EU imposes asset freeze, travel ban on five people tied to Syria's Assad
BRUSSELS, June 23 (Reuters) - The European Union imposed on Monday an asset freeze and a ban on travel to the EU on five people linked with toppled Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for supporting crimes against humanity, including backing the use of chemical weapons against civilians and fuelling sectarian violence.
The Council of the EU said the measures targeted three former members of the Syrian Republican Guard and Armed Forces responsible for human rights violations during Assad's rule, including torture and extrajudicial killings, and who were involved in a wave of violence that took place in March.
Those affected also included two prominent businessmen who represented the Assad government's business and financial interests in Russia, which the EU says helped finance crimes against humanity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
an hour ago
- STV News
Rod Stewart says country should 'give Farage a chance'
Sir Rod Stewart has called on Britain to 'give Nigel Farage a chance' as he revealed how close he came to pulling out of his Glastonbury appearance. The 80-year-old singer backed the Reform UK leader ahead of appearing in the festival's afternoon legends slot on Sunday, 23 years after he headlined the Pyramid Stage. 'I've read about (Sir Keir) Starmer cutting off the fishing in Scotland and giving it back to the EU. That hasn't made him popular,' he told The Times. 'We're fed up with the Tories. We've got to give Farage a chance. He's coming across well. Nigel? What options have we got? 'Starmer's all about getting us out of Brexit and I don't know how he's going to do that. Still, the country will survive. It could be worse. We could be in the Gaza Strip.' Admitting his wealth ensures 'a lot of it doesn't really touch me', he insisted he is not out of touch and expressed his support for Ukraine – criticising US President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance for their treatment of Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky on his visit to the White House – and Gaza. 'It's depressing, what's going on in the Gaza Strip,' he said. 'Netanyahu doesn't realise that this is what happened to his people under the Nazis: total annihilation. And Trump is going to turn the Gaza Strip into Miami?' Stewart said a prolonged bout of flu, which forced him to cancel five shows in the US, nearly forced him to withdraw from a Glastonbury appearance he described as his 'World Cup final'. 'This time last week I was thinking of cancelling,' he told The Sun, crediting his wife Penny Lancaster with nursing him back to health. 'I have had Influenza A. It's been so terrible. It's the worst thing anyone could possibly have, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. 'Apart from (Vladimir) Putin. I'd wish it on him.' Stewart told The Sun he had negotiated an extra quarter of an hour on top of the allotted 75 minutes for his set. He confirmed he will be joined at Glastonbury by former Faces bandmate Ronnie Wood, Simply Red's Mick Hucknall and Lulu, as well as performing the song Powderfinger by Saturday headliner Neil Young. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
EU must have a stronger response over Gaza, says bloc's former chief diplomat
The EU must come up with a more assertive response to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the violations of international law, the bloc's former chief diplomat has said. In a strongly worded article, Josep Borrell said the EU had a 'duty' to intervene and must come up with its own concerted plan to end the war instead of relying on the US. 'Europe can no longer afford to linger at the margins,' he said in the article that was co-authored with Kalypso Nicolaidis, an occasional adviser to the EU and professorial chair in international affairs at the Florence school of transnational governance at the European University Institute. 'The EU needs a concerted plan. 'Not only is Europe's own security at stake, but more important, European history imposes a duty on Europeans to intervene in response to Israel's violations of international law,' they say, adding: 'Europeans cannot stay the hapless fools in this tragic story, dishing out cash with their eyes closed.' Their intervention in Foreign Affairs magazine comes as EU member states continue to struggle to unite on action. Last week Borrell's successor, Kaja Kallas, said it was 'very clear' that Israel had breached its human rights commitments in Gaza but said the 'concrete question' was what action the member states can agree on. Her remarks were made after a review of the EU-Israel association agreement, a trade and cooperation pact, was triggered last month by 17 member states in protest at Israel's blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza. The authors say there are ways and lessons from the past to guide EU member states who want to take action without having to get buy in from countries reluctant to do so, for historical reasons, including Germany, Hungary and Austria. They suggest a number of actions, from using the EU's financial leverage, to suspending Israel's presence in EU programmes such as the Erasmus+ student exchange. They also suggest EU member states could explore using article 20 of the EU's treaty to 'allow for at least nine member states to come together to utilise certain foreign policy tools not related to defence'. 'Because such an action has never been taken before, those states would have to explore what [it] … would concretely allow them to do,' the article said. Borrell and Nicolaidis argue that the disunity in the EU has reduced what should be a powerful mediating voice in the Middle East into a bit player. 'Some EU leaders cautiously backed the international criminal court's investigations, while others, such as Austria and Germany, have declined to implement its arrest warrants against Israeli officials,' they say. 'And because EU member states, beginning with Germany and Hungary, could not agree on whether to revisit the union's trade policy with Israel, the EU continues to be Israel's largest trading partner. 'As a result, the EU, as a bloc, has been largely relegated to the sidelines, divided internally and overshadowed in ceasefire diplomacy by the United States and regional actors such as Egypt and Qatar. Shouldn't the EU also have acted as a mediator?'
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill risks unravelling Windsor Framework
As a former Solicitor General and Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, I am no stranger to the legal complexities that arise when Westminster legislation intersects with our post-Brexit arrangements in Northern Ireland. Yet even by those standards, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill now before Parliament represents an extraordinary and avoidable collision course with the law. Ministers have sheepishly suggested that the Bill does not affect trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. That is a surprising conclusion, and, in my view, a legally indefensible one. As someone who helped oversee the legal machinery of government, I can say this plainly: legislation that purports to apply across the UK but cannot lawfully operate in Northern Ireland is both constitutionally and legally incoherent. The problem is relatively straightforward. Under the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland continues to follow key parts of EU law to maintain access to the EU Single Market for goods. One such law is the 2014 EU Tobacco Products Directive, which mandates that tobacco can be legally sold to adults aged 18 and over. The UK Bill proposes a generational ban, effectively criminalising the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2008. The contradiction is obvious. If the Bill applies UK-wide, Northern Ireland will be out of step with EU law. If the Bill is not enforceable in Northern Ireland, then the UK's internal market will be fragmented. Either outcome exposes the UK to legal challenge and breaches the treaty obligations we signed only last year. The Windsor Framework is not merely political scaffolding; it is now part of an international treaty that carries direct effect in UK law. As I saw time and again during my tenure as Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, the unique legal position of Northern Ireland requires careful and nuanced handling. Blunt instruments like this Bill risk unravelling the hard-won gains of recent years. The legal risk is not hypothetical. The courts in Northern Ireland – in cases such as Dillon v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have confirmed their power to dis-apply UK legislation that contravenes the Framework. The relevant test, long established, would be easily met here. The right to purchase legal goods, like tobacco, is an economic right protected under the Framework and the Good Friday Agreement. To remove that right in Northern Ireland, by domestic legislation that conflicts with EU law, would be a direct breach of both. It is simply inconceivable that such a law could stand in Northern Ireland without falling foul of the courts. I say this not as a political opponent of the Bill's objectives, (I actually voted in favour of the Bill in principle under the last government) but as a KC who has spent years navigating the legal thickets of post-Brexit Britain. The law matters. International obligations matter. Our constitutional order depends on Parliament respecting both. I have been greatly disappointed by the level of forensic legal rigour applied to the Bill that is required for it to get muscular enough to be considered remotely workable. The choice now before Parliament is not whether to press ahead with the generational ban. It is whether to press ahead lawfully. That cannot be done until the UK secures agreement through the UK–EU Joint Committee or expressly exempts Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill. Until then, the Government must pause this legislation. Anything less risks breaching international law, undermining the internal market, and inviting yet another avoidable constitutional crisis.
