Latest news with #Then-US
Mint
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
Russia doubts possibility of new US nuclear pact amid ‘ruined' bilateral ties as START Treaty nears end
Russia thinks chances are fading for agreeing on a new pact to replace the last nuclear arms control treaty with the US, which expires early next year, a top arms control official said. The main obstacle to any agreement is the state of US-Russian ties, which are 'in ruins,' said Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov in an interview published with the state-run Tass news service on Friday. 'There are no grounds for the full-scale resumption of the New START treaty under the current circumstances,' Ryabkov said, according to Tass. 'Considering that the treaty is reaching the end of its life cycle in approximately eight months, any discussion about the realism of such a scenario is becoming increasingly meaningless.' Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2023 suspended participation in the New START nuclear treaty though Moscow pledged to continue complying with its terms until the accord's expiration. Russia in April said it continues to respect the pact's limits on nuclear arsenals, which restricts each side to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. Then-US President Joe Biden extended the treaty by five years to 2026 as one of his first acts upon taking office in 2021 shortly before it was due to expire. Putin had pressed President Donald Trump during his first term without success to agree to a deal. The end of the treaty would mean the US loses access to inspections and monitoring data about the number of deployed Russian nuclear warheads, as well as the land- and sea-based vehicles used to launch them. The potential loss of the nuclear arms control mechanism comes amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, now in its fourth year, which has sparked the worst tensions with the West in decades. Trump's efforts to resolve the conflict have met with no success so far, though his administration has started talks with Moscow on restoring diplomatic operations after contacts were all but cut off following the start of the war.
The Age
01-06-2025
- Politics
- The Age
King Charles and Pope Leo defend US Constitution from Trump
When King Charles – in his capacity as King of Canada – opened the new parliament in Ottawa last Tuesday, the symbolism could not have been more powerful, or the King's purpose more clear. While it is not unprecedented for the sovereign to open a new parliament in one of the Commonwealth nations of which they are head of state, it is seldom done. (It last took place in Australia in 1977.) It had not happened in Canada since 1957. When the Queen opened parliament then, it was an occasion of ceremonial significance only. Then-US president Dwight Eisenhower was not threatening to 'annex' Canada as the 51st state of the US, nor had he launched a trade war with the deliberate intention of severely damaging the economy of America's closest ally. Last week's proceedings, though attended by the customary pomp and circumstance, were not about ceremony. Although the King's words might not have been provocative in ordinary times, because of the events of recent months, they were crafted with unmistakable meaning and deliberate intent. Recalling the shared sacrifices of two world wars, the existential struggle of the Cold War and the war on terror, he said: 'Today, Canada faces another critical moment. Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear, and ones which the government is determined to protect … As the anthem reminds us: 'the True North is strong and free!'' It was the most politically pointed speech given by a British monarch in the modern age – a reprimand to the president who did not mince words: keep your hands off my realm! No prime minister could have delivered that message so effectively. It did not come just from a politician; it came from a king. A real king, not a vainglorious tabloid celebrity with delusions of grandeur, like the person to whom it was directed. King Charles' speech came just two weeks after another historic event: the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV. Unlike the modern monarchy, the Vatican has not avoided engaging actively, if circumspectly, in high politics. There is no better recent example than the pontificate of John Paul II, the importance of whose discreet but purposeful support for the democratic revolution of the 1980s in his native Poland is increasingly being appreciated by historians. It may have been Reagan and Thatcher who brought communism down, but John Paul II played an important role as well. Loading I remember, as a student, travelling through Poland in the summer of 1982. As the regime began to totter, the despised dictator General Wojciech Jaruzelski imposed martial law. Fearful people converged upon parish churches, which became centres of resistance and mobilisation. (Poland was still the most Catholic country in Europe.) The co-operation of the Polish church with the revolutionary Solidarity movement had the firm support of the former archbishop of Krakow. It is too soon to know how politically engaged the new Pope will be. His choice of papal name – in homage to Leo XIII, who, in the encyclical Rerum Novarum, famously defended the rights of workers and organised labour – has been widely interpreted as a revealing gesture. When he was still Cardinal Prevost, he did not hesitate to use social media to criticise US President Donald Trump's mass deportation of migrants – most of them from South America. As the first North American pope, his potential influence in his homeland could be immense, should he choose to use it.
Sydney Morning Herald
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
King Charles and Pope Leo defend US Constitution from Trump
When King Charles – in his capacity as King of Canada – opened the new parliament in Ottawa last Tuesday, the symbolism could not have been more powerful, or the King's purpose more clear. While it is not unprecedented for the sovereign to open a new parliament in one of the Commonwealth nations of which they are head of state, it is seldom done. (It last took place in Australia in 1977.) It had not happened in Canada since 1957. When the Queen opened parliament then, it was an occasion of ceremonial significance only. Then-US president Dwight Eisenhower was not threatening to 'annex' Canada as the 51st state of the US, nor had he launched a trade war with the deliberate intention of severely damaging the economy of America's closest ally. Last week's proceedings, though attended by the customary pomp and circumstance, were not about ceremony. Although the King's words might not have been provocative in ordinary times, because of the events of recent months, they were crafted with unmistakable meaning and deliberate intent. Recalling the shared sacrifices of two world wars, the existential struggle of the Cold War and the war on terror, he said: 'Today, Canada faces another critical moment. Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear, and ones which the government is determined to protect … As the anthem reminds us: 'the True North is strong and free!'' It was the most politically pointed speech given by a British monarch in the modern age – a reprimand to the president who did not mince words: keep your hands off my realm! No prime minister could have delivered that message so effectively. It did not come just from a politician; it came from a king. A real king, not a vainglorious tabloid celebrity with delusions of grandeur, like the person to whom it was directed. King Charles' speech came just two weeks after another historic event: the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV. Unlike the modern monarchy, the Vatican has not avoided engaging actively, if circumspectly, in high politics. There is no better recent example than the pontificate of John Paul II, the importance of whose discreet but purposeful support for the democratic revolution of the 1980s in his native Poland is increasingly being appreciated by historians. It may have been Reagan and Thatcher who brought communism down, but John Paul II played an important role as well. Loading I remember, as a student, travelling through Poland in the summer of 1982. As the regime began to totter, the despised dictator General Wojciech Jaruzelski imposed martial law. Fearful people converged upon parish churches, which became centres of resistance and mobilisation. (Poland was still the most Catholic country in Europe.) The co-operation of the Polish church with the revolutionary Solidarity movement had the firm support of the former archbishop of Krakow. It is too soon to know how politically engaged the new Pope will be. His choice of papal name – in homage to Leo XIII, who, in the encyclical Rerum Novarum, famously defended the rights of workers and organised labour – has been widely interpreted as a revealing gesture. When he was still Cardinal Prevost, he did not hesitate to use social media to criticise US President Donald Trump's mass deportation of migrants – most of them from South America. As the first North American pope, his potential influence in his homeland could be immense, should he choose to use it.
Irish Daily Mirror
18-05-2025
- Health
- Irish Daily Mirror
Former US president Joe Biden diagnosed with ‘aggressive' prostate cancer
Former US President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with prostate cancer, his office said Sunday. Biden was seen by doctors last week after urinary symptoms and a prostate nodule were found. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer on Friday, with the cancer cells having spread to the bone. "While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management," his office said. "The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians." Prostate cancers are given a score called a Gleason score that measures, on a scale of 1 to 10, how the cancerous cells look compared with normal cells. Biden's office said his score was 9, suggesting his cancer is among the most aggressive. When prostate cancer spreads to other parts of the body, it often spreads to the bones. Metastasized cancer is much harder to treat than localized cancer because it can be hard for drugs to reach all the tumors and completely root out the disease. However, when prostate cancers need hormones to grow, as in Biden's case, they can be susceptible to treatment that deprives the tumors of hormones. The health of Biden, 82, was a dominant concern among voters during his time as president. After a calamitous debate performance in June while seeking reelection, Biden abandoned his bid for a second term. Then-US Vice President Kamala Harris became the nominee and lost to Republican Donald Trump, who returned to the White House after a four-year hiatus. But in recent days, Biden rejected concerns about his age despite reporting in the new book "Original Sin" by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson that aides had shielded the public from the extent of his decline while serving as president. In February 2023, Biden had a skin lesion removed from his chest that was a basal cell carcinoma, a common form of skin cancer. And in November 2021, he had a polyp removed from his colon that was a benign, but potentially pre-cancerous lesion. In 2022, Biden made a "cancer moonshot" one of his administration's priorities with the goal of halving the cancer death rate over the next 25 years. The initiative was a continuation of his work as vice president to address a disease that had killed his older son, Beau, who died from brain cancer in 2015. His father, when announcing the goal to halve the cancer death rate, said this could be an "American moment to prove to ourselves and, quite frankly, the world that we can do really big things."
South China Morning Post
13-04-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Decoding Trump's tariffs and the world's multipolar future
As the world struggles to make head or tail of Donald Trump 's tariff war, perhaps what is missing is an understanding of the nature of power discourses. Advertisement Global hegemons, when things are going their way, employ positive, inclusive and progressive narratives. But when the odds are stacked against them, their language shifts – hostile rhetoric and fighting words replace optimism, alongside negative depictions of perceived threats and adversaries. Consider the British Empire. After it had collapsed and its global dominance waned, it sought to salvage its legacy by rebranding its former colonies as part of 'The Commonwealth' – a term projecting unity and hierarchy. In more recent times, similar strategic language has underpinned American hegemony. Take expressions like 'the rule-based international system', suggesting fair multilateralism; 'free and open Indo-Pacific', contrasting China's trade practices with Western ideals; 'liberal democracy', signifying Western superiority; and terms like 'global stability', 'economic prosperity', 'defending human rights', or 'alliance of democracies', all of which sought to legitimise America's central role in shaping the global order. Other terms – equally suggestive but aimed at spelling out supposed threats to the hegemonic system – serve to rally allies against challenges to the hegemon. See 'authoritarian threats', 'economic decoupling', 'global fragmentation', 'democracy in decline', 'disinformation', and the catch-all for crises of all types: 'unprecedented challenges'. Then-US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, speaks at the third 'Summit for Democracy' held in South Korea last year. Photo: AFP By critically analysing this discourse, we can contextualise the tariff war and strip away the deliberately misleading connotations.
