekked the perilous Darien Gap jungle dividing Colombia and Panama and criminal groups that prey on migrants like them.

Castro was one of tens of thousands of migrants across Mexico with appointments to apply for U.S. asylum at the border scheduled out through February until President Donald Trump took office and issued a series of executive orders to beef up border security and slash migration. One ended the use of the CBP One app that had allowed nearly 1 million people, many seeking asylum, to legally enter the U.S. since January 2023.

“We’re going to keep going. We can’t go home after all we’ve been through, after all the countries we’ve fought our way through, only to give up now,” she said from a small shelter in central Mexico beside a freight train line they were riding north.

Now, migrants like her are adjusting to a new and uncertain reality. Many remain determined to reach the U.S. through more dangerous means, riding freight trains, hiring smugglers and dodging authorities. Some lined up in Mexico’s refugee offices to seek asylum in that country, while others contemplated finding a way back home.

Trump on Monday declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border and announced plans to send U.S. troops and restrict refugees and asylum, saying he wants to halt illegal entry and border crime. The measures follow a drop in illegal crossings in recent months.

Supporters of the CBP One app that people like Castro used to try to enter legally say it brought order to a chaotic border. Critics say it was magnet for more people to come.

Adam Isacson, defense oversight analyst for the human rights organization Washington Office on Latin America, said Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration will surely deter migrants in the short term but will also have cascading humanitarian consequences.

People with valid asylum claims may die in their own countries, he said, while migrants fleeing countries like Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti who cannot easily return home may end up floating around the Americas “completely unprotected.” Isacson and other analysts expect Trump’s policies will lead to increased demand for smugglers and push migrants — many of whom are children and families — to more dangerous terrain to avoid capture.

By Tuesday, Castro was wrapping her mind around the fact that continuing on after her Feb. 18 appointment with U.S. authorities was canceled would likely mean putting her life, and the lives of her family, at risk as cartels are increasingly extorting and kidnapping vulnerable migrants.

“There’s the train, the cartels, migration police, and they all make you pay them,” she said as she fed her children bread beside a small shelter where they slept. “But if we don’t put ourselves at risk, we’ll never arrive.”

Along Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala another group of migrants in Tapachula took a different approach.

Cuban migrant Rosalí Martínez waited in line outside the Mexican Commission for Refugee Aid in the sweltering southern city. Traveling with her child, she had hoped to reunite with her husband in the U.S.

Now, she was biding her time, joining an increasing number of migrants who have sought asylum in Mexico in recent years, either temporarily due to shifting American restrictions or more permanently.

Like many Cubans in recent years, Martínez was fleeing a spiraling economic crisis.

“I’m going to stay here and see what happens,” she said. But “I’m not going back to Cuba. I’ll become a Mexican citizen, but there’s no way I’m going back to Cuba.”

Others like 42-year-old Jomaris Figuera and her husband want to throw in the towel after years trying to build a life outside Venezuela, where economic and political crises have prompted nearly 8 million people to flee in recent years.

They spent more than four years picking coffee in neighboring Colombia, but struggling to make ends meet, they decided to traverse the Darien Gap. They waited nearly a year and a half for a legal pathway to the U.S. in a wooden shelter in a crime-riddled migrant camp in the center of Mexico City.

But due to Venezuela’s crises, they have no passports. And without money, they fear their only pathway back will be traveling south through Mexico and Central America, and walking days through the same rugged mountains of the Darien Gap.

Anything would be better than staying in Mexico, said Figuera.

“It’s like abandoning everything after everything that’s happened to us,” she said. “But after trying to get an appointment, and this happens, we’ve given up.”

The post Asylum-seekers pushed to new extremes in Mexico after Trump’s border crackdown begins appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

According to the 2024 survey conducted by the Ministry of Unification, 57.2 percent of respondents said they want to see their loved ones in North Korea, down from 65.8 percent in 2021. The demand to visit their hometowns in the North dropped by 26.7 percentage points, while the demand for letter exchanges also declined by about 8 percentage points.

The survey gathered responses from 35,542 South Koreans and 475 Koreans living abroad, primarily in the U.S. They had all registered themselves on a list of people believed to have family ties in the North.

The two Koreas remain technically at war as the Korean War ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty. Since the first Seoul-Pyongyang summit in 2000, the two sides have held 21 rounds of in-person family reunions, including the latest one in August 2018. Since then, almost all forms of exchanges have been halted amid North Korea’s continued nuclear and missile provocations.

The unification ministry noted that the latest results reflect lowered expectations about the possibility of direct relatives in the North still surviving. It also mentioned that the survey cycle was shortened from five to three years, as more South Koreans have passed away of old age without the opportunity to reunite with their relatives in North Korea.

According to the results, 63.6 percent of those living in South Korea and 60.9 percent of those living abroad are currently over the age of 80.

Nearly 76 percent of respondents said they are unable to confirm whether their long-lost relatives are still alive in the North.

Data shows that of the 134,291 South Koreans on the waiting list for government-arranged reunions, 97,350 have passed away as of last month.

In terms of policy priorities, 77.2 percent of respondents said the most urgent need is for the government to find out if their family members in the North are still alive and to be notified when they die. About 37.5 percent requested regular family reunions, followed by letter exchanges (18.2 percent) and virtual reunions (11.8 percent). Respondents were allowed to select more than one policy priority.

In an in-depth interview with 5,103 selected participants in the latest survey, 55.3 percent of respondents expressed a desire to know whether their family members in the North are still alive. However, 19.4 percent said they no longer wish to find out.

About 14.4 percent selected in-person reunions as their preference, followed by just 3.5 percent who expressed their wishes to visit their hometowns in the North.

“We will establish and promote policies for inter-Korean separated families that better meet their demands considering changes in preferences and the aging of separated families,” a unification ministry official said.

The government designated Aug. 13 on the lunar calendar, or two days before the Chuseok holiday, as Separated Families Day in 2023 as part of broader efforts to raise awareness about the issue of separated families.

The post More South Koreans give up on reuniting with long-lost relatives in North: survey appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

The post Live blog: Lebanon wants withdrawal of Israeli weapons from country’s south appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

After a nine-year tenure, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation following a collapse in support. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has dominated the polls for months, driven by his commitment to “commonsense” economic reforms, and he’s widely expected to become Canada’s next head of government after the next federal election. In American terms, he’s more Ron DeSantis than Donald Trump, best demonstrated in a viral interview where he calmly chomps on an apple as he destroys a hostile reporter.

Canadian politics aren’t exactly known for their excitement, but the Trudeau years sure created some drama. After a century of friendship, a progressive Canada has diverged from the U.S. both economically and culturally. This all seems alien to most Americans.

Back in his stand-up comedy days, Jon Stewart related a conversation with a Canadian fan. “What do Americans really think about Canada?” a woman asked. Stewart replied, “We don’t.” And for the past century, there wasn’t much need to.

When Americans considered their northern neighbor, they saw a slightly more British and polite version of ourselves. As a child, my grandparents would drive me from their home in Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., to spend a day in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Sure, the traffic signs looked odd and the currency was more colorful, but the cities looked about the same on both sides of the International Bridge.

That perspective is no longer the reality thanks to Trudeau’s increasing antagonism toward both America and her ideals. His primary victim, of course, was Canada herself.

Let’s start with economics. Between 2009 and 2019, America’s GDP grew by 27%, while Canada’s expanded by 25%. Par for the course. Since then, however, America’s economy has grown by 11%, while Canada’s has only grown by 6%. And over the course of Trudeau’s tenure, his country’s national debt increased about 180%.

According to the IMF, Canada’s per capita income has fallen to about 70% of America’s, compared to 80% just five years ago. That makes Canada now the economic equivalent of Alabama, the fourth-poorest state in the union. Meanwhile, the Great White North’s unemployment rate has risen to 6.8%, a figure that has steadily grown over the past 18 months. For the U.S., it’s just 4.2%.

This economic divergence is all the more startling, given the $2 billion in trade that crosses our common border daily, along with 400,000 people, and that 90% of all Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border. A citizen’s financial life today is very different depending on which side of the International Bridge they live. (And if you’re going to cross it, a gallon of gas is about a dollar cheaper in Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.)

The cultural divergence is hard to measure but even harder not to notice. The reign of Justin dramatically shifted Canada to the left, just as his father Pierre’s did a generation earlier.

Trudeau fils harshly punished dissent against Canada’s restrictive COVID-19 mandates, jailing pastors and even freezing the bank accounts of its critics. He also tried to criminalize any “communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

In 2021, Trudeau’s Liberal government pushed a scandalous claim that a mass grave of 215 children was discovered beside a religious residential school for First Nations students. The result was a mob-fueled pogrom in which 112 Canadian churches were vandalized or burned down. Years after the fact, no evidence has been found of the supposed graves, yet Trudeau hasn’t backed down from the allegation.

Canada also has distanced itself from American foreign policy, embracing a more passive role with both China and Israel. It did align more or less with Biden’s environmental agenda, soft-on-crime policies, passion for gun control and ethical failures. But those aren’t selling with voters in either country.

President-elect Trump responded to Trudeau’s hostility with threats, which sounded less like intended outcomes than opening offers for negotiation. Trump proposed a 25% tariff on all Canadian goods and repeatedly joked about the Great White North becoming our 51st state. But this is the same Trump who, in his first term, worked closely with Canada and Mexico to replace NAFTA with the USMCA, an agreement that benefitted all three nations.

As Trudeau stumbled off the stage, Poilievre promised to respond to any tariffs by fighting “fire with fire,” while at the same time pushing to increase Canadian exports to the U.S. Both nations will benefit from constructive economic engagement, a fact the two new leaders will be eager to accept.

Trump and Poilievre also agree on stronger border controls to fight illegal immigration, drug trafficking and terrorism. While Trump shouts “America first,” Poilievre responds with “Canada first.”

A robust military is also promised by both leaders, where the need for close collaboration is obvious. Gone are the days of a military focused more on gender inclusivity than readiness, especially given the threats posed by China and Russia.

No doubt Trump will be a challenging personality for Poilievre to handle, but the expected Canadian PM is far more politically aligned with the president-elect than Trudeau could ever hope to be. Both nations will pursue their aims with a cautious pragmatism, finding common ground in policy while clashing in personal temperament.

A resurgent Canada will even lead to beneficial competition between the two nations. Coming from Alberta, the Texas of the north, Poilievre will likely prioritize drilling for oil and increased mining, further motivating the U.S. to do likewise. He’s also expected to greenlight energy projects to strengthen Canada’s position as a reliable energy partner for its southern neighbor.

Right now, the big question is when will a new prime minister take office? Trudeau remains a caretaker prime minister but has prorogued Parliament until March. Canadian law requires a new election by October, but the Liberal Party first needs to choose a leader. Until Poilievre actually assumes the high office, expect a lot more “51st state” memes from Team Trump.

The post The Coming Thaw appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

Opposition parties unilaterally passed the bill during a subcommittee meeting of the National Assembly’s legislation and judiciary committee. Lawmakers of the ruling People Power Party (PPP) boycotted the vote in protest of the bill.

The new version proposes that the Supreme Court’s chief justice recommend a special counsel to look into Yoon’s insurrection charges in an apparent effort to secure more defection votes from the PPP.

The main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) also excludes a clause that allows opposition parties to request a new recommendation in the event the proposed candidate is deemed unfit.

Instead, the revised bill expands the scope of the investigation to include fresh allegations of “treason” committed by Yoon against his own country. The DPK claims Yoon attempted to provoke military attacks from North Korea to justify his plans for martial law declaration.

“It is difficult to say that the overall arrangement, plan and implementation process of the insurrection have been fully revealed,” DPK Rep. Park Beom-kye, the subcommittee chair, said.

Park stressed that the special counsel should investigate the insurrection more broadly than previously investigated by the prosecution, police and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials.

To address concerns about the potential leakage of military information, searches and seizures will be allowed but details will be prohibited from being disclosed during press briefings.

The number of prosecutors and investigators dispatched will also be reduced from 205 to 155, and the investigation period has been shortened from 170 days to 150 days.

The previous bill, which proposed special counsel recommendations from the DPK and the minor opposition Rebuilding Korea Party, was scrapped Wednesday after being voted down by just two votes.

When the new bill passes the plenary session of the legislation and judiciary committee Monday, it is expected to advance to a full floor vote next week. (Yonhap)

The post Parliamentary subcommittee passes new special counsel bill to investigate Yoon’s martial law bid appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

Venezuela’s legislative palace, where he was sworn in and delivered a fiery speech, was heavily guarded by security forces who have become Maduro’s main hold on power since last summer’s disputed election. Crowds of people, many sporting pro-Maduro T-shirts, gathered in adjacent streets and a nearby plaza.

Maduro, likening himself to a biblical David fighting Goliath, accused his opponents and their supporters in the U.S. of trying to turn his inauguration into a “world war.” He said his enemies’ failure to block his inauguration to a third, six-year term was “a great victory” for Venezuela’s peace and national sovereignty.

“Today more than ever I feel the weight of commitment, the power that I represent, the power that the constitution grants me,” he said, after being draped with a sash in the red, yellow and blue of Venezuela’s flag. “I have not been made president by the government of the United States, nor by the pro-imperialist governments of Latin America.”

State TV said 10 heads of state attended. But far more governments around the world have rejected his victory claims, pointing to credible evidence validated by election observers that his previously unknown opponent, Edmundo González, won by a more than two-to-one margin.

To underscore Maduro’s growing isolation, the Biden administration, Canada, the U.K. and European Union announced a coordinated round of new sanctions Friday on more than 20 officials, accusing them of gutting Venezuela’s democracy. They include the loyalist Supreme Court justices, electoral authorities, the head of Venezuela’s state oil company and cabinet ministers.

The backslapping among government insiders in downtown Caracas on Friday contrasted sharply with the hundreds of Venezuelans who took to the streets Thursday to protest Maduro’s power grab.

The protest took place in relative calm but after it ended, the popular former lawmaker María Corina Machado — the driving force of what’s left of Venezuela’s beleaguered opposition — was briefly detained when her motorcycle convoy was intercepted by security forces. An hour later, as international condemnation poured in, she appeared in a 20-second video published by the government saying she had dropped her purse.

“I’m safe,” she said in the video, which the opposition said was coerced. “Venezuela will be free.”

Machado, whom the government has barred from running for office, had emerged from months of hiding to join the rally and demand González be sworn in instead of Maduro. Maduro’s supporters denied she was arrested, accusing his opponents of spreading fake news to generate an international crisis.

Maduro’s 2018 election was widely rejected as a sham after authorities banned key opponents from running. And Venezuela’s opposition faction accuse him of outright ballot fraud last year.

Their proof: tally sheets collected from 85% of electronic voting machines that show González won by a landslide. Experts from the United Nations and the Atlanta-based Carter Center, whom Maduro invited to observe the election, said the voting records posted online by the opposition look legitimate.

Nevertheless, electoral authorities loyal to the ruling party declared Maduro the winner hours after polls closed on July 28 but, unlike in previous presidential elections, they did not provide detailed vote counts.

Global condemnation over the lack of transparency prompted Maduro to ask the country’s high court — which like every other institution in Venezuela is packed with loyalists — to audit the results. As expected, the court reaffirmed Maduro’s victory.

The dispute over the results sparked nationwide protests. The government responded with full force, arresting more than 2,000 demonstrators and encouraging Venezuelans to report anyone they suspect to be a ruling-party adversary. More than 20 people were killed during the unrest. Dozens of foreigners — including as many as 10 Americans — were also rounded up.

Outside Friday’s inauguration ceremony, Maduro’s supporters were overjoyed. One of them was Maricarmen Ruiz, 18, who couldn’t hold back her tears.

“I don’t have words to express my emotion, I’m happy,” she said, expressing relief that González wasn’t “imposed” instead as president.

Among those seen attending Maduro’s inauguration were Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega and Cuba’s Miguel Diaz-Canel. But several Maduro allies stayed home, including Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who cited the recent arrest of another longtime Venezuelan opposition member and a human rights defender as his reason for missing the event.

González, who left for exile in Spain in September, had pledged to return to Venezuela by Friday to take oath himself. He faces arrest should he follow through on the promise.

On Tuesday, González said his son-in-law had been kidnapped in Caracas by masked gunmen while taking his young children to school. González’s daughter, Mariana González de Tudares, in a statement accused the government of ordering her husband’s disappearance.

“At what point did being related to Edmundo González Urrutia become a crime?” she said.

The post Venezuela’s Maduro takes new oath amid protests and international rebuke appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

Han’s dismissal comes less than two weeks after he assumed the acting presidency following President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment by the Assembly on Dec. 14 for his botched martial law imposition. This marks the first time in Korean history that both the president and prime minister — the top two figures in the government hierarchy — have been simultaneously suspended from their duties.

The impeachment motion against Han, submitted by the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) on Thursday, was approved in a plenary session with 192 of the 300-seat Assembly voting in favor.

While the vote was unanimous, it appeared to be railroaded by opposition lawmakers, as the broader opposition bloc holds all 192 seats, while the ruling People Power Party (PPP) boycotted the vote.

The PPP, which holds the remaining 108 seats, did not participate in the vote, protesting against the Assembly speaker’s decision regarding the quorum requirement of 151 votes. The rival parties had been at odds over the required voting threshold for the acting president’s impeachment.

Under the Constitution, the passage of an impeachment motion against the prime minister requires a majority of the 300-seat Assembly, or 151 votes. Impeaching a president, however, requires the approval of at least two-thirds of the total Assembly members, or 200 votes in favor.

The DPK argued that Han, who is technically serving as prime minister, falls under the majority-vote requirement, while the PPP contended that Han should be treated as a president.

Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik determined that Han’s impeachment requires 151 ballots.

“This is an impeachment motion against Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. In accordance with Article 65 Clause 2 of the Constitution, it will be approved by a majority of total members. While there are differing views on the quorum, the subject of this impeachment motion is the prime minister, who is temporarily exercising presidential power,” Woo said before the voting.

PPP members strongly protested, chanting slogans such as “the speaker should resign,” and “abuse of power.” They left the Chamber as the vote count began.

Following the passage of the impeachment motion, the Constitutional Court has 180 days to decide whether to uphold Han’s impeachment. In the meantime, Han’s duties will be suspended, and Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok, who also serves as minister of economy and finance, will assume interim leadership.

“I respect the decision of the National Assembly, and in order to prevent further confusion and uncertainties, my duties will be suspended in accordance with relevant laws, while I will wait for the swift and wise decision of the Constitutional Court,” Han said in a statement, shortly after his impeachment motion was passed.

The DPK filed the impeachment motion, Thursday, shortly after Han delayed the appointment of three Constitutional Court justice nominees who had won parliamentary approval.

The opposition has been pushing for the quick appointment of justices to fill three vacancies on the nine-member Constitutional Court, as a full bench would increase the likelihood of endorsing Yoon’s impeachment.

The PPP has countered that Han, as acting president, does not have the authority to appoint justices until Yoon is formally impeached.

In a televised briefing on Thursday, Han stated that he would not approve the appointments until the ruling and opposition blocs reached an agreement on the matter.

The DPK also argued that the prime minister deserved impeachment for additional reasons, including his veto of special probe bills targeting the presidential couple, his alleged involvement in Yoon’s botched martial law imposition, and his attempt earlier this month to establish a power-sharing arrangement with then-PPP leader Han Dong-hoon. The party claimed that these actions lacked legal grounds.

DPK leader Rep. Lee Jae-myung described Han’s impeachment as part of the party’s efforts to dismantle what he referred to as “rebellion forces” linked to Yoon’s martial law fallout.

“We will mobilize all resources and fulfill our historical responsibility until Yoon Suk Yeol is removed from office, his loyalist forces are eradicated, and the rebellion is fully suppressed,” Lee said during a briefing, hours before the impeachment vote.

The PPP criticized the opposition’s move, calling the DPK “a serial impeachment offender.”

“This is already the 29th impeachment motion under the incumbent administration,” said PPP acting leader Rep. Kweon Seong-dong, questioning whether other Cabinet members would also face impeachment.

The governing party filed a complaint to the Constitutional Court against the Assembly speaker shortly after the motion was passed, claiming that Han’s impeachment lacks legal basis.

“Despite the fact that the prime minister holds the role of acting president, his failure to apply the quorum threshold for the president is a major violation of the Constitution,” the party said in a statement.

Following Han’s impeachment, Choi, the deputy prime minister, will assume the role of acting president.

However, it remains uncertain whether Choi, a seasoned economist who also serves as finance minister, will cooperate with the opposition parties in appointing Constitutional Court justices. It is also unclear how active he will be in exercising power in this unprecedented situation, where leadership has passed to the No. 3 figure in the government hierarchy.

“Minimizing the chaos in state affairs is the most urgent task right now. The government will put all of its efforts into maintaining robust security, a stable economy, and law and order, so that the safety of the nation and people’s daily lives are not disrupted,” Choi said in a public address, following Han’s suspension of duty.

Before the parliamentary vote on Han’s impeachment, Choi had requested the DPK to reconsider its move, expressing concerns that ousting the acting president would deal a heavy blow to the nation’s economy.

“The absence of a control tower for state affairs will deal a severe blow to Korea’s credibility, security, the economy and continuity of governance, as already evident in the sharp weakening of the won against the dollar,” Choi said during a press briefing.

The post Opposition impeaches acting president for refusing to appoint Constitutional Court justices appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

The law, comprising one segment covering the State Department and another for the Department of Defence, prohibits the use of US assistance to the units of foreign security forces suspected of committing gross violations of human rights (GVHRs). The proviso for restoring that assistance can only take place if the offending entity in question takes adequate steps to address the violations.

Examples of such violations include torture, extrajudicial killing, prolonged detention without charge and trial, enforced disappearance, rape and, as broadly noted in the Leahy Law’s own definition “other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of the person.”

The action, supported by Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on Blinken’s “de facto refusal to implement the statute prohibiting US assistance to Israeli security force units about which there is credible information that they have committed gross violations of human rights.”

Blinken’s record when applying the Leahy Law to Israeli units is disturbingly scrappy. In May, for instance, he explained to Congress that the punishments meted out to soldiers and officers in four cases prior to 7 October 2023, were adequate. One example deserves attention, involving an officer in the Shahar Search and Rescue Battalion of the Israeli occupation forces.

The soldier in question shot and killed Ahmed Manasra, an unarmed Palestinian, in March 2019. A plea deal reached between the military prosecutor and the soldier, subsequently approved by a panel of military judges, proved exceedingly generous to the soldier as it was degrading to Manasra: a three-month term of community service, and a three-month suspended sentence. Blinken accordingly found, as outlined in his memorandum of justification, that the Israeli government “is taking effective steps to bring to justice the responsible member of the Shahar Battalion.” It was a decision perplexing to Tim Rieser, a longtime aide to the chief author of the relevant statute, Sen. Patrick Leahy.  Blinken’s justification was inconsistent “with how the law is written and how it was intended to be applied.”

Former State Department officials linked to the original Leahy Law have been less than impressed by the lethargic actions of their former employer. Former Department member Stephen Rickard, who was also a former senior staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, confirms the favourable prejudice within the department towards Israeli units, adopting what he calls a “‘see no evil, hear no evil’ policy”.

“If the State Department will not comply with the law, then it is time for the courts to vindicate the rule of law and order it to do so,” Rickard said.

Former State Department staffer Josh Paul was also candid, saying: “I sat as part of the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum [ILVF] and saw repeatedly cases of gross violations of human rights being brought forward and senior officials being unwilling to act upon them because of fear of political consequences.”

The forum has been more active of late, signalling, according to ProPublica, a marked departure “after years of deferential treatment of Israel”. That said, the lawsuit contends that the ILVF’s vetting operations are, for the most part, “unique, complex, lengthy, high-level”, not to mention “arbitrary and capricious, and is not rationally related to advancing the purpose of the Leahy Law.” This complexity is pure bureaucratic pantomime, intended to mask what is, at heart, a simple policy goal: exempting the conduct of Israeli forces from the level of scrutiny reserved for their international counterparts.

As the lawsuit contends, the State Department “annually vets hundreds of thousands of non-Israeli foreign security force units for compliance with the Leahy Law and ultimately suspends and deems thousands of them ineligible for US assistance.” Since the law’s enactment in 1997, the department had failed to suspend or deem ineligible “a single Israeli unit despite overwhelming information of widespread GVHRs committed by Israel.”

In 2019, Congress amended the Leahy Law to require the secretary of state to provide foreign governments a list of ineligible units under the law and receive assurances that those governments would comply with the Leahy prohibition and block US assistance to such units before transferring assistance in cases of “untraceable assistance”. Despite this amendment, the IVLF failed to identify a single ineligible Israeli Unit responsible for gross human rights violations.

The failure to apply the law, the plaintiffs continue to argue, was “particularly shocking in the face of the unprecedented escalation of Israeli GVHRs since the Gaza War erupted on October 7, 2023.” The provisional orders of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) directing Israel to cease depriving Palestinians of essential items for their survival, and heeding the UN Genocide Convention, along with arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, underlined that point.

This legal action is taking place in the footsteps of previous efforts launched in US courts. In November 2023, a lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California by the Centre for Constitutional Rights, acting for a number of Palestinian human rights organisations, along with Palestinians in Gaza and the United States. It sought an order from the court “requiring that the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense adhere to their duty to prevent, and not further, the unfolding genocide of Palestinian people in Gaza.”

The relevant duty arose by virtue of the UN Genocide Convention being “judicially enforceable as a peremptory norm of customary international law.”  The complaint further argued that the genocidal conditions in Gaza had been “made possible because of unconditional support given [to Israel] by” President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Blinken and Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin.

The applicants failed to convince the judge that they had jurisdictional grounds to sue the officials in question, despite the judge declaring that there had been plausible grounds that Israel was contributing to genocidal conditions. This was subsequently affirmed on appeal by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, primarily on the political question doctrine. The principle holds that courts are not to review instances where allegations of international law violations have taken place if there are substantial questions of foreign policy involved. An expansive reading of this is arguably unwarranted, given that US obligations at international law would presumably fall within the bounds of curial assessment. The litigants remain undeterred and plan to challenge this further.

The litigation being steered by DAWN is likely to face similar arguments about jurisdiction: that assistance to foreign security units is a matter for the executive and therefore beyond a court’s assessment. But, trite as it is, courts are there to guard the appropriate application of statutes. The Leahy Law, as evidence of Congressional instruction to the State Department, is unequivocal in its purpose and scope regarding gross human rights violations. The time, it would seem, has come for those instructions to be applied to Israel without deferential favour.

The post Suing Antony Blinken: The US State Department, Israel and the Leahy Law appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.