&w=3840&q=100)
B'desh Awami League concerned over Starmer's upcoming meeting with Yunus
The Bangladesh Awami League on Monday expressed deep concern over UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's reportedly scheduled meeting with Muhammad Yunus, Chief Adviser of Bangladesh, the party said in a statement.
"The Awami League has today expressed deep concern over UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's reportedly scheduled meeting with Muhammad Yunus, the self-declared Chief Adviser of Bangladesh, warning that any formal meeting lends legitimacy to an unelected and unconstitutional administration," said the Awami League statement posted on its Facebook page.
A formal letter from the Awami League's UK branch has been sent to Downing Street, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the King's Foundation, and the Commonwealth Secretariat, urging British officials not to unwittingly launder Yunus's administration, just as Bangladesh's crisis deepens, it added.
Bangladesh's Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus is going on a bilateral official visit to the United Kingdom from June 10 to 13, 2025. During the visit, the Chief Adviser is expected to have an audience with King Charles III of the United Kingdom. The Chief Adviser is also likely to hold a bilateral meeting with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer during the visit.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was ousted in a student-led uprising in August last year. She is now living in India in self-imposed exile. After Sheikh Hasina's fall, an interim government was formed under the leadership of Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus.
Ahead of the UK visit, Muhammad Yunus announced that the national election will be held in the first half of April 2026. The announcement of the national election is a major development for Bangladesh politics after the fall of the Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League government in August 2024.
The Chief of Army Staff General Waker-Uz-Zaman had said on May 21 that the national election should be held by December this year, The Daily Star reported.
Yunus said in his address that after one and a half decades, a truly representative parliament will be formed in the country. He urged the people of the country "to obtain specific commitments" from all political parties and candidates that they will approve without any change, in the first session of the next parliament, the reforms on which consensus has been reached, the report said.
He also reminded the people of the country that this election is not just about peaceful elections. It is an election to build a 'New Bangladesh'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Can Israel claim self-defence to justify Gaza war; here's what law says
On October 7 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, 'Israel is at war'. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has 'an inherent right to defend itself', as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[…] At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence in the law Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not 'unreasonable or excessive'. The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the second world war in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be 'annihilated' unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. A test of proportionality The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. While the law allows a war to continue until an aggressor surrenders, it does not legitimise the complete destruction of the territory where an aggressor is fighting. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Is rescuing hostages in self-defence? Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted – and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. An act of aggression? If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred – and continues to occur – in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza?
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Gaza-Bound Activist Boat With Greta Thunberg On Board Intercepted by Israel
Activist Greta Thunberg aboard the Madleen, which departed from Sicily earlier in June to bring humanitarian aid to forces intercepted a sailboat carrying a group of activists, including climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, who planned to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza in defiance of an Israeli blockade on the enclave. The Israeli foreign ministry said early Monday that the ship was 'safely making its way to the shores of Israel' and that the passengers were expected to return to their home countries. The ministry also posted a video of masked Israeli military personnel handing out sandwiches and bottled water to the activists. 'The maritime zone off the coast of Gaza is closed to unauthorized vessels under a legal naval blockade, consistent with international law,' the Israeli foreign ministry had earlier said in a social-media post. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, the activist group that organized the boat, said Israeli forces had boarded the vessel just after 3 a.m. local time and detained those onboard. The coalition said the interception took place in international waters, posting a set of coordinates north of Egypt's Port Said near the entrance to the Suez Canal. Earlier, activists on the vessel posted videos they said showed the boat being sprayed with an unidentified white substance. The activists gathered in a group holding their hands in the air after throwing their phones overboard, according to a video posted by the group. Asked about the activists' claims, the Israeli military referred to statements from the foreign ministry. The British-flagged 59-foot sailboat, nicknamed Madleen, departed from Sicily earlier in June carrying a cargo of baby formula, flour, rice, diapers, women's sanitary products, water desalination kits, and medical supplies, according to the coalition. Also on board the boat were activists from Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Brazil. Among them is a French member of the European Parliament, Rima Hassan. A previous attempted voyage to Gaza by a flotilla of aid ships in 2010 ended in an international fracas when Israeli commandos boarded the vessels, killing 10 Turkish activists on board. The killings caused a rupture in Israel's ties with Turkey, a major Middle East power that was the first Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later apologized over the incident and Israel paid $20 million in compensation to the Turkish civilians who were killed. Organizers of the new sea mission to Gaza said that while the ship is carrying a small amount of aid, the group's mission is a political attempt to challenge Israel's siege of Gaza and potentially open a maritime corridor for other ships to bring aid to the Gaza Strip. The enclave is seeing a humanitarian disaster unfold after a year and a half of war between Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. 'We are doing this because we have to keep our promise to the Palestinians,' Thunberg said at the launch of the boat earlier in June. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which organized the 2010 flotilla and this year's boat, includes a range of pro-Palestinian activist groups from across the world, including the Free Gaza Movement, the European Campaign to End the Siege, and the Turkish nonprofit Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH). The charity is seen as having ties to Turkey's ruling party. The activists' attempt to sail to Gaza comes after a year in which the group struggled to get the mission under way. The group attempted to sail last year from Turkey but was stymied when the African nation of Guinea-Bissau withdrew its flag of convenience from a pair of ships involved in the plan. The new aid ship sailed as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is deepening. Nearly half a million people in Gaza are facing starvation, according to a report in May by a U.N.-backed international famine warning system. Write to Jared Malsin at Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
UK PM Keir Starmer pledges AI tools in schools, says technology ‘makes us more human'
UK PM Keir Starmer pledges AI learning tools for schools, calling AI 'hugely transformative' for Britain. Speaking at London Tech Week, he emphasised AI's role in health, defence, and government. Starmer urged all departments to integrate AI into how government functions, aiming to make public services smarter and more efficient. He believes AI can enhance human potential, not replace it saying it 'makes us more human' in how we work and govern. Show more Show less
