Zelensky echoes concern Russia may use nuclear arms

WASHINGTON: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Friday that Russia could use nuclear weapons out of desperation as its invasion falters, echoing comments by CIA director William Burns.

Asked about the threat, Zelensky said “all of the world” should be worried that Russia “began to speak about… nuclear weapons or some chemical weapons.”

“They could do it, I mean they can,” he told CNN. “For them, life of the people is nothing… let’s not be afraid — be ready.”

Burns said Thursday that Russia’s battlefield setbacks raised the risk that President Vladimir Putin could deploy a tactical or low-yield nuclear weapon.

The Kremlin said it had placed Russian nuclear forces on high alert shortly after the assault began on February 24, but the United States says it has not seen any sign of unusual nuclear movements.

Russian military doctrine includes the “escalate to de-escalate,” principle of launching a small nuclear weapon to regain the initiative in the war.

US President Joe Biden is “deeply concerned about avoiding a third world war, about avoiding a threshold in which nuclear conflict becomes possible,” said Burns.

Priti Patel had to personally approve plans to send some asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda after her officials voiced concerns about the scheme’s value for money.

The home secretary took the rare step of issuing a “ministerial direction” to push through the scheme, meaning she takes personal responsibility for it.

It is only the second time the Home Office has used the power in 30 years.

The PCS union, which represents civil servants, called the plans “inhumane”.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, said: “For the government to attempt to claim this is anything other than utterly inhumane is sheer hypocrisy.

“We have already seen that they are prepared to risk lives by turning boats back in the channel – a policy which we have had to take them to court over. It is a heartless approach that displays total disregard for human life which everyone must oppose.”

Home Office civil servants could not precisely quantify the benefits of the policy, and uncertainty about the costs meant Ms Patel had to take personal responsibility for it by issuing the ministerial direction.

A source close to the home secretary said “deterring illegal entry would create significant savings” and the fact that the savings could not be quantified precisely should not prevent action from being taken.

Ministerial directions have been used 46 times since the 2010 election, with two in the Home Office since 1990, according to the Institute for Government think tank.

The only other time the formal order was used by the Home Office was in 2019 by the former home secretary Sajid Javid, to bring in the Windrush Compensation Scheme before legislation was in place.

Under the £120m pilot scheme, people deemed to have entered the UK unlawfully since 1 January could be flown to Rwanda, where they will be allowed to apply for the right to settle in the east African country.

The government said the first flights could begin within weeks, initially focusing on single men who crossed the Channel in small boats or lorries.

Six boats carrying 181 people crossed the Channel on Friday, according to the Ministry of Defence.

The MoD added that no-one making the journey was believed to have arrived on UK soil “on their own terms”, in other words that no-one had arrived undetected by UK authorities.

Last year, 28,526 people made the crossing, up from 8,404 in 2020.

The use of a ministerial direction highlights the unconventional nature of the government’s refugee relocation plan.

As well as criticism of the policy on legal, moral and logistical grounds there is concern from officials at the home office about the cost.

The department couldn’t say whether the scheme would be value for money, which is perhaps not surprising given ministers have openly admitted they don’t know how much money will need to be spent.

Flying asylum seekers to another country is not a world first but it’s a new and controversial approach for the UK.

The policy is testing the reach of the government’s powers.

More than 160 charities and campaign groups have urged ministers to scrap the policy – which has also drawn criticism from opposition parties and some Conservatives.

Labour’s shadow justice minister Ellie Reeves said the scheme was “unethical and unworkable” and would fail to deter people from crossing the Channel.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the scheme would be a “bureaucratic nightmare” and claimed it had been announced as part of a “cynical distraction” from the Partygate scandal surrounding No 10.

Ian Blackford, the SNP’s Westminster leader, said it was “chilling” to think “vulnerable people” trying to enter the UK would be processed in Rwanda, before describing the plans as “evil”.

Gillian Triggs, an assistant secretary-general at the UNHCR, said such a policy- which is similarly used in Australia – could be effective as a deterrent but there were “much more legally effective ways of achieving the same outcome”.

Australia has used offshore detention centres since 2001, with thousands of asylum seekers being transferred out of the country since then.

It has been frequently criticised by the UN and rights groups over substandard conditions at its centres and its own projections show it will spend $811.8m (£460m) on offshore processing in 2021-22.

Last year, the UK government raised concerns at the UN about claims of “extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture” in Rwanda, as well as restrictions to civil and political rights.

But justice and migration minister Tom Pursglove said Rwanda was a progressive country that wanted to provide sanctuary and had made “huge strides forward” in the past three decades.

Mr Pursglove argued that while the short-term costs would be “pretty equivalent” to what the UK is paying currently to accommodate those claiming asylum, the new scheme would save British taxpayers money in the “longer term”.

Speaking to ITV’s Good Morning Britain on Friday, he said: “We are spending £5m per day accommodating individuals who are crossing in hotels. That is not sustainable and is not acceptable and we have to get that under control.”

The scheme comes as part of broader efforts to cut the number of people entering the UK by crossing the Channel in small boats – with the Royal Navy taking operational command of patrolling the Channel from UK Border Force.

Climate change activists including an Olympic gold medal-winning canoeist have climbed on top of an oil tanker in a protest against the use of fossil fuels.

Extinction Rebellion protesters have surrounded the Shell tanker on Bayswater Road in London.

Olympian Etienne Stott said he wanted to “disrupt the toxic fossil fuel industry”.

The group said “highly disruptive” action would end 10 days of protests.

On Friday protesters blocked four of London’s busiest bridges and blocked entrances to major insurance marketplace Lloyd’s of London earlier this week.

Russia has banned Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other senior ministers from entering Russia over the UK’s “hostile” stance on the war in Ukraine.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and 10 other senior politicians – mostly members of the Cabinet – have also been barred.

Moscow said the decision had been made in retaliation to the UK’s sanctions against it since it invaded Ukraine.

In March, Moscow imposed a similar ban against US President Joe Biden.

The full list is:

  • Prime Minister Boris Johnson
  • Foreign Secretary Liz Truss
  • Defence Secretary Ben Wallace
  • Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor, and Secretary of State for Justice Dominic Raab
  • Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps
  • Home Secretary Priti Patel
  • The Chancellor Rishi Sunak
  • Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy Kwasi Kwarteng
  • Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sport Nadine Dorries
  • Minister for the Armed Forces James Heappey
  • First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon
  • Attorney General for England and Wales and advocate general for Northern Ireland Suella Braverman
  • Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister Theresa May

In a statement, Russia’s foreign ministry said: “London’s unbridled information and political campaign aimed at isolating Russia internationally, creating conditions for containing our country and strangling the domestic economy” were responsible for its decision.

It added: “In essence, the British leadership is deliberately aggravating the situation around Ukraine, pumping the Kyiv regime with lethal weapons and coordinating similar efforts on the part of Nato.”

Earlier this week, the UK and US governments announced further sanctions on Russia.

The sanctions included financial measures designed to damage Russia’s economy and penalise President Putin, high-ranking officials, and people who have benefited from his regime.

NA deputy speaker accepts resignations of PTI’s 123 MNAs

The Deputy Speaker of National Assembly Qasim Suri on Thursday accepted the resignations of 123 PTI MNAs after they decided to disassociate themselves from the National Assembly following the ouster of PTI Chairman Imran Khan from the office of the prime minister.

Khan was ousted through a no-confidence motion brought against him by the then joint Opposition, a move that the PTI called a “foreign conspiracy” hatched by the United States. The allegation, however, has been categorically denied by the superpower.

After being removed from the office, the former premier asked his MNAs to tender their resignations and refused to accept the newly elected premier, saying “there can’t be any bigger insult to this country”.

Taking to Twitter Thursday, Imran Khan lauded his MNAs for tendering their resignations.

“Want to appreciate our 123 MNAs as their resignations have been accepted by Speaker Qasim Suri. Their standing firm for a sovereign Pak & against US-initiated regime change bringing to power criminals, convicted & on bail — the ultimate insult to any self-respecting indep[endent] nation.”

Responding to the call of the former prime minister, PTI’s MNAs tendered their resignations to the deputy speaker of the National Assembly hours before the election of Shehbaz Sharif as the new prime minister.

The decision was reportedly made during the PTI’s parliamentary party meeting on April 11.

Sources privy to the matter quoted Khan as saying: “We will not sit in this Assembly under any circumstances.”

He said that PTI will not sit in the Assembly with the “people who have robbed Pakistan” and who have been “imported by foreign forces”.

“We have made this decision to keep the institutions under pressure who want this government to run the country […] we will not let them continue.”

It is worth mentioning that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) can hold the by-elections at any given point and it is not bound by any time limit.

MNAs who did not resign

Meanwhile, some of the MNAs who have not resigned from the assembly include Farrukh Altaf, Amir Sultan Cheema, Afzal Dhandla, Ghulam Muhammad Lali, Asim Nazir, Nawab Sher Wasir, Riaz Fatyana, Ghulam Bibi Bharwana, Ahmed Hussain Deharr, Rai Murtaza Iqbal, Qasim Noon, Ghaffar Wattoo, Samiul Hassan Gilani, Makhdoom Mubeen, Basit Sultan Bukhari, Aamir Talal Gopang, Amjad Farooq Khosa, Sardar Jafar Leghari,  Javaria Zafar Aheer, Sardar Riaz Mazari, and Wajiha Akram.

Imran Khan ousted from power

On Saturday, April 10, Imran Khan was ousted as the prime minister of Pakistan from office through a no-confidence motion.

The session was chaired by Ayaz Sadiq — a member of the panel of chairs — after speaker Asad Qasier resigned from his post.

“174 members have recorded their votes in favour of the resolution, consequently the resolution for the vote on no-confidence against Mr Imran Khan, the prime minister of Pakistan, has been passed by a majority,” Ayaz Sadiq announced after the process of voting was completed.

Once the voting was concluded and the result was announced, Opposition leaders delivered their victory speeches. The session then was adjourned till 11am on Monday, April 11.

Two killed, hundreds of homes burned in New Mexico wildfire

An elderly couple died in their home as they tried to evacuate a wildfire in Ruidoso, New Mexico, that has destroyed hundreds of houses and forced thousands to flee the mountain town, local officials said.

The remains of the couple were found on Thursday at their burned home in northeast Ruidoso after family members told police they attempted to evacuate but were unaccounted for, New Mexico State Police said in a statement.

The couple, who were not identified, were the first reported fatalities of the so-called McBride Fire that has destroyed 207 homes and burned 5,736 acres (2,321 hectares) since it started on Tuesday, according to local officials.

Fanned by spring winds gusting at up to 90 mph (144 kmph), the fire has torn through forested canyons dotted with homes.

Flames surrounded the town’s middle school on three sides on Tuesday as teachers and parents evacuated students, according to social media posts.

The fire burned within a few hundred feet of Ruidoso’s main street, and half a mile from the county hospital, before firefighters were able to block it on Wednesday.

Around 5,000 residents have fled their homes in the resort town in the Sierra Blanca mountains about 135 miles (217 km) southeast of Albuquerque, according to local officials.

“Firefighters have successfully held the fire from moving further into the town of Ruidoso at this time,” Laura Rabon, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln National Forest, told reporters.

Flames moved to the northeast on Thursday over largely unpopulated mountains and canyons. Wind gusts were expected to drop to 20 mph, aiding air attacks. Another blaze 10 miles (16 km) to the northwest known as the Nogal Fire burned six houses.

Like other southwestern states hit by climate change, New Mexico is suffering an early start to its fire season as blazes race through grassland, while tree-ring research in New Mexico’s Jemez Mountains shows forests have endured their worst drought in 500 years.

US senators defy China threats with Taiwan visit

The group, which also includes Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Menendez, is making the latest in a string of visits by foreign politicians to the island in defiance of pressure from Beijing.

A US government plane touched down in Taipei on Thursday evening for what Washington’s de facto embassy said were talks on “US-Taiwan relations, regional security, and other significant issues of mutual interest”.

Taiwan’s foreign ministry said the group would meet President Tsai Ing-wen, foreign minister Joseph Wu and defence officials.

China’s Communist Party has never controlled self-ruled Taiwan but it views the island as part of its territory and has vowed to one day seize it, by force if necessary. Those threats have become more bellicose under President Xi Jinping, making the security of Taiwan a rare subject of bipartisan support in Washington.

Menendez was among a group of lawmakers who introduced a bill in February to rename Taipei’s de facto embassy in Washington the “Taiwan Representative Office”.

That would be a diplomatic departure from the tradition of using the word “Taipei”.

Beijing baulks at use of the word Taiwan on the international stage and opposes any country having official exchanges with the democratic island.

Lithuania’s recent decision to allow Taiwan to use its own name for a representative office triggered Beijing to launch a trade war against Vilnius that has angered the European Union.

China’s foreign ministry warned the US senators against “going down on the wrong and dangerous path” ahead of their arrival.

LONDON: The UK’s ruling Conservative Party faces a tough by-election test after former MP Imran Ahmad Khan quit parliament on Thursday following his conviction for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy.

Khan, 47, who represents the northern English city of Wakefield, said he would resign in order to “focus entirely on clearing my name”.

“While legal proceedings are ongoing, I do not believe that it would ordinarily be appropriate to resign,” he wrote on Twitter. “However, owing to long delays in the legal process, my constituents have already been without visible parliamentary representation for a year.

“Consequently I am resigning as MP for Wakefield and withdrawing from political life.” A jury found Khan, who has been kicked out of the Conservative Party, guilty of sexually assaulting the boy after forcing him to drink gin at a party in 2008.

The unnamed victim told the court he was left feeling “scared, vulnerable and numb” and that Khan applied “slow caressing” to his legs. Khan said he only touched the teenager’s elbow after he became upset during a conversation about his “confused sexuality”.

The victim said he approached the Conservative Party press office days ahead of the 2019 election that saw Khan elected to tell them what had happened but “I wasn’t taken very seriously”.

Dutch court jails 1980s Afghan prison chief for 12 years

The sentencing in The Hague is one of the latest in a series of efforts by Europeans to bring people to account for crimes in conflict-torn nations, including Syria and Afghanistan — as eyes turn to Ukraine.

Abdul Razzaq Rafief “treated the prisoners cruelly and dishonourably and arbitrarily deprived them of

their liberty,” judge Els Kole told The Hague regional court, adding “these are war crimes”.

Rafief, 76, played a leading role in the abuse of prisoners at the Pul-e-Charkhi jail between 1983-88 “where he had effective command and control”, the judge said.

She said he was head of the prison during a period when Afghanistan’s communist regime was fighting a Soviet-backed war against mujahideen resistance fighters.

Thousands of prisoners were tortured and some executed, many of those who were seen as enemies of the regime, Kole said.

Rafief “was involved in the violence. He gave orders and knew what was happening in the prison and did nothing to stop his subordinates” from abusing inmates, the judge said.

This included a prisoner who was beaten up on Rafief’s orders “because he complained about the conditions in the prison.” Prisoners were held in three blocks at the jail, with the worst being reserved for political detainees and those with death sentences, the judge said.

The blocks were overcrowded and the prisoners covered with fleas and lice.

Medical help was almost non-existent, the judge said.

‘Deep, lasting scars’

Prosecutors said some were executed without trial and those who were brought before a judge only received a hearing “for show.” “Prisoners were in a cruel world and were being detained in inhuman conditions without any hope for the future,” judge Kole added.

“The suspect’s actions left deep and lasting scars,” on the victims, she said.

Dutch authorities started investigating in 2012 after blogs said the former commander of Pul-e-Charkhi was living in the Netherlands, where he was arrested in 2019.

He came to the Netherlands as a refugee in 2001.

Rafief, who previously attended in a wheelchair and was not present for the verdict, had told the court his trial was a case of mistaken identity.

But judges threw out the defence, saying that an Afghan driver’s licence, confiscated during his arrest showed that he was indeed the correct person.

He was also positively identified by numerous of the 19 witnesses in the trial.

“Even though it was a long time ago, there is no reason to doubt the reliability of these witnesses’ testimony,” Kole said.

Ahmed Faquri, 66, one of the victims who was present at the hearing said he was “relieved” when the sentence was read.

“One of the people who tortured me has been judged and sentenced,” he said outside the courtroom. “It doesn’t matter for how long. This is about recognition,” Faquri said. Rafief’s lawyer said he would appeal the sentence.

“We disagree on almost every point the judge mentioned in the courtroom,” Marijn Zuketto said.

US ‘agrees’ with DG ISPR’s statement on no ‘foreign conspiracy’ to oust Imran

The senior US official made this statement during a press briefing in response to a question from a journalist.

“Pakistan’s military spokesperson said they had no evidence to suggest that the United States had threatened or was involved in the conspiracy to seek the ouster of Imran Khan’s government. What are your comments on it?” the journalist had asked.

“We would agree with it,” Price said.

Military spokesman Maj Gen Babar Iftikhar had on Thursday tried to clear the air about the alleged foreign conspiracy behind Imran’s ouster and specifically mentioned that the National Security Committee (NSC) – which includes the army and ISI chiefs – did not use the word “conspiracy” in its statement on the “cablegate” unlike some political pronouncement by the PTI leaders.

Gen Iftikhar said the military’s stance on the cable was formulated after a thorough investigation by an intelligence agency.

The NSC, however, had noted that the message conveyed by a State Department official was tantamount to “blatant interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan”.

At a press briefing on Thursday, Price dismissed the accusations leveled by Imran, saying “there is no truth whatsoever to the allegations that have been put forward.”

“We support the peaceful upholding of constitutional and democratic principles, including respect for human rights. We do not support, whether it’s in Pakistan or anywhere else around the world, one political party over another,” he told the briefing.

The State Department official said the US supported broader principles, including the rule of law and equal justice under the law.

He also underlined that the United States looked forward to working with newly elected Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his government “to promote peace and prosperity in Pakistan and the broader region”.

Price said the relationship between the United States and Pakistan had been a vital one for the last 75 years. “You probably saw a statement that we released from the Secretary last night regarding the selection of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif,” he added.

A day ago, US Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken had also congratulated Shehbaz Sharif and vowed to continue its long-standing cooperation with Pakistan’s government.

Likewise, earlier this week, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby had insisted that the US had a “healthy military-to-military relationship with Pakistani armed forces”, hoping that “we have every expectation that will be able to continue to be the case”.

Cablegate

The controversy surrounding the no-confidence motion against the former premier Imran Khan took a dramatic turn when the embattled PM brandished a letter at a rally on March 27 — days before his ouster, claiming it contained evidence of a “foreign conspiracy” hatched to topple his government.

Imran had kept a mum about the contents of the letter when he first unveiled it, however, he spilled the beans days later by naming the United States when the exit of the government appeared imminent.

Imran’s allegation that the US spearheaded his exit from power was based on a cable received from Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Asad Majeed, in which he had reported about a meeting with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Affairs Donald Lu.

Majeed had reportedly said that Donald Lu warned that Imran Khan’s continuation in office, who was set to face a vote of no confidence, would have repercussions on bilateral relations. The US was said to be annoyed with Imran over his “independent foreign policy” and visit to Moscow.

The Pentagon and the State Department have rejected the accusations, saying there was no veracity to it.

The National Security Committee (NSC), which includes all services chiefs as well as the head of Pakistan’s top intelligence agency, took up the matter on March 31 and decided to issue a “strong demarche” to a country that it did not name over what was termed “blatant interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan”.

It had also termed the interference “unacceptable under any circumstances” and said the language used in the communique was undiplomatic.