Foreign Aid

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares16 Views

    Democrats Split as Senate Rejects Bills to Block Weapons Transfers to Israel

    by

    The legislation failed resoundingly but highlighted the Democratic divide over whether the United States should withhold some weapons to register its disapproval of Israel’s war tactics.The Senate on Wednesday resoundingly rejected a series of three resolutions to block weapons transfers to Israel, shutting down an effort by progressive Democrats to curtail American support for the war in Gaza.The lopsided votes were mostly symbolic given the strong support for Israel on Capitol Hill. But they highlighted deep divisions among Democrats over President Biden’s continued military support for Israel despite ample evidence that its military has committed human rights violations during its offensive against Hamas, including killing civilians and blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid.The measures were offered by Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, who has been a vocal critic of Israel’s tactics in the war. In the days since the election, he has also argued that the administration’s Israel policy, and Vice President Kamala Harris’s defense of it on the campaign trail, were partially to blame for the Democrats’ election losses.“You cannot condemn human rights around the world and then turn a blind eye to what the United States is now funding in Israel — people will laugh in your face,” Mr. Sanders said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.He argued that the United States was breaking its own laws by continuing to send Israel weapons when it was using them to target civilians. The laws say that recipients of weapons made in the United States must use them in accordance with U.S. and international law and not impede the flow of humanitarian aid into war zones.“If we do not demand that the countries we provide military assistance to obey international law, we will lose our credibility on the world stage,” Mr. Sanders said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares35 Views

      in Elections

      COP29 Climate Talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, Head Into Final Stretch

      by

      Senior ministers are arriving in an effort to break a deadlock over the summit’s main goal: funding to help lower-income countries hit hard by global warming.More than halfway through the United Nations climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, negotiators from nearly 200 countries remain far apart on a number of the key issues up for debate.As nations try to agree on a plan to provide potentially trillions of dollars to developing countries suffering from the effects of climate change, divisions remain over how much money should be made available, what kind of financing efforts should count toward the overall goal and how recipient countries should gain access to the funds.Negotiations often go into overtime. But with just four days to go, many attendees fear that this could be the first summit since the Copenhagen talks in 2009 to conclude without a deal.“There is a high risk this could collapse,” said a senior negotiator for a major European country, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.Simon Stiell, the United Nations climate chief, pleaded on Monday with countries to stop fighting and to reach a deal.He warned against a dynamic “where groups of parties dig in and refuse to move on one issue, until others move elsewhere.” He added, “This is a recipe for going literally nowhere.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares63 Views

      in Elections

      Nuclear Power Was Once Shunned at Climate Talks. Now, It’s a Rising Star.

      by

      Growing worldwide energy demand and other factors have shifted the calculus, but hurdles still lie ahead.For years at global climate summits, nuclear energy was seen by many as part of the problem, not part of the solution.Sama Bilbao y Leon has been attending the annual United Nations climate change talks since 1999, when she was a student of nuclear engineering. And for most of that time, she said, people didn’t want to discuss nuclear power at all.“We had antinuclear groups saying, ‘What are you doing here? Leave!’” she said.These days, it’s a very different story.At last year’s climate conference in the United Arab Emirates, 22 countries pledged, for the first time, to triple the world’s use of nuclear power by midcentury to help curb global warming. At this year’s summit in Azerbaijan, six more countries signed the pledge.“It’s a whole different dynamic today,” said Dr. Bilbao y Leon, who now leads the World Nuclear Association, an industry trade group. “A lot more people are open to talking about nuclear power as a solution.”The list of countries pledging to build new nuclear reactors, which can generate electricity without emitting any planet-warming greenhouse gases, includes longtime users of the technology like Canada, France, South Korea and the United States. But it also includes countries that don’t currently have any nuclear capacity, like Kenya, Mongolia and Nigeria.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares54 Views

      in Elections

      Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Unilever of Seeking to Muzzle Its Gaza Stance

      by

      The ice cream maker claimed in a lawsuit that its parent company tried to stop it from expressing support for Palestinian refugees.Ben & Jerry’s on Wednesday sued its parent company, Unilever, accusing the consumer goods giant of censorship and threats over the ice cream maker’s attempts to express support for Palestinian refugees. The move ratchets up a longstanding conflict between the two that has flared since the start of the war in Gaza.The lawsuit claims that Unilever recently tried to dismantle Ben & Jerry’s independent board and sought to muzzle it to prevent the company from calling for a cease-fire and safe passage for refugees, from supporting U.S. students protesting civilian deaths in Gaza, and from urging an end to U.S. military aid to Israel.“Unilever has silenced each of these efforts,” Ben & Jerry’s said in the lawsuit. The company, which is based in South Burlington, Vt., did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Unilever said that it would strongly defend itself against the accusations. “We reject the claims made by B&J’s social mission board,” it said in a statement.Hamas carried out a devastating attack on Israel on Oct. 7 last year, and Israel responded by besieging Gaza, the territory that Hamas once controlled, with an offensive that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and created a humanitarian crisis.Unilever is one of a number of global multinationals like Starbucks that has been grappling with how to navigate business amid one of the most fraught issues in the world. The British conglomerate bought Ben & Jerry’s in 2000 and holds two of 11 seats on what is supposed to be an independent board.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares55 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. to Keep Sending Arms to Israel Despite Dire Conditions in Gaza

      by

      The State Department said Israel needs to take more steps to improve the situation among Palestinians. The United States had given the country 30 days to meet aid criteria.The State Department said on Tuesday that it did not plan to decrease weapons aid to Israel, as a 30-day deadline set by the Biden administration passed without the country substantially improving the humanitarian situation in war-devastated Gaza.Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III had warned in a letter dated Oct. 13 that the United States would reassess its military aid to Israel if it failed to increase the amount of aid allowed to enter Gaza within 30 days.The letter said that the humanitarian situation for the two million residents of Gaza was “increasingly dire” and that the amount of aid entering Gaza had fallen by 50 percent since April.By law, the U.S. government cannot give aid to foreign military forces deemed by the State Department to be committing “gross violations of human rights.”U.N. officials have said Israel’s continued blocking of humanitarian aid and targeting of humanitarian workers constitute violations of international law and could amount to war crimes.Food insecurity experts working on an initiative controlled by U.N. bodies and major relief agencies said last week that famine was imminent or most likely already occurring in northern Gaza. U.N. officials say the entire population of Gaza is facing food insecurity.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares58 Views

      in Elections

      50,000 Russian and North Korean Troops Mass Ahead of Attack, U.S. Says

      by

      Ukrainian officials expect a counteroffensive in western Russia to begin in the coming days as North Korea’s troops train with Russian forces.The Russian military has assembled a force of 50,000 soldiers, including North Korean troops, as it prepares to begin an assault aimed at reclaiming territory seized by Ukraine in the Kursk region of Russia, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.A new U.S. assessment concludes that Russia has massed the force without having to pull soldiers out of Ukraine’s east — its main battlefield priority — allowing Moscow to press on multiple fronts simultaneously.Russian troops have been clawing back some of the territory that Ukraine captured in Kursk this year. They have been attacking Ukrainian positions with missile strikes and artillery fire, but they have not yet begun a major assault there, U.S. officials said.Ukrainian officials say they expect such an attack involving the North Korean troops in the coming days.For now, the North Koreans are training with Russian forces in the far western part of Kursk.The Russian-North Korean offensive looms as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to re-enter office with a stated goal of ending the war quickly. Mr. Trump has said little about how he would settle the conflict, but Vice President-elect JD Vance has outlined a plan that would allow Russia to keep the territory it has seized in Ukraine.Some U.S. military and intelligence officials have grown more pessimistic about Ukraine’s overall prospects, noting that Russia has steadily gained ground, both in Kursk and in eastern Ukraine. Officials say the setbacks are partly a result of Ukraine’s failure to solve critical shortfalls in troop strength.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      G7 Finalizes $50 Billion Ukraine Loan Backed by Russian Assets

      by

      The economic lifeline is expected to be disbursed by the end of the year.The Group of 7 nations will announce on Wednesday that it has finalized plans to give Ukraine a $50 billion loan using Russia’s frozen central bank assets, according to a White House official.The loan represents an extraordinary maneuver by Western nations to essentially force Russia to pay for the damage it is inflicting on Ukraine through a war that shows no sign of ending.“Never before has a multilateral coalition frozen the assets of an aggressor country and then harnessed the value of those assets to fund the defense of the aggrieved party,” Daleep Singh, the White House’s deputy national security adviser for international economics, said on Wednesday.The announcement comes after months of debate and negotiation among policymakers in the United States and Europe over how they could use $300 billion of frozen Russian central bank assets to support Ukraine.The United States and the European Union enacted sanctions to freeze Russia’s central bank assets, most of which are held in Europe, after its invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. As the war dragged on, officials in the United States pushed for the funds to be seized and given directly to Ukraine to aid in its economic recovery.European officials had concerns about the lawfulness of such a move, however, and both sides eventually agreed over the summer that they would use the interest that the assets were earning to back a $50 billion loan.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Why the World’s Biggest Powers Can’t Stop a Middle East War

      by

      The United States’ ability to influence events in the Mideast has waned, and other major nations have essentially been onlookers.Over almost a year of war in the Middle East, major powers have proved incapable of stopping or even significantly influencing the fighting, a failure that reflects a turbulent world of decentralized authority that seems likely to endure.Stop-and-start negotiations between Israel and Hamas to end the fighting in Gaza, pushed by the United States, have repeatedly been described by the Biden administration as on the verge of a breakthrough, only to fail. The current Western-led attempt to avert a full-scale Israeli-Hezbollah war in Lebanon amounts to a scramble to avert disaster. Its chances of success seem deeply uncertain after the Israeli killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader of Hezbollah on Friday.“There’s more capability in more hands in a world where centrifugal forces are far stronger than centralizing ones,” said Richard Haass, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. “The Middle East is the primary case study of this dangerous fragmentation.”The killing of Mr. Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah over more than three decades and the man who built the Shiite organization into one of the most powerful nonstate armed forces in the world, leaves a vacuum that Hezbollah will most likely take a long time to fill. It is a major blow to Iran, the chief backer of Hezbollah, that may even destabilize the Islamic Republic. Whether full-scale war will come to Lebanon remains unclear.“Nasrallah represented everything for Hezbollah, and Hezbollah was the advance arm of Iran,” said Gilles Kepel, a leading French expert on the Middle East and the author of a book on the world’s upheaval since Oct. 7. “Now the Islamic Republic is weakened, perhaps mortally, and one wonders who can even give an order for Hezbollah today.”For many years, the United States was the only country that could bring constructive pressure to bear on both Israel and Arab states. It engineered the 1978 Camp David Accords that brought peace between Israel and Egypt, and the Israel-Jordan peace of 1994. Just over three decades ago, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel and Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, shook hands on the White House lawn in the name of peace, only for the fragile hope of that embrace to erode steadily.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      $50 Billion in Aid to Ukraine Stalls Over Legal Questions

      by

      U.S. and European officials are struggling to honor their pledge to use Russian assets to aid Ukraine.A long-awaited plan to help Ukraine rebuild using Russian money is in limbo as the United States and Europe struggle to agree on how to construct a $50 billion loan using Russia’s frozen central bank assets while complying with their own laws.The fraught negotiations reflect the challenges facing the Group of 7 nations as they attempt to push their sanctions powers to new limits in an attempt to punish Russia and aid Ukraine.American and European officials have been scrambling in recent weeks to try to get the loan in place by the end of the year. There is added urgency to finalize the package ahead of any potential shifts in the political landscape in the United States, where support for Ukraine could waver if former President Donald J. Trump wins the presidential election in November.But technical obstacles associated with standing up such a loan have complicated matters.Group of 7 officials grappled for months over how to use $300 billion in frozen Russian central bank assets to aid Ukraine. After European countries expressed reservations about the legality of outright seizing the assets, they agreed that it would be possible to back a $50 billion loan with the stream of interest that the assets earn.The solution was intended to provide Ukraine with a large infusion of funds without providing more direct aid from the budgets of the United States and European countries. It also allowed western allies to make use of Russia’s assets without taking the step of actually spending its money, which many top officials in Europe believed would be illegal.But differences in the legal systems in the United States and in Europe, which both plan to provide the money up front, have made it difficult to structure the loan.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More