Latest news with #Agreement
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Slugfest in the Middle East
Listen to article Slugfest, yes; but of no ordinary consequences. It will take the world to keep it contained. Iran in the western construct is Middle East, not West Asia, and it is important to note. It comes under the geographical responsibility of US Central Command that oversees the Middle East. Israel too is a part as is Pakistan on its eastern most boundary. Nothing moves in the US CENTCOM AOR without its consent or at least without its notice. To imagine anything else is naïve. That is why the CENTCOM was created with its forward Headquarters conveniently placed in Al Udeid in Doha, Qatar. General Kurilla, the CENTCOM Chief, knows it all. Dial back a few weeks. President Trump wanted a 'deal' with Iran on the Nuclear Enrichment issue. Iran too wanted to settle now that a more aggressive administration was in power in Washington with its own peculiar worldview and willingness to support Israel to establish its dominance over the Middle East. For the more pliable wary of Israeli prowess there exist the Abraham Accords to help secure their future for Israel's acceptability only if Iran, the remaining stumbling block, could be subdued. The Houthis in Yemen would then easily acquiesce too. Iran's aspiration to be a nuclear power was already established. Agreement with the P5+1 had laid limits on Iran's ambition (Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty). But then Trump chose to dump the Agreement in 2018, three years after the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) was first signed. It opened the space for Iran to pursue its nuclear enrichment programme at its own pace. The IAEA could visit to inspect if Iran was complying to the limits of enrichment levels and the stockpiled enriched uranium. Iran though built in greater ambiguity. It is said that Iran moved significantly ahead of its below-5 per cent limit on enrichment under the Agreement and held a significantly higher value of stockpiled enriched uranium than stipulated. In 2023 it was reported that Iran had enriched up to and over 83 per cent level. It was barely short of the magical 90 per cent mark to turn into a weapon. Trump in his second term, aware of the leeway the US exit had afforded Iran, sought an immediate renegotiation of the deal to rein Iran in. Implicitly he may have had in mind to reinforce his credentials of a deal and a peacemaker before the Alfred Nobel Committee. Israel did not seem to agree nor did some from within Trump's team. Donald Trump's was the stated position. More likely it left space for its partner, Israel, to eliminate or at the least significantly degrade Iran's nuclear programme as a living and present danger to Israel's long-term health and security. Iran had/has two major nuclear enrichment facilities, one at Natanz, that Israel struck with some effect in the ongoing war with Iran, and at Fordow near Qom, which is far more sophisticated and secure where enrichment levels are suspected to have been breached. When Iran was reluctant to enter negotiations, Trump declared a sixty-day window for Iran to agree to a deal proposed by the US, else the cost to Iran would be heavy and unbearable in military terms. Five rounds down and sixth on the anvil when it was more than likely that Iran was coming around to agree on most terms, Israel attacked Iran. It was the sixty-first day from the day Trump had announced the window of opportunity. Coincidence? Or a well deliberated execution? I don't think it needs much thought. What has followed since June 13 has been a conflagration ready to envelop the whole region unless handled with care. Both sides rain missiles on each other and wreak untold pain and misery. Soon, civilian populations will be the victims to test and breach their threshold of tolerance and of the two societies and their political masters. In a slugfest, one who can absorb more is usually the one to prevail. Mohammad Ali, the late Boxing Champion, perfected this art and established a psychological edge over his opponent by inviting him to give him body blows. The national character of Iran and its thousands of years of civilisational history and the size of its population hold it in better stead than Israel which is still young as a nation even if it boasts of a history of suffering over centuries. In the Iranian character, death is celebrated albeit with remorse; in the Israeli experience suffering and victimhood is emphasised to gain empathy. These two characteristics will hugely define the ultimate victor in the civilisational sense. Either Iran will now run out of its missiles or Israel will breach its threshold of pain. Each may be the first sign for that side to find accommodation or exhaust itself to desperate resort. How might Iran's nuclear programmes be affected will depend on the damage the programme suffers, possibly delaying the timeline for weaponising its ability – an important Israel-US aim for this war. Negotiations will surely follow when the war finally ends but how much Iran may give to the US will depend on how Iran has fared in the war in perceptions and in real terms. If Iran seems to have held her line resolutely the regime and the ongoing system in power will sustain and survive – it can surely outrun Israel in this madmen race. Or if the US offers it a chance for peace on terms that may save the regime and buy time and keep foundations of Iran's nuclear programme, Iran may take that route. It would be prudent in a long game. It will also save the region from chaos, uncertainty and falling dominoes which are sure to follow. Regime change, the deeper or implicit political objective, is a more complicated and extended effect of the war and where might it first happen, Iran or Israel, is moot. What is of essence here is that Israel and its supporters are now loudly calling for the US to intervene on Israel's behalf; that Israel with its existing capacity cannot complete the mission of eliminating Iran's nuclear programme. Iran's resilience and unexpectedly ferocious response on an overly sensitive Israeli psyche to the losses amidst their population centers is the key to shout for the patron to come to the rescue. Israel stands exposed with its civilisational inadequacies. This is Iran's great achievement. Similarly, were Trump to jump in and directly attack Iranian assets it shall not only be an act of desperation but will also puncture Trump's long held position of withdrawing from forever wars. Iraq is what he always refers to as an example. Iran will still survive despite Fordow but what carnage may ensue at the US installations in the Middle East will only expand, engorge and envelop all the Middle East which will be rendered chaotic, explosive and uncontrollable for years to come. Iraq, Libya and Syria stand as sorry examples of such ill-thought adventurism. More likely better sense will prevail despite Netanyahu's Israel.
IOL News
a day ago
- Health
- IOL News
When it comes to Freedom of Expression, the WHO Pandemic Agreement says nothing
The writer says that the next time a pandemic strikes—and there will be a next time—we cannot look to Geneva for guidance on how to preserve open debate and protect democratic norms. Image: File THE World Health Organization's long-awaited Pandemic Agreement has finally been adopted. At over 30 pages, it is comprehensive in ambition - addressing everything from vaccine access to supply chain resilience. But when it comes to one of the most critical ingredients for effective public health in a democracy - freedom of expression - the Agreement has remarkably little to say. In fact, it says almost nothing. Take, for instance, this key provision: 'Each Party shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies.' This sounds constructive. But read it again. 'As appropriate'? According to whom? And what policies, exactly? The Agreement doesn't say. It offers no guidance on whether open public debate - complete with disagreement, critique, and messy facts - is essential to building trust in science and public institutions. Nor does it warn against the dangers of censorship during public health crises. It simply leaves it to each country to decide for itself what 'appropriate' means. In other words, it takes no position. And this is precisely the problem. In the name of trust, governments during the COVID-19 pandemic did not always build it - they sometimes undermined it. South Africa offers two powerful examples. First, Dr Glenda Gray, one of the country's most respected scientists and then-president of the Medical Research Council, publicly criticised aspects of the government's lockdown measures. The reaction from the Department of Health was swift: the Director-General requested that her employer, the Medical Research Council, investigate her. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This wasn't scientific debate. It was an attempt to silence a dissenting voice. It was only after public uproar that the matter was dropped. Second, consider the ivermectin litigation saga. In December 2020, South Africa's medicines regulator, SAHPRA, triggered a controversy by incorrectly stating in a press release that ivermectin was 'not indicated … for use in humans', despite the fact that the drug had long been registered for certain human indications in South Africa. Some might label SAHPRA's statement as misinformation or even disinformation, but more plausibly, it was simply a careless - though consequential - error by a public authority. Yet the same press release went further, threatening with criminal enforcement against members of the public seeking to import ivermectin - an unnecessarily heavy-handed stance that swiftly provoked litigation. These are not stories from some distant autocracy. They happened here, in South Africa. And they highlight an uncomfortable truth: even well-meaning public institutions can slip into authoritarian habits under the pressure of a public health crisis. The antidote to authoritarian drift - and to official error - is freedom of expression. In Democratic Alliance v African National Congress, the Constitutional Court affirmed that freedom of expression is valuable not only for its intrinsic worth but also for its instrumental role in a democratic society. It informs citizens, fosters public debate, and enables the exposure of folly and misgovernance. It is also vital in the pursuit of truth—both personal and collective. If society suppresses views it deems unacceptable, those views may never be tested, challenged, or proven wrong. Open debate enhances truth-finding and allows us to scrutinise political claims and reflect on social values. This is why the South African Constitution enshrines freedom of expression - not as a luxury for peacetime, but as a safeguard for moments of crisis. Our Constitution was written with the memory of repression in mind. And it is precisely when fear and uncertainty tempt governments to silence dissent that its protections matter most. One might have expected an international agreement on pandemic response to affirm these same values. Yet the WHO Pandemic Agreement retreats into vagueness. It speaks of 'trust' and 'solidarity,' and warns against 'misinformation and disinformation,' but avoids the real issue: how should a democratic society respond when public health policies are contested? How do we protect space for critical voices? Instead of offering a principled stand, the Agreement offers a shrug. Countries are told to act 'as appropriate.' That could mean encouraging open dialogue—or it could mean criminalising dissent. The WHO doesn't say. And that silence speaks volumes. Professor Donrich Thaldar Image: University of KwaZulu-Natal
Glasgow Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Glasgow Times
Plans for 'much-needed' Barrhead development approved
Family-owned housebuilder AS Homes (Scotland) secured planning permission from East Renfrewshire Council to create 12 new homes for social rent on behalf of Barrhead Housing. The small development, located on derelict land at Cross Arthurlie Street, will comprise a four-storey block of 12 flats, a residential parking area, and landscaping. READ MORE: Over 120 homes to be built in Glasgow's Athletes' Village READ MORE: Homes to be built on site of destroyed Glasgow tower blocks Paul Kelly, managing director of AS Homes, said: 'The introduction of 12 new social flats on this site will provide much-needed high-quality housing in an area of demand. "At AS Homes, we prioritise the use of brownfield sites where possible and focus on underutilised, high-need areas for regeneration, which is exactly the case with this development. "It's great to partner with Barrhead Housing once again to contribute to our shared mission and benefit the local community.' Barrhead Housing Chief Executive Lorna Wilson said: 'We are committed to playing our part in tackling Scotland's housing crisis. "We're proud to continue our partnership with AS Homes, delivering high-quality, affordable homes for the community of Barrhead. 'This development of high-quality, energy-efficient, affordable homes represents an early milestone in the Strategic Agreement we signed recently with East Renfrewshire Council. "That agreement will result in us adding more than 200 homes over the next five years to the 1000 we currently own and manage.' Work is expected to start on the site in Summer 2025.
Business Wire
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Wire
BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust Announces Commencement of Trust Asset Sale Process
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust (NYSE: BPT) (the 'Trust') announced that The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (the 'Trustee'), has commenced a sale process for the Trust assets. Sale of Trust Assets Pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement governing the Trust (the 'Trust Agreement'), upon the termination of the Trust, the Trustee is required to sell for cash all the assets of the Trust (other than cash). Under the Trust Agreement, Hilcorp North Slope, LLC ('HNS') had an option to purchase the Trust assets at a price equal to the greater of (i) the fair market value of the Trust property as set forth in an opinion of an investment banking firm, commercial banking firm or other entity qualified to give an opinion as to the fair market value of the assets of the Trust on the date of termination, or (ii) $11,641,600, which represents 21,400,000 outstanding Units as of December 31, 2024 multiplied by $0.544 (the closing price of the Units on the New York Stock Exchange on December 31, 2024, the termination date of the Trust), exercisable within 30 days of receipt of the opinion. Following termination of the Trust, the Trustee engaged RedOaks Energy Advisors, LLC ('RedOaks') as its advisor to provide the opinion to HNS in accordance with the Trust Agreement, and to assist with the marketing and sale of the Trust's assets. The RedOaks opinion reflected a de minimis valuation for the Trust assets solely as of the termination date and was prepared for the purpose of determining the option value in accordance with the Trust Agreement; however, such opinion was not intended to reflect current potential asset valuations or for use in connection with asset bids, and will not be updated for such use. On June 2, 2025, HNS informed the Trustee that it declined to exercise its option to purchase the Trust assets. Since HNS has declined to exercise its purchase option, the Trust Agreement requires the Trustee to sell the Trust assets on terms and conditions approved by the vote of holders of 60% of the outstanding Units, unless the Trustee determines that it is not practicable to submit the matter to a vote of the Unit Holders and the sale is made at a price at least equal to the fair market value of the Trust assets as set forth in the third-party opinion and on terms and conditions deemed commercially reasonable by the third-party valuing the Trust assets. Therefore, RedOaks, is commencing a sale process on behalf of the Trust. The sale process will include a solicitation of initial of bids prior to noon, Central Time, on July 29, 2025. Although HNS has informed the Trustee that it expects to make an offer for the Royalty Interest at a price substantially lower than the option price determined under the Trust Agreement, the Trustee cannot predict whether HNS will bid or whether there will be any bidders for the Trust assets, the amount of proceeds, if any, that may result from a sale of the Trust assets, or when the wind-up of the Trust will be completed. There can be no assurance that Unit Holders will realize any proceeds from a sale of the Trust assets. Potential Purchasers Interested potential purchasers may contact RedOaks at for more information about the bidding process. FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements in this press release are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties beyond the control of the Trustee. The actual results, performance and prospects, including with respect to the Trust asset sale process, of the Trust could differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. Descriptions of some of the risks that could affect the future performance of the Trust appear in the Trust's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, the Trust's subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and the Trust's other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC'). The Trust's annual, quarterly and other filed reports are or will be available over the Internet at the SEC's website at The Trustee undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements after the date of this report, except as required by law, and all such forward-looking statements in this report are qualified in their entirety by the preceding cautionary statements.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
International Big Cat Alliance holds its first assembly in Delhi
New Delhi: The International Big Cat Alliance (IBCA) held its first assembly at its Delhi headquarters on Monday. The assembly approved the Headquarters Agreement signed with India, work plan, rules of procedure and the manual of staff and financial regulations. These will serve as the guiding foundation for the effective governance, operations, and collaborative initiatives of IBCA. The assembly also endorsed the proceedings of the first International Steering Committee meeting of IBCA, which was held in April 2024, according to a statement by India's environment ministry. Further, the assembly unanimously endorsed Bhupender Yadav, India's environment minister as the president of IBCA. The assembly also endorsed SP Yadav as the director general of IBCA. Created by the Government of India, the IBCA is a coalition of 95 range countries with a mandate for the conservation of seven big cats namely Tiger, Lion, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Cheetah, Jaguar and Puma. The assembly, which is the apex body of IBCA, was attended in Delhi by ministerial delegations from Bhutan, Cambodia, Eswatini, Guinea, India, Liberia, Suriname, Somalia and Kazakhstan. In his address, Yadav called upon the Big Cat range countries to actively engage and collaborate in the initiatives and programmes of IBCA. He emphasised the importance of collective action to advance the conservation and protection of the seven major big cat species and their natural habitats and assist in securing our ecological future and mitigate adverse effects of climate change. The IBCA was established by the Government of India, through its nodal organisation viz. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in 2024. The primary objective of IBCA is to facilitate collaboration and synergy among range countries and other stakeholders.
