U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday accused China of coercion and intimidation to back unlawful claims in the South China Sea, in her most pointed comments on China on a visit to Southeast Asia, a region she said was critical to U.S. security.

Harris’s seven-day trip to Singapore and Vietnam is aimed at standing up to China’s growing security and economic influence globally and addressing concerns about China’s claims to disputed parts of the South China Sea.

Diverting attention and resources to the region has become a centrepiece of President Joe Biden’s administration, as it turns away from old security preoccupations with the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

The U.S. administration has called rivalry with China “the biggest geopolitical test” of the century and Southeast Asia has seen a series of high-profile visits by top administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

“We know that Beijing continues to coerce, to intimidate and to make claims to the vast majority of the South China Sea,” Harris said in a speech in Singapore.

“These unlawful claims have been rejected by the 2016 arbitral tribunal decision, and Beijing’s actions continue to undermine the rules-based order and threaten the sovereignty of nations,” she said, referring to an international tribunal’s ruling over China’s claims in The Hague.

China rejected the ruling and has stood by its claim to most of the waters within a so-called Nine Dash Line on its maps, parts of which Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam also claim.

China has established military outposts on artificial islands in the waters, which are crossed by vital shipping lanes and also contain gas fields and rich fishing grounds.

The U.S. Navy regularly conducts “freedom of navigation” operations through the disputed waters, which China objects to, saying they do not help promote peace or stability.

On board the USS Tulsa, a U.S. combat ship at the Changi Naval base in Singapore on Monday, Harris told U.S. sailors “a big part of the history of the 21st century will be written about this very region” and their work defending it was pivotal.

On Monday, Harris began her trip by meeting Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

They discussed the importance of upholding a rules-based international order and freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region, expanded cybersecurity cooperation and efforts to shore up critical supply chains between their countries. “Our partnerships in Singapore, in Southeast Asia and throughout the Indo-Pacific are a top priority for the United States,” Harris said on Tuesday, adding the region was “critically important to our nation’s security and prosperity”.

A top Chinese diplomat last month accused the United States of creating an “imaginary enemy” to divert attention from domestic problems and to suppress China.

Part of her task during the trip will be convincing leaders in the region that the U.S. commitment to Southeast Asia is firm and not a parallel to Afghanistan.

Biden has faced criticism over his handling of the withdrawal of U.S. forces and the chaotic evacuation after the lightning takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban.

Harris said the United States was “laser focused” on the task of “safely evacuating American citizens, international partners, Afghans who worked side by side with us, and other Afghans at risk”.

She also said that the United States had put itself forward to host a meeting of the Asia-Pacific trade group APEC in 2023, which includes the United States, China and Japan.

(REUTERS)

US President Joe Biden on Monday defended his decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, noting there was no good time to withdraw from America’s longest war while waiting for Afghan troops to be able and willing to confront the Taliban. “American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves,” he said.

President Joe Biden said on Monday he stood “squarely behind” his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan despite searing images of chaos in Kabul that exposed the limits of U.S. power and plunged him into the worst crisis of his presidency.

Breaking his silence on the U.S. pullout after scenes of bedlam dominated television news channels for days, Biden blamed the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan on Afghan political leaders who fled the country and the unwillingness of the U.S.-trained Afghan army to fight the militant group.

He warned Taliban leaders they would face “devastating force” should they interfere with the U.S. pullout. Biden was forced to send U.S. troop reinforcements to Kabul to ensure a safe withdrawal of American diplomatic personnel and civilians as well as Afghan citizens who worked with the United States and could face reprisals.

The panicked evacuation, coming weeks after Biden predicted the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan was not inevitable, has dented America’s image on the global stage just as Biden has sought to emphasize to world leaders that “America is back” after former President Donald Trump’s tumultuous four years.

The pullout has also raised fears that militant groups like al Qaeda could reconstitute under Taliban rule.

Biden, rejecting harsh criticism of his Afghan policy from Republican and Democratic lawmakers, some former generals and human rights groups, was resolute in defending his withdrawal from a 20-year war that endured through four presidencies.

We went to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago with clear goals: get those who attacked us on September 11, 2001—and make sure al Qaeda could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again.

We did that—a decade ago.

Our mission was never supposed to be nation building.

“I stand squarely behind my decision,” Biden said in a televised speech at the White House. “After 20 years I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces. That’s why we’re still there.”

Biden said he found some of the scenes of chaos in Kabul “gut-wrenching” but that he did not start moving out evacuees sooner because Afghan President Ashraf Ghani did not want a mass exodus.

Political Risks Unclear

He acknowledged that the Taliban’s speed in retaking the country was unexpected. The rapid advance stunned American officials who predicted that the Afghan army would either repel the militants or hold them off for months.

“The truth is: This did unfold more quickly than we anticipated. So what’s happened? Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled the country. The Afghan military gave up, sometimes without trying to fight,” Biden said.

He also doled out criticism to his Republican predecessor, Trump, whose administration negotiated a deal with the Taliban that Biden said left the group “in the strongest position militarily since 2001.”

Critics of Biden have focused on the way the U.S. withdrawal is being carried out, as video showed Afghans flooding runways at the Kabul airport and desperately trying to grab the fuselage of a U.S. plane rolling on the tarmac.

“The president’s failure to acknowledge his disastrous withdrawal provides no comfort to Americans or our Afghan partners whose lives hang in the balance,” Republican Senator Mitt Romney said in a tweet.

Biden singled out for criticism the two main Afghan leaders, Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, head of the country’s High Council for National Reconciliation, saying they had “flatly refused” his advice to seek a political settlement with the Taliban.

“How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghans – Afghanistan’s civil war, when Afghan troops will not? How many more lives – American lives – is it worth? How many endless rows of headstones at Arlington National Cemetery?” Biden asked.

On Monday night, Biden on Monday authorized up to $500 million from an emergency fund to meet “unexpected urgent” refugee needs stemming from the situation in Afghanistan, including for Afghan special immigration visa applicants, the White House said.

The United States is preparing to begin evacuating thousands of Afghan applicants for special immigration visas (SIVs) who risk retaliation from Taliban insurgents because they worked for the U.S. government.

Whether Biden will face a long-term political risk for Afghanistan is unclear. Foreign policy does not typically play a major role in U.S. elections. Many Americans have expressed support for Trump’s and Biden’s decision to leave Afghanistan, America’s longest war. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/americas-longest-war-20-years-missteps-afghanistan-2021-08-16

But Republican Representative Mike McCaul signaled his party might try to frame the Afghan chaos as a national security issue that makes the United States more vulnerable to terrorist attack.

“I think it is going to taint this presidency, to a large degree, on national security,” he said.

The United States and allies invaded Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington and toppled the Taliban, who had hosted al Qaeda militants responsible for the attack.

Biden also said his decision was a result of the commitment he made to American troops that he was not going to ask them to continue to risk their lives for a war that should have ended long ago.

“Our leaders did that in Vietnam when I got here as (a) young man. I will not do it in Afghanistan,” he said. “I know my decision will be criticized but I would rather take all that criticism than pass this decision on to another president.”

(REUTERS)

US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin square up on Wednesday for their first meeting since Biden took office with deep disagreements likely and expectations low for any breakthroughs.

Both have said they hope their talks in a lakeside Geneva villa can lead to more stable and predictable relations, even though they remain at odds over everything from arms control and cyber-hacking to election interference and Ukraine.

“We’re not expecting a big set of deliverables out of this meeting,” a senior US official told reporters aboard Air Force One as Biden flew to Geneva, saying the two are expected to talk for four or five hours starting at around 1.30pm CET (1130 GMT).

“I’m not sure that any agreements will be reached,” said Putin’s foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov.

Relations have deteriorated for years, notably with Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, its 2015 intervention in Syria and US charges – denied by Moscow – of its meddling in the 2016 election that brought Donald Trump to the White House.

They sank further in March when Biden said he thought Putin was a “killer”, prompting Russia to recall its ambassador to Washington for consultations. The United States recalled its ambassador in April.

The senior US official said the United States aimed for a set of “taskings” – Washington jargon for assigning aides to work on specific issues – “about areas where working together can advance our national interests and make the world safer”.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said whether or not to send back ambassadors would be decided by the two presidents. “Today the presidents will need to determine how to proceed with the heads of the diplomatic missions,” Peskov was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

While the issues may be vexing, the surroundings will be serene when the presidents meet in Villa La Grange, an elegant mansion set in a 30-hectare (nearly 75-acre) park overlooking Lake Geneva.

‘Very little hope of progress’

FRANCE 24’s Gulliver Cragg confirmed the mood in Geneva, saying there is “very little hope on progress on any of the really big dossiers that could be on the table. But I think what they’re hoping for is to put the ‘table back together’”.

Cragg said the tit-for-tat expulsions have really soured the relations between Washington and Moscow, resulting in very little diplomatic contact between the two, but that “both sides seem to be willing to put those back together”.

He added that although such an rapprochement is usually referred to as a “reset” in the diplomacy world, “Biden absolutely doesn’t want it to be called a ‘reset’, he doesn’t want to use that term – that was the strategy that he, as vice president and Barack Obama as president, employed towards Vladimir Putin a little more than a decade ago and it is seen as not having been a success”.

Cragg said that although interest in the Geneva summit is extremely high, it “surpasses by a very long way the likelihood of anything really being achieved”.

Lockdown

On Wednesday, the summit perimeter was under a tight lockdown with heavy police presence. Following a their bilateral meeting, Biden and Putin will continue on to their discussions with broader US and Russian delegations including US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, along with interpreters.

Arms control is one domain where progress has historically been possible despite wider disagreements.

In February, Russia and the United States extended for five years the New START treaty, which caps their deployed strategic nuclear warheads and limits the land- and submarine-based missiles and bombers to deliver them.

The senior US official said Biden would also define areas of vital national interest where Russian misconduct would bring a response. Biden signed an executive order in April giving Washington wide latitude to impose sanctions on Moscow.

In a sign of the strained ties, the talks will not include any meals and Putin and Biden are expected to hold separate news conferences rather than a joint one.

“No breaking of bread,” said the senior US official.

Vladimir Frolov, a former Russian diplomat, told Reuters that Putin wanted respectful ties and to be treated like members of the Soviet Politburo were in the 1960s-1980s, with “a symbolic recognition of Russia’s geopolitical parity with the US”.

“In exchange, they (Moscow) would be willing to cut back on some of the loony stuff,” Frolov said, saying he meant “no poisonings, no physical violence, no arrests/kidnappings of US and Russian nationals. No interference in domestic politics”.

Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank, set the bar for Wednesday’s talks low.

“The principal takeaway, in the positive sense, from the Geneva meeting would be making sure that the United States and Russia did not come to blows physically, so that a military collision is averted,” he said.

In contrast to Trump, whose 2018 summit with Putin in Helsinki included a meeting accompanied only by interpreters, Biden and Putin are not expected to have any solo dealings.

Standing beside Putin in Helsinki, Trump refused to blame the Russian leader for meddling in the 2016 US election, casting doubt on the findings of his own intelligence agencies and sparking a storm of domestic criticism.

(FRANCE 24 with REUTERS)

The United States and the EU reached a deal Tuesday to end a dispute over subsidies and tariffs for rival plane makers Boeing and Airbus as President Joe Biden seeks to smooth trade tensions with European allies ahead of a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

After a pair of summits with Group of Seven world leaders in the U.K. and then NATO allies in Brussels, Biden meets Tuesday with European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

The president has sought to marshal widespread European support for his efforts to counter Russia prior to his Wednesday meeting in Geneva with Putin. But the U.S.-EU relationship is not without some tensions.

Biden will meet with the top EU officials at a moment when the continent’s leaders are becoming impatient that the American president has not yet addressed his predecessor Donald Trump’s 2018 decision to impose import taxes on foreign steel and aluminum. There’s also a longstanding dispute over how much of a government subsidy each side unfairly provides for its aircraft manufacturing giant — Boeing in the United States and Airbus in the EU.

‘Real tensions over trade’

Biden isn’t expected to take action on the tariffs before heading to Geneva later Tuesday. He bristled that he needed more time to address the matter when asked by a reporter about the tariffs at his news conference at the end of the G-7 on Sunday. “A hundred and twenty days,” Biden said, underestimating his time in office by weeks. “Give me a break. Need time.”

Still, White House officials think they can build more good will with Europe ahead of the Putin face-to-face meeting.

To that end, Biden, Michel and von der Leyen are expected to announce the creation of a joint trade and technology council, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement.

The official said that trans-Atlantic council would work on coordinating standards for artificial intelligence, quantum computing, bio-technologies, as well as coordinating efforts on bolstering supply chain resilience. Biden is appointing Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai to co-chair the U.S. side of the effort.

The U.S.-EU summit is also expected to include a communique at its conclusion that will address concerns about China’s provocative behavior, according to the official.

Tuesday’s statement would follow a NATO summit communique on Monday that declared China a constant security challenge and said the Chinese are working to undermine global order. On Sunday, the G-7 called out what it said were forced labor practices and other human rights violations impacting Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities in the western Xinjiang province

Since taking office in January, Biden has repeatedly pressed Putin to take action to stop Russian-originated cyberattacks on companies and governments in the U.S. and around the globe, decried the imprisonment of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, and publicly aired intelligence that suggests — albeit with low to moderate confidence — that Moscow offered bounties to the Taliban to target U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan.

Both Biden and Putin have described the U.S.-Russia relationship as being at an all-time low.

The Europeans are keen to set up a “high-level dialogue” on Russia with the United States to counter what they say is Moscow’s drift into authoritarianism and anti-Western sentiment.

At the same time, the 27-nation bloc is deeply divided in its approach to Moscow. Russia is the EU’s biggest natural gas supplier, and plays a key role in a series of international conflicts and key issues, including the Iran nuclear deal, and conflicts in Syria and Libya.

The hope is that Biden’s meeting with Putin on Wednesday might pay dividends, and no one in Brussels wants to undermine the show of international unity that has been on display at the G-7 and NATO summits, according to EU officials.

In addition to scolding China, NATO leaders in their communique on Monday took a big swipe at Russia, deploring its aggressive military activities and snap wargames near the borders of NATO countries as well as the repeated violation of the 30-nations’ airspace by Russian planes.

They said that Russia has ramped up “hybrid” actions against member countries by attempting to interfere in elections, political and economic intimidation, disinformation campaigns and “malicious cyber activities.”

“Until Russia demonstrates compliance with international law and its international obligations and responsibilities, there can be no return to ‘business as usual,’” the NATO leaders wrote. “We will continue to respond to the deteriorating security environment by enhancing our deterrence and defense posture.”

Source: AP

Naftali Bennett, who was sworn in Sunday as Israel’s new prime minister, embodies many of the contradictions that define the 73-year-old nation.

He’s a religious Jew who made millions in the mostly secular hi-tech sector; a champion of the settlement movement who lives in a Tel Aviv suburb, and a former ally of Benjamin Netanyahu who has partnered with centrist and left-wing parties to end his 12-year rule.

His ultranationalist Yamina party won just seven seats in the 120-member Knesset in March elections — the fourth such vote in two years. But by refusing to commit to Netanyahu or his opponents, Bennett positioned himself as kingmaker. Even after one member of his religious nationalist party abandoned him to protest the new coalition deal, he ended up with the crown.

Here’s a look at Israel’s new leader:

An ultranationalist with a moderate coalition

Bennett has long positioned himself to the right of Netanyahu. But he will be severely constrained by his unwieldy coalition, which has only a narrow majority in parliament and includes parties from the right, left and center.

He is opposed to Palestinian independence and strongly supports Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians and much of the international community see as a major obstacle to peace.

Bennett fiercely criticised Netanyahu after the prime minister agreed to slow settlement construction under pressure from President Barack Obama, who tried and failed to revive the peace process early in his first term.

He briefly served as head of the West Bank settler’s council, Yesha, before entering the Knesset in 2013. Bennett later served as Cabinet minister of diaspora affairs, education and defence in various Netanyahu-led governments.

“He’s a right-wing leader, a security hard-liner, but at the same time very pragmatic,” said Yohanan Plesner, head of the Israel Democracy Institute, who has known Bennett for decades and served with him in the military.

He expects Bennett to engage with other factions to find a “common denominator” as he seeks support and legitimacy as a national leader.

Netanyahu in ‘politically dangerous place’

Rivalry with Netanyahu

The 49-year-old father of four shares Netanyahu’s hawkish approach to the Middle East conflict, but the two have had tense relations over the years.

Bennett served as Netanyahu’s chief of staff for two years, but they parted ways after a mysterious falling out that Israeli media linked to Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, who wields great influence over her husband’s inner circle.

Bennett campaigned as a right-wing stalwart ahead of the March elections and signed a pledge on national TV saying he would never allow Yair Lapid, a centrist and Netanyahu’s main rival, to become prime minister.

But when it became clear Netanyahu was unable to form a ruling coalition, that’s exactly what Bennett did, agreeing to serve as prime minister for two years before handing power to Lapid, the architect of the new coalition.

Netanyahu’s supporters have branded Bennett a traitor, saying he defrauded voters. Bennett has defended his decision as a pragmatic move aimed at unifying the country and avoiding a fifth round of elections.

FRANCE 24 spoke to Jordana Miller, ABC News’s foreign correspondent in Jerusalem, who said Netanyahu, now sitting in the opposition, has found himself in a “politically dangerous place”.

“This new government may pass a number of laws that will essentially bar him from leading Israel again until his corruption trial wraps up, which could be a number of years,” she said. “That’s why we saw him fight tooth and nail until the very last minute making all kinds of desperate overtures to his allies to try to stop this new so-called ‘change’ government, but he failed.”

Miller suggested that Netanyahu will now do his best to try to “pull off one or two defectors – which is all he’ll need in the coming months because this government has a wafer-thin majority and there are so many ideological differences.”

A generational shift

Bennett, a modern Orthodox Jew, will be Israel’s first prime minister who regularly wears a kippa, the skullcap worn by observant Jews. He lives in the upscale Tel Aviv suburb of Raanana, rather than the settlements he champions.

Bennett began life with his American-born parents in Haifa, then bounced with his family between North America and Israel, military service, law school and the private sector. Throughout, he’s curated a persona that’s at once modern, religious and nationalist.

After serving in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, Bennett went to law school at Hebrew University. In 1999, he co-founded Cyota, an anti-fraud software company that was sold in 2005 to U.S.-based RSA Security for $145 million.

Bennett has said the bitter experience of Israel’s 2006 war against the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah drove him to politics. The month-long war ended inconclusively, and Israel’s military and political leadership at the time was widely criticised as bungling the campaign.

Bennett represents a third generation of Israeli leaders, after the founders of the state and Netanyahu’s generation, which came of age during the country’s tense early years marked by repeated wars with Arab states.

“He’s Israel 3.0,” Anshel Pfeffer, a columnist for Israel’s left-leaning Haaretz newspaper, wrote in a recent profile of Bennett.

“A Jewish nationalist but not really dogmatic. A bit religious, but certainly not devout. A military man who prefers the comforts of civilian urban life and a high-tech entrepreneur who isn’t looking to make any more millions. A supporter of the Greater Land of Israel but not a settler. And he may well not be a lifelong politician either.”

(FRANCE 24 with AP)

A motley alliance of Israeli parties on Sunday ousted Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving prime minister, and formed a new government in a seismic shift in the country’s turbulent politics.

Naftali Bennett, a right-wing Jewish nationalist and former tech millionaire, was to take over at the helm of the eight-party bloc, united only by their shared disdain for the hawkish right-wing leader known as Bibi.

Netanyahu, 71, in typically combative style, vowed shortly before his defeat that “if it’s our destiny to be in the opposition, we’ll do so with our heads high until we take down this bad government and return to lead the country our way”.

Beloved as “King Bibi” by his right-wing supporters and condemned as the “crime minister” by his critics, Netanyahu has long been the dominant, and increasingly divisive, figure in Israeli politics.

But on Sunday, a vote in the Knesset legislature following weeks of intense political drama ended his government with a razor-thin majority of 60 to 59 in the 120-seat chamber.

In Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square, Netanyahu’s opponents broke out in cheers and launched into an evening of joyous celebrations, having rallied in recent days with “Bye bye Bibi” placards.

One of the demonstrators, Tal Surkis, 19, confessed to “mixed feelings” about the incoming change coalition, but said “it’s something Israel needs”.

Bennett, 49, in a Knesset speech before the vote, promised the new government, a coalition of ideologically divergent parties, “represents all of Israel”.

He said the country, after four inconclusive elections in under two years, had been thrown “into a maelstrom of hatred and in-fighting”.

“The time has come for different leaders, from all parts of the population, to stop, to stop this madness”, he said, to angry shouts of “liar” and “criminal” from right-wing opponents.

Fragile coalition

Netanyahu, who is battling corruption charges in an ongoing trial he dismisses as a conspiracy, has been the dominant Israeli politician of his generation, having also served a previous three-year term in the 1990s.

His supporters have hailed him as a strong defender of Israel who has been tough on arch foe Iran, but also struck a series of historic normalisation deals with several Arab nations last year.

Being ousted from the top job will leave Netanyahu more exposed to his legal woes, because it denies him the chance to push through parliament changes to basic laws that could give him immunity.

Bennett, a former defence minister under Netanyahu, vowed to keep Israel safe from Iran, promising that “Israel won’t let Iran have nuclear weapons” — a goal the Islamic republic denies pursuing.

Netanyahu, true to his reputation as Israel’s “Mr Security”, charged that “Iran is celebrating” the launch of what he charged would be a “dangerous” and weak left-wing government.

The diverse anti-Netanyahu bloc was cobbled together by the secular centrist Yair Lapid, a former TV presenter.

It spans the political spectrum, including three right-wing, two centrist and two left-wing parties, along with an Arab Islamic conservative party.

Lapid, 57, is to serve as foreign minister for the next two years before taking over from Bennett.

‘Scorched earth’

The improbable alliance emerged weeks after an 11-day war between Israel and Hamas, the Islamist group that rules the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, and following inter-communal violence in Israeli cities with significant Arab populations.

Netanyahu, who long ago earned a reputation as Israel’s ultimate political survivor, in his final days in office tried to peel off defectors, hoping to deprive the nascent coalition of its wafer-thin legislative majority, to no avail.

He accused Bennett of “fraud” for siding with rivals, and angry rallies by the premier’s Likud party supporters resulted in security being bolstered for some lawmakers.

Netanyahu’s opponents accused him and his allies of stoking tensions in a “scorched-earth” campaign.

Netanyahu’s bombastic remarks as he saw his grip on power slip drew parallels at home and abroad to former US president Donald Trump, who described his election loss last year as the result of a rigged vote.

Sunday’s vote came at a time of heightened tensions in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which has grown more bitter in the Netanyahu years, in part due to the expansion of settlements considered illegal under international law in the occupied West Bank.

Meanwhile, right-wing anger has grown in Israel over last week’s postponement of a controversial Jewish nationalist march through flashpoint areas of east Jerusalem.

The “March of the Flags” is now slated for Tuesday, and the agitation surrounding it could represent a key initial test for a new coalition government.

Gaza’s rulers Hamas said that the political developments in Jerusalem wouldn’t change its relationship with Israel.

“The form the Israeli government takes doesn’t change the nature of our relationship,” said the group’s spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.

“It’s still a colonising and occupying power that we must resist.”

(AFP)

Israeli politicians battling to unseat veteran right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were locked in last-ditch talks on Wednesday to hammer out their “change” coalition composed of bitter ideological rivals.

Netanyahu’s opponents have until the end of the day – 2059 GMT – to cobble together an administration that would end 12 straight years of rule by the hawkish heavyweight, Israel’s longest-ruling premier.

They had yet to announce a new line-up as parliament convened at 11:00 am to elect a new president for the country, a largely honorary position, with a masked Netanyahu casting the first vote.

The high-stakes push for a government is led by former television presenter Yair Lapid, a secular centrist who on Sunday won the crucial support of hardline religious nationalist Naftali Bennett.

“The coalition negotiation team sat all night and made progress toward creating a unity government,” a Bennett spokesman said in a statement.

But to reach a majority in the 120-seat Knesset, their unlikely alliance would also have to include other left and right-wing parties — and would probably need the support of Arab-Israeli politicians.

That would result in a government riven by deep ideological differences on flashpoint issues such as Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and the role of religion in politics.

Lapid, leader of the Yesh Atid party, was tasked with forming a government by President Reuven Rivlin after Netanyahu again failed to put together his own coalition following elections in March, the fourth such inconclusive polls in less than two years.

Power-sharing deal

Lapid has reportedly agreed to allow Bennett, a tech multi-millionaire who heads the Yamina party, to serve first as a rotating prime minister in a power-sharing agreement, before swapping with him halfway through their term.

Late Tuesday, a source close to the talks told AFP negotiators were hammering away to “finalise a deal as soon as possible”.

Lawmakers were to vote Wednesday in a secret ballot for one of two candidates to replace Rivlin and become their country’s 11th president since the creation of Israel in 1948.

The first candidate is Myriam Peretz, 67, a settler and former headmistress widely known as “the mother of sons” after she lost two of her six children while officers in the Israeli army.

The second, 60-year-old Isaac Herzog, is a former leader of the centre-left Labor party, the son of a previous president, and an ex-minister who supports a separate state for the Palestinians.

Israel’s latest political turmoil adds to the woes of Netanyahu, who is on trial for criminal charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust while in office — accusations he denies.

If he were to lose power, he would not be able to push through changes to basic laws that could give him immunity, and would lose control over certain justice ministry nominations.

In recent years, Netanyahu has clinched historic normalisation agreements with four Arab states and unrolled a world-beating Covid-19 vaccination campaign.

But he has not engaged in substantive peace talks with the Palestinians, who have been angered by a boom in expansion of Israel’s illegal West Bank settlements under Netanyahu’s watch.

The latest developments follow weeks of escalating tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, which peaked in an 11-day exchange of rocket fire from Gaza and devastating Israeli air strikes.

Netanyahu, who served an earlier three-year term in the 1990s, had warned on Sunday of “a left-wing government dangerous to the state of Israel”.

The premier, who heads the Likud party and has developed a reputation as a wily political operator, was scrambling to scupper the new alliance.

Likud’s lawyers on Tuesday tried to hobble the emerging coalition by challenging Bennett’s right to serve first as prime minister, given that it was Lapid who was charged with forming the government.

But the legal adviser to Israel’s president dismissed the challenge.

Arab Israeli support?

In order to build the anti-Netanyahu bloc, Lapid must sign individual agreements with seven parties, whose members would then vote in parliament to confirm their coalition.

They include the hawkish New Hope party of Netanyahu’s former ally Gideon Saar and right-wing secular nationalist Avigdor Lieberman’s pro-settlement Yisrael Beitenu party.

The centrist Blue and White party of Defence Minister Benny Gantz, the historically powerful Labor party and the dovish Meretz party would also join.

If all those parties indeed sign on, the emerging alliance still needs the backing of four more lawmakers.

For that, Lapid is counting on parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, which have yet to announce their intentions.

Mansour Abbas, head of the Islamic conservative Raam party, which has four seats, has generally voiced openness to any arrangement that improves living conditions for Israel’s 20 percent Arab minority of Palestinian descent.

Abbas told reporters Tuesday that negotiations appeared to be heading “in a good direction”.

If no agreement is reached on a government, Israel risks — yet again — heading back to the polls for a fifth general election in around two years.

Source: AFP

US President Joe Biden and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin will hold their first summit next month in Geneva, both sides said Tuesday, setting the stage for a new chapter in their fraught relationship.

The meeting in the Swiss city will be on June 16, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said.

“The leaders will discuss the full range of pressing issues, as we seek to restore predictability and stability to the US-Russia relationship,” she said.

The Kremlin confirmed the summit details and said in a statement that Putin and Biden would be discussing “issues of strategic stability,” as well as “resolving regional conflicts” and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Biden, making his first international trip as president, will go to Geneva immediately after separate summits with his key Western allies in the G7, NATO and the European Union.

The face-to-face meeting with the Kremlin leader comes amid levels of tension not seen for years, with Washington now dialling back its ambitions to little more than establishing a relationship in which both sides understand each other and can work together in specific areas.

Since taking office, Biden has launched new sanctions against Moscow over what US authorities say was the Russian role in the massive Solar Winds cyber attack and repeated meddling in the 2020 presidential election.

Washington has also harshly criticized Moscow for the near-death poisoning and subsequent imprisonment of one of the last open opponents to Putin, Alexei Navalny.

And where Biden told an interviewer that he agreed with the description of Putin as a “killer,” the Russian government has formally declared the United States to be an “unfriendly” country.

Moves to ease tension

The open recriminations are a long way from the often puzzling relationship between Trump and Putin.

The Geneva summit will come almost three years after Trump famously sided with the Kremlin leader over the US intelligence agencies on the question of whether Moscow interfered in the 2016 US presidential election.

However, both sides are working to calm the waters ahead of the Geneva summit, with the White House emphasizing hopes for working alongside Russia on well-defined strategic issues like nuclear weapons control and the Iran nuclear negotiations.

To prepare the ground, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and veteran Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met last week in Reykjavik, Iceland.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said after the Blinken-Lavrov meeting that repairing ties “will not be easy” but he saw “a positive signal.”

Moscow welcomed a US decision to waive sanctions that had been holding up completion of the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline — a major energy supply route from Russia to Europe that US officials worry will make the EU overdependent on the Russians.

Source: AFP

Iranian ultra-conservative ex-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put his name forward Wednesday as a candidate to succeed moderate President Hassan Rouhani in elections next month.

“Millions of people across the country have invited me to stand for election, and even ordered me to come here to register, placing a heavy responsibility on my shoulders,” Ahmadinejad said, speaking after he submitted his application to the interior ministry.

The build-up to June 18 polls comes as Iran and world powers wrangle over reviving a 2015 nuclear accord, from which the US withdrew unilaterally in 2018, reimposing crippling sanctions.

Hopefuls have until Saturday to register, and will then be vetted by the conservative-dominated Guardian Council before a list of approved candidates is published by May 27, after which campaigning begins.

But Iranian media considers Ahmadinejad’s chance of being approved are close to zero.

The 64-year-old said that if he is not approved, he will “not participate” in the election, either by backing a candidate or voting.

Ahmadinejad claimed, as he has often done in recent years, that the Iranian people have lost confidence in the country’s authorities.

He added that he considered the upcoming election “perhaps the last chance” to save the Islamic republic in the face of “very sensitive” challenges, both domestic and international.

Ahmadinejad, president from 2005 to 2013, had to stand down at the end of two consecutive terms as per the constitution — like outgoing president Rouhani will in June.

In 2009, Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election sparked protests that were severely put down, shaking the Islamic republic.

On Wednesday he was cheered by several supporters as he submitted his name, chanting “we support you!”

The populist ex-president had also put his name forward for the 2017 presidential election, against the advice of the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Unsurprisingly, his candidacy was rejected by the Guardian Council, an unelected body dominated by conservatives and responsible for overseeing the presidential polls.

Source: AFP

Nepal’s Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli lost a confidence vote on Monday, triggering fresh political uncertainty just as the Himalayan nation reels from the pandemic.

Oli, 69, decided to seek a vote of confidence following months of feuding within his ruling communist party and coalition partners.

“If you want a stable parliament you should vote for the continuity of this government,” he said in his address to the legislature before the vote.

But the former political prisoner was able to secure only 93 votes in the parliament instead of the 136 needed.

More than 120 parliamentarians voted against and nearly two dozen leaders from Oli’s own party skipped the process.

According to procedure, the president will now call for parties to propose a new candidate, backed by a majority.

Nepal has been roiled by months of turmoil after Oli dissolved parliament in December, accusing members of his Nepal Communist Party (NCP) of being uncooperative.

The NCP was formed in 2018 by a merger between Oli’s communist party CPN-UML and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) of former rebel leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal.

Two months later, the Supreme Court reinstated parliament. Another ruling broke the merger and split the ruling party into two.

In recent months, Oli has faced fierce criticism over his handling of the pandemic as the second wave sweeps over the country, with half of people tested now returning positive.

However it was more political infighting rather than his handling of the pandemic that caused him to lose the vote of confidence.

On Monday, Nepal reported 9,127 cases, the highest increase yet. Nearly 4,000 people have died since the pandemic began, according to official figures.

“Both the parliament and the government have failed to address the Covid-19 crisis in the country. Instead they are engaging in a political game when most citizens were struggling for oxygen cylinders and hospital beds,” said Gunaraj Luitel, editor of Nagarik newspaper.

The NCP’s triumph over the incumbent Nepali Congress party in elections in 2017 had been seen as the final step in Nepal’s post-civil war transformation into a republic.

Brittle alliances have been struck between Nepal’s three dominant parties since 2008, and there was hope a majority government would bring stability and much-needed development to the nation.

Source:AFP