Latest news with #disarmament
LBCI
17 hours ago
- Politics
- LBCI
Tom Barrack meets Lebanese leaders as US-Lebanon talks stall on Hezbollah arms
Report by Bassam Abou Zeid, English adaptation by Mariella Succar There is no agreement between Lebanon and the United States regarding the approach to addressing Hezbollah's weapons. Washington, through its presidential envoy Tom Barrack, reiterated the urgent need to implement the state's commitment to disarmament, regardless of the developments in Lebanon and the region. Lebanon, which previously linked disarmament to Israel fulfilling its obligations—such as withdrawing from occupied areas, halting violations, and releasing detainees—tied the issue during Thursday's talks to the ongoing regional situation. According to a statement posted on the Presidency's official X account, President Joseph Aoun told Barrack that communications to achieve the principle of exclusive weapons control on both Lebanese and Palestinian levels are ongoing and will intensify once the regional situation stabilizes amid the escalating Israeli-Iranian conflict. Aoun also noted that the army's mission in southern Litani to implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and the ceasefire agreement has been hindered by Israel's continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms and its surroundings. In this context, Aoun reportedly reiterated the 'step-for-step' approach, meaning Israel must take steps on issues such as withdrawal, violations, and detainees, which would be met by corresponding Lebanese steps related to Hezbollah's weapons. The U.S. envoy also heard from President Aoun that Lebanon does not wish to be drawn into the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. Barrack urged Lebanese authorities to intensify cooperation with the new Syrian regime, particularly regarding border control and demarcation between the two countries. From Ain al-Tineh, the headquarters of the Parliament Speaker, Barrack said in response to a question that Hezbollah's involvement in the current war would be a very bad decision. Reports indicate that the message Barrack received from Speaker Nabih Berri was similar to that conveyed by President Aoun in Baabda. Berri emphasized that Lebanon has fulfilled its responsibilities, while the problem lies with Israel, which continues to violate U.N. Resolution 1701 and the ceasefire agreement, and maintains occupation, attacks, and assassinations. At the Grand Serail, Tom Barrack continued talks with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. They agreed on keeping Lebanon out of the war and on continuing state efforts to assert sovereignty, address Hezbollah's weapons, and resolve issues with Israel. They also agreed to pursue reforms and strengthen communication with Syria. Barrack, who has officially and temporarily taken charge of Lebanon affairs following his work on Syria, is expected to return to Beirut soon after briefing President Donald Trump on the results of his initial visit.
BBC News
a day ago
- Politics
- BBC News
Rwanda and DR Congo agree draft peace deal to end conflict
Representatives of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo have reached a draft agreement that could end decades of conflict. The breakthrough, mediated by the US and Qatar, provides for the "disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration" of armed groups fighting in eastern DR also includes provisions for a joint security mechanism to prevent future flare-ups. The peace deal is expected to be formally signed next deal could open the way for billions of dollars of western investment in the mineral-rich region, which been plagued by conflict for three decades. However, analysts say that many questions still remain about the contents of the peace US State Department said technical teams had initialled the draft text on Wednesday, ahead of a formal signing ceremony next Friday to be witnessed by US Secretary of State Marco a statement, it said the deal was reached during three days of "constructive dialogue regarding political, security, and economic interests" between officials of the two countries in Washington. The latest draft agreement builds on a previous accord signed earlier, it late April, Rwanda and DR Congo signed an agreement in Washington, promising to respect each other's sovereignty and come up with a draft peace deal within the fighting in DR Congo all about?The evidence that shows Rwanda is backing rebels in DR CongoYour phone, a rare metal and the war in DR CongoThe decades-long conflict escalated earlier this year when M23 rebels - widely believed to be backed by Rwanda - seized swathes of mineral-rich territory in eastern DR denies supporting the M23, insisting its military presence in the region is a defensive measure against threats posed by armed groups like the FDLR - a rebel group composed largely of ethnic Hutus linked to the 1994 Rwandan M23 captured Goma in late January, followed by the city of Bukavu, and has since set up governing structures in the regions under its of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands of civilians forced from their homes in recent months following the rebel the loss of territory, the government in Kinshasa turned to the US for help, reportedly offering access to critical minerals. Eastern DR Congo is rich in coltan and other resources vital to global electronics deals between the two countries have unravelled in the year, Rwandan and Congolese experts reached an agreement twice under Angolan mediation on the withdrawal of Rwandan troops and joint operations against FDLR - but ministers from both countries failed to endorse the deal. Angola eventually stepped down as a mediator in March. More about the DR Congo conflict from the BBC: Congolese rebels want peaceful solution to crisis, UN saysEx-DR Congo president returns from self-imposed exile, party saysDR Congo conflict tests China's diplomatic balancing actHow DR Congo's Tutsis become foreigners in their own country'They took all the women here': Rape survivors recall horror of DR Congo jailbreak Go to for more news from the African us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Forbes
2 days ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Spending On Nuclear Weapons Surges As Global Tensions Rise
T The world is at one of its most dangerous points in recent memory. An unresolved war in Ukraine, military escalation in the Middle East, continuing civil war in Sudan, tensions between India and Pakistan, and a near collapse of the global nuclear arms control regime. Add to this internal conflicts at home that have led to the deployment of active duty Marines to put down demonstrations in Los Angeles and the murder of a prominent elected official in Minnesota, and one can be forgiven for feeling like the global situation is spinning out of control. At this moment of peril, the last thing the world needs is a surge in spending on nuclear weapons, which, if used in significant quantities, can end life as we know it. But according to a new report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), that is precisely what is happening. Global spending on nuclear weapons topped $100 billion in 2024, the last year for which full statistics are available. The new figure was an 11% increase from 2023. More than half of world nuclear weapons spending – $56 billion – was accounted for by the United States. The risks of piling up yet more nuclear weapons in a world that already has thousands of them are real, but so are the profits that flow from developing, building, and maintaining them. The ICAN report identified 26 companies that split $20 billion in contracts for nuclear systems in 2024, with a whopping $463 billion in outstanding contracts from deals made in past years. But even as some nations double down on nuclear spending, there are signs of hope – 98 countries have signed, ratified or acceded to the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which bans all nuclear weapons activities and commits signatories to work towards their destruction. The question is whether the publics of the nuclear weapons states – the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, the United Kingdom, North Korea, and Israel – can persuade their governments to join the nuclear ban treaty, or at least reduce the size of their arsenals and agree to some rules of the road on crisis communications and agreeing not to strike first with their nuclear arsenals in a crisis. The prospects for trimming nuclear arsenals and reducing the risk of a nuclear conflict seem daunting in the short-term, but history suggests that changes in nuclear policy can come about in relatively short order with adequate public pressure. A case in point is what happened during the Reagan administration. In a few short years, a staunchly anti-communist president who referred to the Soviet Union as the evil empire and joked that 'the bombing starts in five minutes' had acknowledged that 'a nuclear war can never be won and should never be fought' and set the stage for significant reductions in the size of U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals. This shift was not due to some personal quirk or crisis of conscience on the part of Ronald Reagan, although some of his associates have reported that he had a visceral opposition to the idea of ever launching a nuclear weapon. But the main driver of the Reagan administration's shift in nuclear policy was the U.S. anti-nuclear movement, symbolized by the nuclear freeze campaign and punctuated by a million person rally for disarmament in New York's Central Park in June of 1982. As the movement grew, aides to the president told him that the anti-nuclear movement had gone mainstream, and that if he wanted to survive politically he had to take action to convince the public that they were not at risk of dying in a nuclear holocaust. And so he did, both with the ill-fated Star Wars missile defense program and through serious dialogue on nuclear arms reductions with Soviet reformer Mikhail Gorbachev. History rarely repeats itself precisely, but it is possible that the instability spanning the globe might, just might, prompt citizens and diplomats alike to seek measures to control and reduce global nuclear arsenals and take affirmative steps to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons use. But first there needs to be a warming of relations among the big nuclear powers – the U.S., Russia, and China. They don't need to become best of friends, but they need to be clear-eyed about the fact that no one will win if the nuclear arms race spirals out of control, and that dialogue on how to control and reduce these potentially world-ending weapons is urgently necessary.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Israel, the US and Iran: you can't bomb your way out of nuclear proliferation
Eighty years after the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and 40 years after the US and Soviet Union pledged to reduce their arsenals, the threat of nuclear war has resurged with a vengeance. The age of disarmament is over, a prominent thinktank warned this week: 'We see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric and the abandonment of arms control agreements,' said Hans M Kristensen of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The world's nine nuclear-armed states have amassed the equivalent of 145,000 Hiroshima bombs. Israel's illegal attack upon Iran is purportedly a last-ditch attempt to prevent it joining this club – as Israel did long ago, though does not admit it. While Tehran possesses the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon if it chose to, US intelligence believes it has not made that decision – and would still need up to three years to build and deploy one. Israel does not appear to be striking Iran because US nuclear diplomacy has failed, but because it fears it might succeed. Many of its targets are unrelated to the nuclear programme, and some even to Iran's military. Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly invoked regime change: more honestly, regime collapse. Few believe Israel can destroy Iran's nuclear programme without the US. The Israeli prime minister seeks to bait Donald Trump into joining this assault: if he can't get one of the peace deals he wants, how about taking a military triumph? Mr Trump's shifting rhetoric has suggested he is being dragged along, to the alarm of Maga isolationists and others who recognise the folly of seeing an easy win. But he may still hope to threaten Iran into a deal. The bigger threat is nuclear proliferation globally. The remaining US-Russian nuclear arms control treaty, New Start, is due to lapse in February – leaving them without limits on their arsenals for the first time in half a century. Both are already pursuing extensive modernisation programmes. China is still far behind, but its armoury is growing fastest, at around 100 warheads a year. This month's strategic defence review commits the UK to spending £15bn on new submarine-launched warheads and opens the door to the reintroduction of air-launched nuclear weapons. North Korea appears to be building a third uranium enrichment site. Taboos elsewhere are eroding, in an increasingly unstable world where impunity reigns. Support for an independent deterrent has soared in South Korea, no longer confident of the US umbrella. Weapons are becoming not only deadlier, but riskier, with the integration of nuclear and conventional capabilities increasing the prospect of miscalculations. And potential flashpoints dot this bleak landscape. Russia has repeatedly talked up the threat of nuclear war in Ukraine – but that does not guarantee it is an empty one. India's unprecedented use of Brahmos cruise missiles in last month's clash with Pakistan signals a new and dangerous phase in south Asia's strategic balance. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq, coupled with the survival of North Korea, sent the message that the safest course is not to shun weapons of mass destruction but to pursue and cling to them at all costs. Attacking Iran, which limited its programme in exchange for sanctions relief, will only fuel that conviction. It may set back Tehran's nuclear progress somewhat, but makes it more likely to rush for the bomb – and avoid the international scrutiny it previously accepted. Saudi Arabia and others would surely follow fast. Arab and Muslim countries have rightly denounced Israel's strikes and called for disarmament 'without selectivity'. The current crisis makes that look a more hopeless cause than ever – but is the clearest evidence of why it is needed in place of a nuclear race which can have no winners.
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Jailed PKK leader Ocalan needs outside contact to dissolve group, pro-Kurdish politicians say
The jailed leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) Abdullah Ocalan needs better communication with the outside world to manage the militant group's proposed disarmament and political transition, pro-Kurdish leaders in Turkey have said. "Mr Ocalan will personally lead this disarmament process," Tulay Hatimogullari, co-chairman of the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party, said in Istanbul on Wednesday. "Therefore, for him to work more comfortably on this matter, he wants to hold meetings with many groups in Turkey, the Middle East, Europe – in short, all over the world." Ocalan, whose group is designated a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the EU and the US, called on PKK members in February to lay down their arms and for the group to be dissolved. His call came after a months-long process initiated by an ally of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the ultranationalist politician Devlet Bahceli, to offer greater freedom for Ocalan in exchange for the PKK's dissolution. Ocalan intends to transform the PKK into a political party based on 'political internationalism', Ms Hatimogullari said. 'After the weapons are laid down, how will the PKK cadres take on roles and missions in this regard? she said. "To discuss all of this and consult with others, it is necessary for him [Ocalan] to meet with everyone. We can evaluate this as a first step.' Ocalan also wants to meet leaders in Iraq and Syria, both of which have large Kurdish populations with varying degrees of autonomous governance, she said. "He wants to meet both with representatives of the autonomous administration in northern and eastern Syria, and with representatives of the Damascus government. The same goes for Iraq and many other countries." Kurdish politicians, who distinguish themselves from the PKK, are pushing for Turkey's government to move faster in what they describe as a democratisation process aimed at peace. The Turkish government has framed it as an exercise in achieving a 'terror-free Turkey', following more than four decades of conflict with the Kurdish militant group. 'The fact that it is progressing slowly does not mean that it is deadlocked. I think it needs to be accelerated,' Ms Hatimogullari said. Broadly, Kurdish politicians are calling for better prison conditions for Ocalan, who has been incarcerated on a remote island in the Sea of Marmara, south of Istanbul, since 1999. They want the formation of a parliamentary commission to solidify the process in law and to make recommendations for amendments to anti-terrorism legislation. They also want greater rights to use the Kurdish language and an end to curbs on Kurdish political activity. Government officials have said little about how the PKK's dissolution and disarmament will be managed and it is unclear to what extent they are willing to meet the DEM party's expectations. The government seeks co-ordination with other parties for the process to succeed, Mr Erdogan said on Wednesday. 'We need co-operation and the development of the spirit of working together to easily reach the goal of a terror-free Turkey, whose strategic importance is understood,' he told MPs in Ankara. The parliamentary commission needs to be functional, effective and results-driven, DEM co-chairman Tuncer Bakirhan said. The conflict between Iran and Israel adds more urgency, as Turkey needs to maximise its stability in the face of regional hostilities, he added. The commission "must not just engage in debate; it should provide legal proposals to the parliament ... and ensure successful progress on this issue", he said. The DEM is pushing for the commission to start work before the Turkish parliament's summer break, he added. The PKK agreed to heed Ocalan's call and disband last month. Yet the process of laying down weapons and deciding the fate of its fighters is complex. The PKK has conditioned laying down their weapons on 'freedom' for Ocalan and are in contact with the Turkish government over the disarmament process, Ms Hatimogullari said. Whether that means his release or the ability to hold consultations on the process from prison has not yet been established. 'Of course, the warring sides are already in contact with each other – this is happening outside the DEM party, outside of democratic politics,' she said. "Our view is that if steps are taken in this regard, the disarmament process will gain momentum very quickly. But as for how the dialogue between them will evolve in the upcoming period – we cannot predict that.' The government has not confirmed it is in talks with the PKK over the disarmament. Turkish intelligence services would 'closely monitor whether promises are kept' around dissolution, Mr Erdogan said last month. Releasing Ocalan would be politically difficult for the Turkish government: the conflict with the PKK has killed 40,000 people across both sides, and the release of the man heading the group that forms Turkey's number one national security issue would be unpopular. DEM officials, who have been allowed to visit Ocalan several times in recent months, said his overall prison conditions have not changed, but he now spends less time in solitary confinement. He is able to meet up to three other prisoners, chosen by him and his lawyers, to hold 'study groups', said Ms Hatimogullari. "He is in quite good spirits."
