Qatar emphasises peaceful resolution of conflicts after DRC-Rwanda deal
Qatari diplomat Mohammed bin Abdulaziz al-Khulaifi has welcomed the peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), saying that it came after several rounds of talks, some of which were held in Doha.
The deal, signed in Washington, DC, on Friday with backing from the United States and Qatar, will see Rwandan soldiers withdraw from the DRC and the two countries set up mechanisms to enhance trade and security cooperation.
'We hope that the sides will adhere to the terms of the agreement to de-escalate and bolster the security and stability of the … region,' al-Khulaifi, who serves as minister of state at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Al Jazeera.
Al-Khulaifi added that the meeting between Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame, hosted by Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha in March, was followed by a series of talks, paving the way for Friday's deal.
'Qatar enjoys excellent relationships with both countries and has earned the trust of both countries as a mediator and international partner trying to resolve these issues,' he said.
'Doha was a platform for these meetings, and we contributed [to reaching the agreement] with the US.'
The Reuters news agency reported earlier this month that Qatar presented a draft peace proposal to Rwanda and the DRC after negotiations in Doha.
On Friday, the US Department of State said the US, Qatar, the African Union and Togo 'will continue to engage both parties to ensure implementation of the obligations laid out in the agreement'.
The agreement has sparked hopes of ending the conflict in the DRC, where the Rwanda-backed M23 armed group has been advancing in the resource-rich east of the country.
The renewed violence had raised fears of igniting a full-blown conflict, akin to the wars that the DRC endured in the late 1990s, involving several African countries, which killed millions of people.
'Qatar fully believes in dialogue as the cornerstone for resolving conflict through peaceful means,' al-Khulaifi said.
'Qatar believes that mediation is a pillar of its foreign policy. That's why, hopefully, you will find Qatar always racing to try to resolve issues between countries, even countries that are geographically far from Qatar.'
Qatar has played a key role in securing diplomatic deals in various conflicts across the world over the past years. Most recently, it helped mediate the ceasefire agreement that ended the 12-day war between Israel and Iran.
'What pleases me is that this agreement came days after another agreement which Qatar contributed to with the US – and that's the ceasefire between Iran and Israel,' al-Khulaifi said. 'Qatar will not spare any efforts to engage in more attempts to de-escalate and pursue peaceful means to end these conflicts.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Qatar emphasises peaceful resolution of conflicts after DRC-Rwanda deal
Qatari diplomat Mohammed bin Abdulaziz al-Khulaifi has welcomed the peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), saying that it came after several rounds of talks, some of which were held in Doha. The deal, signed in Washington, DC, on Friday with backing from the United States and Qatar, will see Rwandan soldiers withdraw from the DRC and the two countries set up mechanisms to enhance trade and security cooperation. 'We hope that the sides will adhere to the terms of the agreement to de-escalate and bolster the security and stability of the … region,' al-Khulaifi, who serves as minister of state at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Al Jazeera. Al-Khulaifi added that the meeting between Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame, hosted by Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha in March, was followed by a series of talks, paving the way for Friday's deal. 'Qatar enjoys excellent relationships with both countries and has earned the trust of both countries as a mediator and international partner trying to resolve these issues,' he said. 'Doha was a platform for these meetings, and we contributed [to reaching the agreement] with the US.' The Reuters news agency reported earlier this month that Qatar presented a draft peace proposal to Rwanda and the DRC after negotiations in Doha. On Friday, the US Department of State said the US, Qatar, the African Union and Togo 'will continue to engage both parties to ensure implementation of the obligations laid out in the agreement'. The agreement has sparked hopes of ending the conflict in the DRC, where the Rwanda-backed M23 armed group has been advancing in the resource-rich east of the country. The renewed violence had raised fears of igniting a full-blown conflict, akin to the wars that the DRC endured in the late 1990s, involving several African countries, which killed millions of people. 'Qatar fully believes in dialogue as the cornerstone for resolving conflict through peaceful means,' al-Khulaifi said. 'Qatar believes that mediation is a pillar of its foreign policy. That's why, hopefully, you will find Qatar always racing to try to resolve issues between countries, even countries that are geographically far from Qatar.' Qatar has played a key role in securing diplomatic deals in various conflicts across the world over the past years. Most recently, it helped mediate the ceasefire agreement that ended the 12-day war between Israel and Iran. 'What pleases me is that this agreement came days after another agreement which Qatar contributed to with the US – and that's the ceasefire between Iran and Israel,' al-Khulaifi said. 'Qatar will not spare any efforts to engage in more attempts to de-escalate and pursue peaceful means to end these conflicts.'
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Explosive': US Supreme Court deals blow to those challenging Trump's power
Washington, DC – The United States Supreme Court has dealt a major blow to those challenging Donald Trump's use of presidential power, in what the president and his allies have hailed as a major victory. In its decision on Friday, the nine-member panel weighed whether courts could block an executive order on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule directly on the president's order, which would limit citizenship for US-born children based on their parents' immigration status. But in a six-to-three ruling, the court's conservative supermajority did severely curtail the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions: blanket bans on presidential actions stemming from legal challenges. The court's move, according to Allen Orr, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), is nothing short of 'explosive'. 'For lawyers and people who practice law, this is a drastic change from the way we've had courts run in the past,' he told Al Jazeera. 'It's weakening the judiciary yet again, as a balancing act [against the executive branch].' No immediate change to birthright citizenship Friday's ruling lifts the nationwide block on Trump's executive order that seeks to redefine birthright citizenship, which generally allows those born on US soil to be recognised as American citizens. However, Trump's order, signed just hours after he took office for a second term on January 20, would restrict citizenship for individuals born to undocumented parents in the US. That 'opens the door to partial enforcement' of Trump's order, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of several groups that have challenged the attempted policy. That is, at least until the Supreme Court makes a determination on whether birthright citizenship is indeed protected by the US Constitution, as proponents – and the court's own precedents – have long maintained. If no further action is taken, in theory, the order could be blocked in the handful of states where judges have already issued injunctions related to at least 10 individual lawsuits. But it could go into effect in dozens of other states where judges have issued no such injunction. The Supreme Court's ruling says Trump's order will not be enforceable for at least 30 days. But Leon Fresco – a former deputy assistant attorney general who oversaw immigration at the Justice Department under President Barack Obama – warned that, after that 30-day period, there could be grave consequences for the newborn children of immigrants. 'If there isn't an injunction in your jurisdiction that prevents the executive order from being implemented and you're born to a parent without a status that confers you citizenship, then the government could deny you either a passport, if you apply for a passport, or a Social Security number,' he told Al Jazeera. Class action challenge The decision on Friday does not completely remove the possibility of a judge issuing a nationwide injunction to an executive order. Legal experts say it just severely restricts the avenues. Prior to the decision, groups and individuals could launch a panoply of legal challenges in federal courts across the country, any of which could result in nationwide injunctions. Now, a judge can only issue a blanket pause in response to a class action lawsuit, which is a complaint brought on behalf of an entire 'class' of people. The process is typically more complex, time-consuming and costly. The Supreme Court's majority opinion, Fresco explained, also clarified that only one nationwide class action lawsuit can represent a specific challenge. 'There wouldn't be this ability, which happens now, where plaintiffs can file cases in five or six different courts, in hopes of getting one judge in any of those courts to issue a nationwide injunction,' he said. 'With the class action, you'll only have the one time to win,' he added. 'If you lost, you'd have to hope that the appellate court changed it, or that the Supreme Court changed it.' Class action lawsuits also have stringent requirements for who can participate. A judge must agree that all plaintiffs are pursuing the same case and that there are no substantial differences in their claims. Shortly after Friday's ruling, the plaintiff, CASA Inc, an immigration advocacy group, swiftly refiled its legal challenge against Trump's birthright citizenship order. Now, it is pursuing the case as a class action lawsuit. Critics, meanwhile, took aim at the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal judge on the nine-member panel, criticised her colleagues for ruling on national injunctions but not on Trump's executive order, which she called blatantly unconstitutional. 'The majority ignores entirely whether the President's Executive Order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Yet the Order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error.' Absent a class action lawsuit, individuals and groups will be forced to launch their own lawsuits to get individual reprieves from potentially illegal presidential orders. That's because the conservative supermajority ruled that court injunctions in most cases should only apply to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit at hand. In a post on the social media platform X, Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrote that the Supreme Court's decision allows Trump to 'rip away birthright citizenship, forcing individuals to file burdensome lawsuits to get it back'. Wider implications But Friday's decision not only restricts who is protected by a given court injunction, it also has sway over how much the judicial branch of government can continue to serve as a bulwark against the executive branch. Critics of universal injunctions have long accused federal judges of overstepping their authority by blocking presidential action. Among those celebrating Friday's decision was Senator Chuck Grassley, who has spearheaded legislation on the issue. In a statement, he called such injunctions an 'unconstitutional affront to our nation's system of checks and balances' that 'ought to be stopped for good'. Proponents, however, say the ability for judges to issue swift, wide-reaching pauses on controversial policies is needed to safeguard against presidential overreach. Many see Trump as taking the expansion of presidential powers to a new level during his second term. Since returning to office for a second term, Trump has issued 164 executive orders, surpassing the 162 issued by former President Joe Biden during his entire presidency. That number – for a span of about five months – is rapidly approaching the total for Trump's entire first term: 220. Meanwhile, federal judges issued at least 25 national injunctions to Trump's orders during his first 100 days in office, some of which paused cuts to federal funding, attacks on diversity initiatives and overhauls to the US immigration systems. Some of those court cases will likely be re-challenged in light of the latest ruling, experts said. In a post on X, Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat, warned the courts ruling 'will only embolden Trump and his dismantling of our federal government'. 'It will create an unworkable patchwork of laws that shift depending on who you are or what state you're in.' Orr, the former law association president, agreed with that assessment. 'This decision does not build consistency across the United States at a time when people need these standards,' he said. 'People do not have time or money to wait to have these issues resolved.'
Al Jazeera
13 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump lambasts Khamenei, says he'd bomb Iran if nuclear activities restart
President Donald Trump has hit out at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's claim that Iran won its recent 12-day war with Israel, also saying the United States will 'absolutely' bomb the country again if it pursues nuclear weapons. The US president launched a torrent of abuse at Iran's Supreme Leader on his Truth Social platform on Friday, claiming he had saved Khamenei from 'A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH' and accusing him of 'blatantly and foolishly' lying when he claimed 'victory' in the war the previous day. In his first sortie since the Israel-Iran war ended with a ceasefire earlier this week, Khamenei had also said Iran 'slapped America in the face' by launching missiles at a major US base in Qatar following US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. In Friday's post, Trump said he had demanded Israel pull back from 'the final knockout'. 'His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life,' he said. The question of whether US attacks destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities is moot – a leaked intelligence report contradicted Trump's account of events, suggesting the military's strikes had set the country back by mere months. The US president said that Khamenei's comments, which he described as 'a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust', had led him to drop work on 'the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery'. Future of nuclear programme Trump's rant against Khamenei came on the back of bellicose comments earlier that day at a White House news conference. Asked whether he would consider new air strikes if the recent attacks had not succeeded in ending Iran's nuclear weapons programme, Trump said, 'Sure, without question, absolutely.' He said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites. But Iran has approved a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, a move widely seen as a direct response to the strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated on Friday that Tehran may reject any request by the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites. '[IAEA Director General] Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,' Araghchi said on X. 'Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and its sovereignty.' Grossi said on Wednesday that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority, as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on June 13. Meanwhile, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz indicated on Friday that his country might still be on a war footing with Iran, saying he had instructed the military to prepare an enforcement plan against the country. The plan 'includes maintaining Israel's air superiority, preventing nuclear advancement and missile production, and responses to Iran for supporting terrorist activities against Israel', Katz said. Katz said on Thursday that Israel had wanted to 'eliminate' Khamenei and would not have required US permission to do so.
