Colombian rebel group steps towards peace, hands over war material
By Luis Jaime Acosta
PASTO, Colombia (Reuters) -Colombian armed group Comuneros del Sur, which has broken away from the leftist National Liberation Army (ELN) rebels, handed over war material and signed two agreements with President Gustavo Petro, the government and the group said on Saturday.
During an event in Pasto city in the southwestern Andean region, Comuneros del Sur said the delivery of explosives, grenades and other devices was a sign of the group's desire for peace.
"We consider that the armed fight is obsolete, that there are new times and new needs. We refuse to return to war," said Royer Garzon, one of the leaders of the armed group.
The move paves the way for eventual disarmament and reincorporation of some 300 Comuneros del Sur fighters into civilian life.
The deal is the most significant step toward peace since Petro assumed the presidency in 2022 with plans to end Colombia's internal conflict.
Analysts said Petro's other peace efforts -- with ELN, FARC factions and criminal gangs -- show little progress.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Oil Prices Tumble on Iran-Israel Ceasefire
Crude oil prices slumped today, following a social media statement by President Trump saying that the Iran-Israel ceasefire is now in effect, putting an end to the war that started on June 13. Israel has agreed to the U.S. ceasefire proposal, while Iran's state media has reported the ceasefire is now in effect after a final round of missiles. At the time of writing, Brent crude was trading at $68.78 and West Texas Intermediate was changing hands for $65.81 a barrel, both down by over 4% from Tuesday, when Iran responded to the U.S. bombing of its nuclear sites with a strike on a military base in Qatar. The first signs of a ceasefire came from President Trumps post on Truth Social in which he said, 'On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, 'THE 12 DAY WAR','. The president then followed that announcement with a confirmation on the same platform, saying "The ceasefire is now in effect. Please do not violate it!" There is still some uncertainty that the war is over. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araqchi, had said that unless Israel stopped bombing it by 4 am Tehran time on Tuesday, the fighting would continue. According to Reuters, there have been no reports of new Israeli attacks on Iran since that hour. 'The final decision on the cessation of our military operations will be made later,' the top official noted. Reuters, meanwhile, reported that President Trump had brokered the ceasefire in a phone call with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who had agreed to stop bombing Iran if Iran stopped bombing it, according to an unnamed White House official. Earlier this week, following the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, oil surged in anticipation of Iran's potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which handles a third of global maritime oil exports. Reports of tankers U-turning in the chokepoint or stopping outside it reinforced expectations that this time Iran may indeed go for the blockade, but in the end, the major disruption was once again avoided—for the time being. By Irina Slav for More Top Reads From Read this article on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNBC
5 hours ago
- CNBC
NATO wants allies to spend 5% of GDP on defense: This chart shows how hard it could be
Before this week's annual NATO summit had even begun, allies reportedly agreed on Sunday to hike their defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. Getting to that target, however is another matter. The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence. The Western military alliance's move on Sunday — when NATO ambassadors reportedly agreed in principle on a compromise text on the spending rise — showed member states were ready to acquiesce, at least publicly, to Washington's demands for allies to pull their weight when it comes to defense and security. But one chart, based on NATO estimates for members' defense spending in 2024, shows what a tall order a 5% target will be for the 32 member states, with some struggling to even meet the 2014 pact to spend of 2% of GDP on defense. Defense spending has long been a thorny subject for NATO members, and a persistent source of irritation for U.S. President Donald Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018. NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power. Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data. While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now. Spain has already pushed against the spending hike with Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez saying Madrid would not have to meet the 5% target as it would only have to spend 2.1% of GDP to meet NATO's core military requirements, Reuters reported. "We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defense investment, but we are not going to do so," Sanchez said in an address on Spanish television, according to the news agency. Sanchez was reported last week to have called the hike, not only "unreasonable but also counterproductive." Italy is another country that could struggle to meet the 5% target. In May it said it had just reached the 2% threshold and last week Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto questioned the relevance of the alliance, stating that NATO "as it is, no longer has a reason to exist." Meanwhile, Canada has said it will meet the 2% by March 2026, having previously said it would meet the target by 2030. Even countries that are towing the line on the 5% target, like Germany and the U.K., which both say they're in favor of the hike, could struggle to reach it, given economic pressures at home. Britain has reportedly requested a 3-year delay to the hike. CNBC asked the British government for comment but has yet to receive a reply. Other countries are ahead of the game when it comes to the hike. Poland, on the eastern flank of the alliance and nervous of Russia's ongoing war in neighboring Ukraine, says it's already on track to spend 5% of GDP on defense soon. Meanwhile, Estonia, which also shares a border with Russia, has approved a defense investment program that's expected to raise its annual defense budget to an average of 5.4% of GDP from 2026 to 2029. The uneven geographical distribution of military spending increases across European states could still cause friction at this week's summit, Carsten Nickel, deputy director of research at risk consultancy Teneo said in emailed comments Monday. "Yet, greater defense spending will in any case address only part of a deeper challenge to the transatlantic relationship," he noted, with frictions over military burden-sharing, trade deficits, and China policy also threatening relations between allies.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face, handing him another victory in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. In an action that prompted a sharp dissent from its three liberal justices, the court granted the administration's request to lift a judicial order requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" get a "meaningful opportunity" to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18. The Supreme Court's brief order was unsigned and offered no reasoning, as is common when it decides emergency requests. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the two other liberal justices, called the decision a "gross abuse" of the court's power. "Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled," Sotomayor wrote. Sotomayor called the court's action "as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable." Murphy had found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates the U.S. Constitution's due process protections. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. Murphy on May 21 found that Trump's administration had violated his order mandating further procedures in trying to send a group of migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, a country that the U.S. State Department has warned against any travel "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." The judge's intervention prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti, although American officials later said one of the deportees, a man from Myanmar, would instead be deported to his home country. Of the other passengers who were on the flight, one is South Sudanese, while the others are from Cuba, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs, called the ramifications of the court's action "horrifying," stripping away "critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death." The administration told the Supreme Court that its third-country policy already complied with due process and is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. It said that all the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed "heinous crimes" in the United States including murder, arson and armed robbery. "The Supreme Court's stay of a left-wing district judge's injunction reaffirms the president's authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said after Monday's decision. "Fire up the deportation planes," said Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. A FLOOD OF CASES The dispute is one of many legal challenges to Trump policies to have reached the nation's highest judicial body since he returned to office in January. The Supreme Court in May let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants who Trump targeted for removal under the Alien Enemies Act - a 1798 law that historically has been employed only in wartime - as inadequate under constitutional due process protections. Sotomayor said that in sending migrants to South Sudan, and in another instance four others to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and on to El Salvador, the administration "openly flouted two court orders" issued by Murphy. Sotomayor also pointed to the separate Alien Enemies Act litigation in which questions were raised about the administration's compliance with an order issued by a judge in that case. "This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law." The administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 16 declined to put Murphy's decision on hold. Reuters has also reported that U.S. officials had been considering sending migrants to Libya, another politically unstable country, despite previous U.S. condemnation of Libya's harsh treatment of detainees.
