Kim's Sister Says No Role for Seoul in North Korea Diplomacy
South Korea will not have even a 'subordinate' role in the regional diplomatic arena centered on North Korea, Kim Yo Jong, sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, said during a meeting with foreign ministry officials Tuesday, according to state media.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
32 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Taiwanese court sentences ex-legislator's son for illegal fuel transfers to North Korea
TAIPEI, Taiwan — The son of a former Taiwanese legislator has been sentenced to more than two years in prison for a scheme that illegally supplied thousands of tons of fuel oil to North Korea. Huang Chung-wei was sentenced to 28 months in prison by the district court in the southern port city of Kaohsiung on Tuesday. Five others also received prison terms. They were convicted of taking part in loading the fuel onto ships in Taiwan and making the transfers in collaboration with Kwek Kee Seng, a Singaporean businessman wanted by the U.S. whose whereabouts were unknown. Such activity is a violation of Taiwan's Counter-Terrorism Financing Act and other statutes. the court said. Illegal transfers at sea are one of the few ways North Korea, an authoritarian dictatorship considered one of the world's biggest violators of human rights, can obtain fuel because of strict United Nations sanctions against its nuclear weapons and missile programs. While Taiwan is not a U.N. member at the insistence of North Korean ally China, it has pledged to follow all of the world body's rulings on Pyongyang. The case against Huang dates back to 2019, when he and Kwek allegedly purchased a fleet of tankers, loaded them with fuel and sent them to make the transfers. North Korea is known to operate a 'shadow fleet' of ships operating without active electronic identification equipment. However, U.S. intelligence agencies were able to track the transfers by satellite and provided the information to Kaohsiung investigators, the court said. . Huang's father was a member of Taiwan's legislature for the ruling Democratic Progressive Party. It wasn't clear how much money he made from the scheme or whether he would appeal the sentence.
Atlantic
33 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Why International Recognition of a Palestinian State Actually Matters
France, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Malta all say they are preparing to recognize a state of Palestine at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly in September. They would join another 147 UN countries that already do so. In some senses, the move is symbolic: It will not change the realities on the ground in the Middle East, at least not in the short term. But it is a major step nonetheless. No Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process' is currently under way, the countries pledging recognition noted in their statements. This is because Israel refuses to speak with the diplomatic representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization. In effect, Israel has held the PLO and its subsidiaries—the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Fatah political party—responsible for the actions of all Palestinians, including the PLO's extremist archrival, Hamas. (The United States, for its part, has never had a bilateral relationship with the Palestinians.) The struggle for Palestinian statehood has been long and arduous. The PLO and PA, to be sure, have sometimes gotten in their own way. In the West Bank, the PA has overseen a corrupt system that leaves little space for civil society. And the PLO has squandered several potential opportunities to pursue statehood, especially an overture in 2008 by then–Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. But both groups have maintained a commitment to negotiation over violence, and have honored the 1993 recognition of Israel by Yasser Arafat, the PLO's former leader. The Western nations' formal acknowledgment of a Palestinian state under the leadership of the PLO will boost the idea that this kind of diplomacy, rather than the armed struggle of Hamas, is the path that can actually result in Palestinian independence and citizenship for the stateless millions in the occupied territories. From the December 2024 issue: My hope for Palestine International recognition will do as much to rebuke Hamas's maximalist demands as it will those of the Israeli right, dealing a blow to expansionist aspirations in the West Bank, the only territory that has any realistic chance of becoming a Palestinian state. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been characterized by a basic asymmetry: The international recognition of Jewish national rights in Palestine has never been matched by a demand for Palestinian national rights. This was the case as far back as the British government's 1917 Balfour Declaration and the British mandate for Palestine, which took effect several years later. Palestinians may have had an opportunity in 1947 to create their state through a UN partition resolution. In retrospect, they should have accepted the proposal, but their rejection at the time is understandable. Jews made up about 33 percent of the population and owned a mere 6 percent of privately held land in Mandatory Palestine; the UN partition resolution would have allotted the proposed Jewish state more than 56 percent of the territory. Two decades later—after multiple wars—Israel declared itself a state that would come to control the entire territory, including East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, all of which have populations that are majority Palestinian Arab. Roughly 800,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in 1947 and 1948, followed by another 300,000 in 1967. Almost none have been allowed to return. In 1968, Palestinians resurrected an independence movement that wrested decision making away from Egypt and other Arab countries that had been humiliated in the Six-Day War. Their crushing defeat gave Palestinians a measure of self-determination through the establishment of a renewed autonomous PLO. In the '80s, the PLO evolved into the vehicle of a drastically reduced Palestinian aspiration: the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, all territories Israel had occupied since 1967. The First Intifada, or uprising, against Israeli rule in the occupied territories, which began in 1987, gave the PLO an opportunity to greatly expand its presence there, but it also seeded a new group of rivals, the Muslim fundamentalists of Hamas. A breakthrough seemed possible in the aftermath of the Cold War. In 1993, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin affirming that, on behalf of the Palestinian people, the PLO recognized Israel and its right to exist free from attacks and threats. Rabin responded with a letter to Arafat recognizing the PLO as a legitimate interlocutor and undertaking to negotiate with it. But he didn't recognize a state of Palestine, and the 1993 Oslo Accords with Israel did not specify the goal of Palestinian statehood or acknowledge the Palestinians' right to a state. In the summer of 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton convened a summit at Camp David. Accounts vary on what Israel, then led by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, offered. But the Palestinians who attended came away convinced that they were being asked to accept an archipelago of quasi-independent Bantustans within a greater Israel. Because of an internal leadership crisis, among other failings, the Palestinians presented no detailed counteroffer. And Clinton entirely backed Israel. The violent Second Intifada against Israeli rule in the occupied territories began on September 28, 2000. Nonetheless, negotiations resumed that fall. In late December, Clinton unveiled what is still the most reasonable framework yet proposed for an agreement that would end the conflict. But Israel suspended the negotiations pending elections early in 2001. The right-wing former General Ariel Sharon became prime minister, and the talks were not resumed. In subsequent years, some hopeful signs for Palestinian statehood persisted. In 2002, President George W. Bush endorsed establishing a Palestinian state, and his administration voted for UN Security Council Resolution 1397, which, for the first time, explicitly called for two states 'side by side within secure and recognized borders.' Palestinian divisions intensified, however, after the 2005–06 elections resulted in the acrimonious pairing of a Fatah/PLO leader, Mahmoud Abbas, with a Hamas-dominated Parliament. In 2007, Hamas violently seized control of Gaza, precipitating a split with the West Bank that continues to this day. Jeffrey Goldberg: Sinwar's march of folly The Palestinians had one more potential chance at statehood through negotiations. In 2008, Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, offered an agreement that the PLO, led by Abbas, considered broadly reasonable. However, Abbas doubted that Olmert was speaking on behalf of Israel, or even his own government, given that most members of his cabinet reportedly opposed his proposal. Moreover, the Palestinian negotiators could not get anything in writing. The deal also included Palestinian concessions on issues such as refugees, and Abbas ran the political risk of being seen to accept concessions while ultimately being left with nothing if Israel didn't follow through. Neither Olmert nor Abbas was willing to take the issue directly to the Israeli public, and the negotiations fizzled. Since that time, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dominated the Israeli political scene and dedicated himself to preventing any movement toward Palestinian statehood. He exploited the rift between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, seeking to keep both in power and at each other's throats, and thereby unable to advance their respective visions of independence. The Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, betrayed the folly of this policy. But it also hardened the position of the Israeli right that to live next to any Palestinian state would be an intolerable security risk. In the nearly two years that war has raged in Gaza, Netanyahu has become ever more explicit in his refusal of a two-state solution. Just last month, he ruled out the prospect of Palestinian statehood, saying that it would only serve as a platform for the elimination of Israel. The Israelis claim that recognition would reward Hamas and terrorism. But the opposite is true. Pretty much the only thing Hamas and Fatah agree on is that they are all Palestinians. Other than that, the disagreements are almost total: The PLO is a secular national movement that still seeks a negotiated peace with Israel through diplomacy, and to establish a small Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Hamas is an Islamist party and militia that wants a theocratic Muslim government in not just the occupied territories but also what is now Israel. In Palestinian politics, the binary is so stark that virtually anything that strengthens one group weakens the other. Recognizing a Palestinian state under the authority of the PLO harms Hamas and rewards the patient diplomacy and commitment to peace of its rivals in Fatah. Already, the PLO has benefited from an apparently minor change in its status at the UN in 2012, from 'observer' to 'non-member observer state.' This gave it standing at the International Criminal Court and suggests what international recognition—something Israel cannot take away—can accomplish: the potential protection of key multilateral instruments and institutions, and thus the potential frustration of Israeli ambitions for further annexation. While the world's eyes have been fixed on the horrors of war in Gaza, far-right Israeli officials, led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have effectively taken charge of West Bank, where they are stoking conflict by encouraging right-wing settlers to confront Palestinian villagers. When Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency last year, Smotrich celebrated, saying that the opportunity had come to annex the West Bank. The Israeli military has displaced 40,000 Palestinians in the territory, according to the United Nations, and extremist settlers have continued to harass and attack villagers. International recognition of Palestinian statehood could seriously complicate Israel's designs on the West Bank. Britain has said that it will recognize Palestine if the Gaza war continues into September, but France and Canada appear focused on discouraging Israeli annexation in the West Bank. Each is sending a clear message to Israel: End the war in Gaza, and more important, do not expand formalized control of the West Bank, the only territory that could become a true state for Palestinians. Pushing back against Israeli annexation efforts is crucial to reviving the possibility of a two-state solution. Canada, Australia, Britain, France, and Malta are not asking or expecting Israel to withdraw from the West Bank tomorrow. But they clearly understand the danger that further settlement there poses to the Palestinian independence movement. Netanyahu and his allies know this too. Smotrich has his eyes firmly on annexation, having recently announced new settlements surrounding Jerusalem that he says will 'bury' any potential for a Palestinian state. The world must act as if a two-state solution is not merely necessary, but possible. International recognition of a Palestinian state is a key start. Without such a state alongside Israel, these two beleaguered peoples, the whole region, and the entire world will be sentenced to further decades, and possibly centuries, of bloodshed and oppression. Shrugging, walking away, and accepting this outcome cannot be an option.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
U.S. to probe "anti-American" views of those applying for immigration benefits under Trump directive
The Trump administration has directed government officials to probe any "anti-American" views and activities of immigrants applying for immigration benefits like green cards and work permits, further expanding the grounds that can be cited to deny those applications. The policy unveiled on Tuesday by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is the latest front in a broader Trump administration effort to restrict access to legal immigration benefits, including by broadening the levels of scrutiny and vetting to which applicants are subjected. The guidance issued this week directs officials at USCIS to determine whether applicants for certain immigration benefits have "endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused anti-American views or the views of a terrorist organization or group," including on social media. USCIS said those groups could include organizations that espouse or promote antisemitic views and terrorism. If officials find applicants have any ties to these groups or share their views, the directive instructs the officials to consider that an "overwhelmingly negative factor" justifying the denial of an application. The policy will affect requests for immigration benefits that are discretionary, meaning that USCIS can deny them even if applicants meet the qualifications outlined in U.S. law. Those cases include many applications for permanent U.S. residency (also known as a green card), work permits and status changes for foreign students. While it wasn't immediately clear how expansively USCIS will define "anti-American" views and activities, the agency said it would make the determination based on a provision of U.S. immigration law that bans immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens if it is found that they advocate for world communism, totalitarianism, violence against officials or the overthrow of the U.S. government. The guidance issued Tuesday also orders USCIS officials to probe whether applicants improperly used an immigration policy known as parole to enter the U.S. In the immigration context, parole allows for the arrival of immigrants who are otherwise ineligible to enter the U.S. It was used by the Biden administration on an unprecedented scale, mainly to ease pressure at the U.S.-Mexico border by offering migrants a legal way to enter the country. USCIS said it would look into whether applicants' parole applications contained "false or fraudulent" information. Matthew Tragesser, USCIS' top spokesperson, said Tuesday's memo underscored that U.S. immigration benefits should not be granted to people who "despise the country." "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and supporting the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible," Tragesser added. Stephen Yale-Loehr, an expert in U.S. immigration law, expressed concerns about how USCIS would implement its latest guidance, calling the language in it "very subjective." "This memo gives USCIS adjudicators even more reasons than before to deny a petition on discretionary grounds," Yale-Loehr said. While President Trump has made cracking down on illegal immigration central to his second-term agenda, his administration has also tightened access to the legal immigration system. Last week, USCIS said it would expand a "good moral character" assessment in the U.S. citizenship process. That requirement was historically satisfied when applicants lacked serious criminal histories or disqualifying conduct on their record. But now, officials have been instructed to weigh different positive factors, like applicants' involvement in the community, and negative factors, like repeat traffic infractions, to determine whether someone has good moral character. The Trump administration also previously announced measures to more aggressively screen those applying for a U.S. immigration status, including by placing a greater emphasis on the social media activity of applicants.
