Chinese University steps in with ‘unconditional offers' for Harvard's students
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) has extended unconditional offers to international students at Harvard, following recent US government actions that have affected the university's ability to enrol them.The Chinese university said the step would help "ensure a smooth transition" for students who may be unable to enroll for the next academic year. Over 1,000 Chinese students are currently studying at the prestigious Ivy League institution.advertisementThe move comes amid escalating tensions between the US government and Harvard, with the Department of Homeland Security citing concerns over campus safety and alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
Meanwhile, Harvard has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the decision will have a devastating impact on thousands of international students. The university is also suing over a cut of more than USD 2 billion in federal funding.Judge blocks Trump from revoking Harvard enrollmentMeanwhile, a US judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard University's ability to enroll foreign students. Harvard University called the revocation a "blatant violation" of the US Constitution and other federal laws and had an "immediate and devastating effect" on the university and more than 7,000 visa holders.Tune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Staying the course on trade pacts with the UK and US
The uncertainty unleashed by Donald Trump's tariffs has only been aggravated by a spate of recent court rulings. On May 28, the US Court of International Trade struck down Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, saying that the emergency law (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) does not give the President the power to impose broad tariffs. However, a day later, a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the tariffs. The case is now likely to work its way through the US legal system. The uncertainty is likely to linger on as the 90-day pause on the Liberation Day tariffs ends in the second week of July. The Trump administration may have hoped that some trade deals would be quickly negotiated. And while the US and the UK have reached an agreement — the deal was announced on May 8th — progress with other major trading nations/blocks remains a protracted process. Take the case of China. A few days ago, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is reported to have said that trade talks between the US and China 'are a bit stalled'. Last Friday, Trump said that China has 'totally violated' its agreement with the US, a charge that China has rejected. The US President is expected to speak to Chinese President Xi Jinping this week to iron out their differences. In the case of Japan, several rounds of talks have taken place, and another is expected before the G7 summit. But last Friday, the legal challenges to his tariffs notwithstanding, Trump also raised the tariffs on steel and aluminium to 50 per cent, potentially impacting countries such as Canada, Mexico and South Korea, which account for a sizeable share of US steel imports. A day later, the European Union, which had agreed to 'accelerate talks' on a US trade deal, has also responded firmly, saying it is prepared to impose 'countermeasures' against the US. It noted that such moves to increase tariffs 'undermine ongoing efforts to reach a negotiated solution'. The new tariffs are effective from June 4. These latest tariff moves come at a time when India and the US are negotiating a bilateral trade deal. A US team is expected to visit India over the coming few days. On Monday, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, speaking in Washington at the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum's leadership summit, said that a deal between the US and India could happen in the 'not too distant future'. The India-EU trade deal also appears to be on course. As per a report, the two sides have agreed on several chapters, and the pact could be concluded before the end of the year. Coming after the finalisation of the India-UK agreement, the successful culmination of these deals would increase the country's attractiveness as an investment destination.
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why Trump has changed his tune on Iran
After less than two months in office, US President Donald Trump made a 'sudden' offer to Iran's Supreme Leader for direct US-Iran talks on the Iranian nuclear weapons programme and easing of US sanctions. So far, five rounds of US-Iran talks have been led by the US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Though the talks remained on track up to the third round, both sides started hardening their stances before the fourth round, held just a day before Trump's three-nation Gulf tour. However, it was before the fifth round that both drew irreconcilable red lines about Iranian enrichment capability. While Witkoff stressed that Iran can't have any enrichment capability, Araghchi tweeted 'no enrichment, no deal'. Despite serious doubts, the fifth round took place on May 23. It appears that the talks did not collapse and both sides have taken back proposals to ponder over. Will the talks continue and could they succeed? In 2015, the US and other global powers had stitched together a Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) deal with Iran to bring its nuclear programme under stricter international inspections. This was to ensure that Iran pursued only a peaceful civil nuclear programme. In return, Iran got relief from the sanctions. However, in 2018, based on 'consultation with Middle Eastern allies' — a reference to Saudi Arabia and Israel — Trump had walked out of the deal unilaterally, calling it 'defective'. Other parties to the deal could not salvage it and, faced with US sanctions, Iran reduced its openness to international scrutiny. The geopolitics of the Middle East has undergone a sea change since Trump's first term and so has his approach to solving conflicts. The genocide in Gaza has united the Sunni Arab states behind a two-state solution. China has successfully brokered a Saudi-Iran rapprochement. Iran has gone on a diplomatic overdrive to build a better understanding with Sunni Arab states, including on its nuclear programme. These factors created favourable conditions for US-Iran talks. Just before his Gulf tour, Trump had hinted at potential consultations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar on the issue. During his tour, Saudi foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan al Saud publicly supported the US-Iran talks. In Doha, applauding the Emir of Qatar's strong push for diplomacy with Iran, Trump assured protection of Qatar's interests. In early March, Qatar PM Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani had warned against targeting Iranian nuclear facilities as that could contaminate the waters of the Gulf and threaten the lives of people in Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait. The three states with minimal natural water reserves depend on desalinated water drawn from the Gulf. Apart from other factors, Trump has also done favours for the Gulf states to try and secure their backing for the US-Iran nuclear deal. This includes ongoing talks for a Saudi nuclear deal, a six-month waiver on sanctions for Syria and a personal meeting between Trump and Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa (once a designated person) along with the Saudi crown prince. More importantly, the US has its own security interests riding on a good deal with Iran. A detailed assessment made by the US Intelligence Community (IC) put out in March portrayed Iran as part of a pack of 'adversaries' — along with Russia, China and North Korea — 'who were individually and collectively challenging US interests'. The assessment observed that growing cooperation between and among these adversaries was increasing their 'fortitude against the United States (and so was)… the potential for hostilities with any one of them drawing in another', and pressuring other global actors to choose sides. Engaging Iran as a part of a broader axis that includes Russia may be an important factor guiding Trump's aggressive diplomacy while upping trade and non-trade wars with China. The assessment also concluded that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wants to avoid embroiling Iran in an 'expanded, direct conflict' with the US and its allies and has not yet authorised a nuclear weapons programme that he had suspended in 2003. Iran, as per the assessment, was not building a nuclear weapon and can't do it without a decision by the Supreme Leader. However, Iran was likely to continue research and development of chemical and biological agents for offensive purposes. At the start of the talks, Witkoff had publicly stated that Iran did not need more than 3.67 per cent enriched uranium for civil nuclear purposes and that verification was required for 'reported' enriched uranium up to 20 per cent and 60 per cent. He also outlined the need for verification on weaponisation, delivery systems and nuclear triggers that Iran might possess. Iran's establishment has a lot riding on maintaining enrichment capability for peaceful uses as well as asserting its sovereignty to its people. In addition to 3.67 per cent enriched uranium, Iran, like other nations, would also like to make or be able to import around 20 per cent enriched uranium for medical use. The discussions appear to be now focussed on 'specificities' and hence, will require tough negotiations by both parties. By taking maximalist positions, both sides seem to be insulating this sensitive phase of negotiations from potential sabotage. Trump, too, has said he 'warned' Israel against any pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to give US diplomacy a chance to succeed. (The writer is a security analyst and former director general of police)
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Not contempt': SC refuses to quash Chhattisgarh's anti-Naxal law
The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, holding that its enactment by the state legislature does not amount to contempt of the court's previous order that outlawed the controversial Salwa Judum militia. While refusing to strike down the 2011 legislation, the top court, however, made it unequivocally clear that it is the constitutional duty of both the Centre and the Chhattisgarh government to ensure peace and rehabilitation for the people affected by violence in the region. 'We note that it is duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,' a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma stated in its May 15 order, released recently. The bench noted that though the earlier order dated July 5, 2011 in the Nandini Sundar Vs State of Chhattisgarh case had directed the state to desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in anti-Naxal operations, the 2011 Act did not violate or override that ruling, nor could the enactment of a law be equated to contempt of court. 'Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a Court, including this Court, for simply making the law…The passing of an enactment subsequent to the order of this Court by the legislature of the State of Chhattisgarh cannot, in our view, be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by this Court,' held the bench. The bench added that the legislative action undertaken by the State was an exercise of its legitimate power under the Constitution. 'Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law,' it said. Led by senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, the petitioners — sociologist Nandini Sundar, historian Ramachandra Guha, former bureaucrat EAS Sarma, had argued that the enactment of the 2011 law was in contempt of the apex court's July 2011 judgment, which held that the practice of appointing tribal youth as SPOs and arming them to fight Maoists was unconstitutional. They contended that the new law merely gave legislative backing to an arrangement that had already been struck down by the court. However, the court noted that while the earlier directions in the Nandini Sundar judgment prohibited the use of SPOs for counter-insurgency operations and ordered disbanding of armed vigilante groups like Salwa Judum, the enactment of a new law by the state legislature could not, by itself, be equated to contempt. It added that the petitioners must mount an appropriate legal challenge if they sought to assail the validity of the 2011 law because the 'interpretative power of a constitutional court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a court.' The region has witnessed a decades-old Maoist insurgency, marked by frequent clashes between security forces and armed rebels, and has claimed thousands of lives over the years, including those of civilians, security personnel, and insurgents. The present litigation arises out of the Supreme Court's landmark 2011 judgment that had declared the use of tribal civilians as SPOs to combat Maoist insurgency as unconstitutional and violative of human rights. The top court had categorically banned the use of SPOs, many of them minors, and ordered disbanding of private militias like Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos, terming their activities as 'unconstitutional'. In that order, the apex court directed the immediate cessation of using SPOs in any form of counter-insurgency operations, withdrawal of all firearms issued to SPOs, prosecution of those responsible for criminal acts committed under the aegis of Salwa Judum and NHRC and CBI probes into grave human rights violations, including alleged arson and killings in some identified districts in Chhattisgarh. However, soon after the 2011 verdict, the state government enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, purportedly to legitimise the appointment of locals in auxiliary armed forces, prompting fresh litigation and a contempt plea by the petitioners, who argued that the enactment was an 'attempt to nullify' the Supreme Court's binding directions and that the state's move to reintroduce civilian combatants under a new statutory garb amounted to willful disobedience. They also flagged non-compliance with the court's directive to rehabilitate former SPOs, prosecute members of Salwa Judum for past atrocities, and investigate attacks on activists such as Swami Agnivesh, who was assaulted in 2011 while trying to visit affected villages. Rejecting these arguments, the bench held that enacting a law is a legislative act and must be challenged accordingly, not via contempt jurisdiction. It also took note of the Centre's and Chhattisgarh government's submission that they had complied with the directions issued in 2011 and had filed the requisite compliance reports. The Salwa Judum was a state-sponsored civil militia movement initiated in 2005 as a counter-insurgency strategy against Maoist rebels in southern Chhattisgarh. Comprising largely tribal youth armed with basic training and firearms, the movement rapidly became notorious for serious human rights abuses, including extra-judicial killings, sexual violence and forced displacement of villagers. The Salwa Judum was disbanded officially following the 2011 judgment.
