Latest news with #GenevaConventions
Saba Yemen
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Saba Yemen
Baghaei: Zionist war crimes result of regime's continued impunity
Tehran – Saba: Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmail Baghaei confirmed on Friday that the Zionist regime's attack on an ambulance in Tehran is a war crime. In a post on X platform, Baghaei considered the normalization of Zionist war crimes a result of the regime's continued impunity, according to the Iranian Mehr News Agency. He said: "Today, another example of the Zionist regime's flagrant violation of international humanitarian law occurred when a Red Crescent ambulance was targeted in Tehran, resulting in the martyrdom of three paramedics. This is a deliberate murder." Baghaei added: "Under the four Geneva Conventions, attacks on aid workers, medical personnel, and relief vehicles carrying out humanitarian missions are strictly prohibited and are considered war crimes." He continued: "The Zionist regime has a long history of attacking medical facilities, aid convoys, and medical personnel." He added, "As a result of the continued impunity of the Israeli regime, serious violations of international humanitarian law have become commonplace. This is the result of the indifference and inaction of authorities legally and morally obligated to speak out and take action." The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman emphasized that the UN Security Council must act immediately, in accordance with its responsibilities under the UN Charter, to halt the aggression and prevent further crimes. He continued, "All countries, including Switzerland as the depositary of the Geneva Documents, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization, and other relevant international bodies, have a shared responsibility to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law." Whatsapp Telegram Email Print
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Targeting nuclear plants in Iran and Ukraine: Playing with fire
In an age of climate urgency and energy scarcity, nuclear power is on the cusp of being rediscovered. This time not as a Cold War relic, but as a lifeline. It offers countries seeking low-emission, high-reliability power what few other sources can: Base load stability in an increasingly unstable world. Yet, just as it gains renewed relevance, it's facing a new kind of threat — becoming a target. From Israel's recent strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to military activity around Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, we are witnessing the erosion of a longstanding principle: That nuclear facilities must be protected, in war and peace. These are not isolated incidents. While echoing past precedents like the Israeli strikes on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and Syria's Deir ez-Zor in 2007, these instances also reflect a new, troubling trend. Civilian nuclear infrastructure is now being treated as a strategic target. A red line once widely respected is being crossed with frequency. This pattern signals a slow collapse of a global understanding that, however imperfect, has helped avert catastrophe. This shift carries numerous risks not just for the countries involved, but for the world. One miscalculation, one errant strike, could spark a radiological disaster, endangering thousands and contaminating entire regions. International law provides clear protection. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits attacks on 'works and installations containing dangerous forces', including nuclear plants, from which civilian harm could result. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has, in many resolutions, condemned strikes on safeguarded nuclear facilities as violations of international law and the UN Charter. Israel has justified its ongoing actions against Iranian nuclear sites as acts of preventive self-defence, citing Iran's history of undeclared facilities, its missile programme, and enrichment levels approaching weapons-grade. Israeli officials argue that inaction risks letting Iran cross the nuclear military threshold under civilian cover. On the other hand, Iran remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes and its declared nuclear facilities are under IAEA safeguards. These contrasting approaches highlight a deeper tension: Between the imperative to enforce non-proliferation and the need to uphold the legitimacy of international safeguards. Striking monitored sites may seem preventive, but it risks unravelling the present system designed to keep atomic energy peaceful. If internationally safeguarded nuclear sites are vulnerable to attack, will states have confidence in a multilateral non-proliferation regime that cannot guarantee protection against unilateral strikes? This issue is not about taking sides between Israel and Iran. It's about defending a principle that protects everyone: Nuclear infrastructure is not a battlefield. Radiation cannot be deterred. Once released, the fallout spreads without regard for borders, flags or causes. Nuclear power today is not just about weapons. It's a cornerstone of economic development and climate action. More than 30 countries operate civilian nuclear energy reactors, and many more are investing in nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel reliance and meet growing industrial needs. According to recent news reports, even the World Bank is shifting its long-held reluctance to finance nuclear projects as part of a broader strategy to meet skyrocketing energy demand in developing countries. India thus has a major stake in this conversation. The collapse of protections around civilian nuclear infrastructure threatens not only the nuclear order but also our energy security and development goals. India has set an ambitious target of 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047, up from about 8 GW today. With rising industrial demand and a commitment to net-zero goals, nuclear power is central to India's long-term energy strategy. Plans to amend the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, announced in the budget, are underway to encourage private investment and scale up deployment. As India expands its nuclear fleet, the risk calculus changes if attacks on reactors are normalised. This is not a theoretical proposition. Even amid deep tensions, India and Pakistan have upheld a rare example of nuclear restraint. Since 1991, both have observed the Agreement on the Prohibition of Attack against Nuclear Installations and Facilities that was signed in December 1988, exchanging lists of sites annually and pledging not to strike them. Years ago, as an Indian diplomat, I had exchanged such lists with a Pakistani counterpart on a New Year's Day as part of an annual process. This confidence-building measure has endured and shows that even adversaries can respect a shared red line. India's continued commitment to this Agreement even now underscores its record of responsible stewardship and strengthens its credibility in calling for global protections. How far can existing legal protections stretch in the face of these new threats? Current legal instruments are fragmented and lack enforcement. What's needed is a binding international convention that bans attacks on civilian nuclear facilities under all circumstances. Such a norm would promote restraint, protect lives and preserve prospects of global energy growth while also safeguarding the global nuclear framework. In a world shaped by climate stress, digital expansion, and geopolitical volatility, nuclear power remains one of the few tools capable of delivering clean, reliable, large-scale energy. From powering AI-driven economies to electrifying rural regions, the demand for nuclear power is only growing. But, if we allow attacks on nuclear installations to go unaddressed, every atomic plant becomes a potential future target and every regional conflict risks triggering a global crisis. It's time to reaffirm a simple, urgent principle: Nuclear infrastructure is not a target. The writer is former permanent representative of India to the United Nations, and dean, Kautilya School of Public Policy, Hyderabad
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Trump's Yemen bombings killed nearly as many civilians as in 23 previous years of US attacks, analysis shows
The US bombing campaign of Yemen under Donald Trump led to the deaths of almost as many civilians in two months as in the previous 23 years of US attacks on Islamists and militants in the country. An analysis of Operation Rough Rider by monitoring group Airwars has concluded that 224 civilians had been killed between March and the end of the campaign in May, compared to 258 between 2002 and 2024. Airwars argues that the higher fatality rate after 33 strikes signals a change in policy on the part of the US and is a potential sign for what could happen in Iran, if Trump decides to join the Israeli bombing campaign against the country. 'This campaign sets the tone for Trump at war, and for what allies can do. With the US poised for escalation, we have to understand the Yemen campaign to understand what the future holds,' said Emily Tripp, the director of Airwars. Deliberately targeting civilians in a manner that is considered not proportional to any military advantage gained is considered a war crime according to the Geneva conventions, though the doctrine has been stretched in recent conflicts, most notably Israel's assault on Gaza, where there have been individual incidents of over 100 civilians killed. In the past, the US president has set a limit on the maximum number of civilian casualties that would be tolerated without special approval being granted, according to The War Lawyers, a book by academic Craig Jones of Newcastle University. Operation Rough Rider, a bombing campaign against the Houthi rebels, began in March in an effort to stop attacks on merchant shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, in the aftermath of multiple attacks conducted under the previous president. It cost an estimated $1bn (£740m) in its first month of operation. Trump described the Biden campaign as 'pathetically weak', meanwhile the text messages between senior US officials on the Signal app discussing the beginning of the bombing were accidentally shared with a journalist. The two most deadly attacks recorded by Airwars were in April. The monitor concluded that at least 84 civilians were killed on 17 April when the US bombed Ras Isa Port near Al Hodeida in the evening, saying it was targeting oil facilities. Airwars reaches its casualty count by examining reports of each incident by relevant authorities and in the media – as well as death notices put up on Facebook and other social media by relatives of the deceased. Two young boys, Fadel Fawwaz Ali al-Musq and Mohammad Ali Saleh Asaad al-Musq, were killed together after a family member, a driver, had brought them to the port while he was working, according to Facebook postings. A 48-year-old driver, Nabil Yahya, was reported as killed by his family when the fuel tanker he was driving burst into flames after the airstrike. 'That truck was all he had,' said his younger brother, Sultan Yahya in a Guardian report last month. A day after the incident the local branch of the Red Crescent Society posted that the air strikes occurred in two waves. After the first wave of bombing, the plane remained 'still flying overhead' and struck again after first responders arrived. At the time, the US Centcom military command said that US forces had taken action 'to eliminate this source of fuel for the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists' and that the strike 'was not intended to harm the people of Yemen'. The second most deadly attack recorded by Airwars occurred on 28 April 2025. It counted that 68 civilians housed in a remand detention centre at Saada were killed and at least 47 injured by alleged US airstrikes on the morning. The centre primarily held migrants coming from African countries and was believed to be holding 115 people at the time of the strike. Multiple bodies were pictured on television and graphic photographs after the attack. In response to investigations about the incident, Centcom said in early May that it is 'aware of the claims of civilian casualties' and is assessing them, but there has been no apparent update from the US military since. The US has been attacking targets in Yemen since 2002, when a targeted drone strike killed six members of al-Qaeda, and the first time civilians were recorded killed was in 2009, when 49 were reported killed following a cruise missile attack that had been aimed at an al-Qaeda camp. Operation Rough Rider came to an end in May, when the US and the Houthis reached agreement, after what the US said was 1,000 strikes at Houthi targets. The Yemeni rebels, who are anti-Israel and aligned with Iran, said they would stop targeting merchant shipping in return for an end to US bombing. Earlier this week, the Houthis fired a handful of ballistic missiles at Israel in support of Iran. One struck the West Bank, wounding five Palestinians.
Daily News Egypt
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily News Egypt
Egypt leads 21 nations in issuing joint statement calling for de-escalation after Israeli strikes on Iran
Egypt has led a group of 21 nations in issuing a joint statement that condemns recent Israeli military attacks against Iran, calls for an immediate halt to hostilities and urges a return to diplomacy to de-escalate regional tensions. The statement, initiated by Egypt following consultations between Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty and his counterparts, expressed a 'categorical rejection and condemnation of Israel's recent attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran since the 13th of June 2025.' The signatories to the statement are: Algeria, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Chad, the Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Türkiye, the Sultanate of Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. It also condemned any actions that contravene international law and the UN Charter, while emphasizing the need to respect the sovereignty of states and the principles of good neighbourliness. The signatories highlighted the 'imperative need to halt Israeli hostilities against Iran,' expressing 'great concern regarding this dangerous escalation, which threatens to have serious consequences on the peace and stability of the entire region.' A central demand in the statement was the 'urgent necessity of establishing a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction,' which it said should apply to all states in the region without exception. The countries also called for all nations in the Middle East to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The joint statement underscored the 'paramount importance of refraining from targeting nuclear facilities that are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards,' describing such acts as a violation of international law and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Calling for a 'swift return to the path of negotiations,' the nations affirmed that diplomacy and dialogue 'remain the only viable path to resolving crises in the region' and that military means cannot bring about a lasting resolution. The statement also affirmed the importance of 'safeguarding the freedom of navigation in international waterways' and refraining from actions that undermine maritime security.
Roya News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Roya News
Jordan, UAE, and allies condemn 'Israeli' attacks on Iran
Amid escalating regional tensions following the recent 'Israeli' attacks on Iran, foreign ministers from 21 countries across the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond; including Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Libya, and others, issued a unified statement condemning the aggression and calling for an immediate end to hostilities. The statement follows: "In light of the rapidly evolving regional developments and the unprecedented escalation of tensions in the Middle East, particularly owing to the ongoing military aggression of Israel against Iran. The Foreign Ministers of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, the Kingdom of Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, the Republic of Chad, the Union of the Comoros, the Republic of Djibouti, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of Gambia, the Republic of Iraq, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the State of Kuwait, the State of Libya, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Republic of the Sudan, the Republic of Türkiye, the Sultanate of Oman, and the United Arab Emirates hereby affirm the following: The categorical rejection and condemnation ofIsrael's recent attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran since the 13th of June 2025, and any actionsthat contravene international law and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, while emphasizing the necessity of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, adhering to the principles of good neighbourliness, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. The imperative need to halt Israeli hostilities against Iran, which come during a time of increasing tension in the Middle East, and to work towardsde-escalation, to achieve a comprehensive ceasefire and restoration of calm, while expressing great concern regarding this dangerous escalation, which threatens to have serious consequences on the peace and stability of the entire region. The urgent necessity of establishing a Middle EastZone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction, which shall apply to all States in the region without exception in line with relevant international resolutions, as well as the urgent need for all States of the Middle East to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) without delay. The paramount importance of refraining from targeting nuclear facilities that are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, in accordance with relevant IAEA resolutions and United Nations Security Council decisions, as such acts constitute a violation of international law and international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The urgency of a swift return to the path of negotiations as the only viable means to reach asustainable agreement regarding the Iranian nuclear program. The importance of safeguarding the freedom of navigation in international waterways and refraining from undermining maritime security, perthe relevant rules of international law.
