Latest news with #SanctionsBill
Otago Daily Times
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Letters to the Editor: war, agendas and cricket
Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including what Jesus would do about Israel, the "agenda" of the previous mayor, and bravo to Adrian Seconi! What does it take to abandon neutrality? Nothing in recent times has shown how inept and outdated New Zealand's foreign policy is than Winston Peters and Labour's foreign affairs spokesman stating New Zealand is "not taking sides" in this highly dangerous unprovoked attack on Iran by Israel. That we can be so certain and decisive about the Russia-Ukraine war yet bottle joining the majority of the world's unequivocal condemnation of Israel is morally bankrupt and craven. What will it take Israel to do to get us to do the right thing? A nuclear bomb on Tehran? We cannot credibly be neutral here. WWJD? Last week in my submission to the Dunedin City Council when I opposed the Sanctions Bill against Israel, Cr Jim O'Malley asked me as a church minister "What would Jesus do?" I felt he was leaving out a huge chunk of the pie and just wanted to chew on one tiny portion. In hindsight though, as his question was put to me publicly, I would like to answer him in a letter to the editor. This is what Jesus would do: He would first point to October 7 and tell Hamas and those with them that they must repent for what they had done. He would then tell them they should lay their weapons down. Upon compliance, Jesus would then take the Israelis by one hand and the Palestinians by the other hand and He would sit down with them and say, "now let's talk about this". Jesus would then remind the Palestinians that the Jewish people have a covenant with God which gives them the right to live on all the Land of Israel — from the River to the Sea. He would ask the Palestinians to honour that covenant, and then he would encourage both parties to live in peace with each other. Spokesman, Coalition of 114 NZ Church Ministers Supporting Israel Incentives and sanctions I have no difficulty with Gerrard Eckhoff (Opinion ODT 9.6.25) expressing strong views even if they are poles apart from my own. I do have difficulty when his views are fanciful, serious exaggerations, or just plain wrong. An illustration of the former is stating that the imposition of a capital gains tax (CGT) is akin to "demanding money with menaces (which) usually results in jail time" He continues "It is the young and their future that CGT will ultimately destroy". An enormous exaggeration. Again: "The hope of a comfortable retirement that is rendered inert by a CGT" . . . and further: "CGT therefore will ultimately destroy the incentive to work, take risks and grow assets" By my reckoning, in excess of 150 countries world-wide collect revenue by means of a tax on capital. Can Mr Eckhoff show that social disintegration is rife on all or any of those countries due to their adoption of CGT? It was a great agenda It is time for a change all right, when a number of current Dunedin city councillors celebrate that they have left behind the "agenda" of the previous council and mayor Aaron Hawkins ( ODT 17.6.25). What did that agenda bring the city? The award-winning George St, enhanced community facilities, new Mosgiel pool, upgraded social housing, comprehensive kerbside recycling, protection for Foulden Maar, and much more. Happily there is a mayoral candidate who would bring real change to the council. Look out for Mickey Treadwell, Green candidate for mayor and a tech-savvy small business owner. [Alan Somerville is a Green Otago Regional councillor.] Column on Sparks knocked it out of the park Bravo, Adrian Seconi. You have hit the nail on the head with your article on the Otago Sparks missing out on the team of the year award at the annual Otago Sports Awards. Or, to continue your delightful cricket metaphors, you have played a perfect straight drive from the sweet spot of the bat, and it has scorched to the boundary. For all the reasons you have given, the Sparks have indeed "been robbed." To win nine of their ten round robin matches, for goodness sake. Imagine if the Highlanders did that: of course they would be our team of the year. The Sparks were so far ahead of all the other teams, they were into the final before the other places were finalised. Then on the day, they faced having to make a record score of nearly 300, thanks to a flawless century by Central Hinds' Maddy Green, who appeared to have put the win out of the Sparks' reach. Especially with Otago having three key players out with injury. Their team work, resolve, courage and skill was breathtaking, and an emotional watch for their supporters. As an ex-Otago cricketer (1961-76) and a member of the team when it won the Halliburton Johnstone shield for the first time, I could be regarded as somewhat biased, but I believe the facts Adrian has recorded speak for themselves. I also wish to thank both the Otago Daily Times and Adrian Seconi for the very high profile you consistently give to women's sport. It is without peer amongst news reporting in this country. And as a cricket lover, I can't wait for the return of Adrian's Notes from Slip each summer. Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@
Scoop
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
NZ Joining International Call For Humanitarian Aid To Gaza Welcomed, But Sanctions Need To Be Imposed On Israel Urgently
Press Release – Justice for Palestine Israel is currently carrying out a genocide in Palestine, and the New Zealand Government has failed to take meaningful action to pressure Israel to comply with international law, despite the people of NZ repeatedly calling for it. Justice for Palestine welcomes the New Zealand Government joining 22 other countries and representatives of the European Union in calling for immediate full resumption of independent aid distribution into Gaza. In a continuation of a series of illegal acts of collective punishment over the past 19 months, Israel imposed a suffocating blockade on humanitarian aid entering the Gaza Strip in March 2025. Food, medicines and essential supplies are exhausted and the population faces intentional mass starvation and famine. This act constitutes an unprecedented form of collective punishment and a stark violation of international humanitarian law. However, aid is not enough. It is the bare minimum. Justice for Palestine calls on the NZ government to join the governments of Canada, the UK and France in opposing Israel's renewed military offensive, threatening concrete actions in response, and threatening the imposition of sanctions in response to any further expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. But the threat of 'concrete actions' is not enough: Israel has been flouting international law with impunity, and New Zealand must urgently impose sanctions. Israel is currently carrying out a genocide in Palestine, and the New Zealand Government has failed to take meaningful action to pressure Israel to comply with international law, despite the people of NZ repeatedly calling for it. We urge the government to act decisively and implement sanctions on the state of Israel without delay. Imposing sanctions would ensure New Zealand adheres to its obligations under international law and lives up to its proud history of doing what is morally right in the face of human rights violations. The members' bill Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill, which mirrors the Russia Sanctions Bill, has already been drafted. We call on the NZ Government to adopt the Bill without delay, so we as a nation can take concrete legislative measures to save Palestinian lives and uphold international legal frameworks that benefit all of humanity.
Telegraph
28-04-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
It's not too late for Britain to act and lead Europe in defending Ukraine
The sight of Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky conferring in the majestic calm of St Peter's Basilica offers a reminder that all is not lost in Ukraine. Yes, their encounter came straight after Vladimir Putin's open-armed greeting for Steve Witkoff, the American envoy; true, Mr Trump's seven-point peace plan obviously favours Russia. But the president might yet redeem everything by giving Ukraine the clear American security guarantee that remains the only sure way of ending this war and deterring Putin from coming back for a third invasion. To maximise this chance, our Government needs to do something difficult and profoundly counter-cultural for many of our diplomats. There is no point fuming over Mr Trump's folly or portraying him as the villain of Ukraine's ordeal, or hoping that a miraculous combination of blandishment and flattery (a state visit!) might still win him over. Instead, Britain should use the levers that are in our hands, setting an example that European allies might follow. Now is the moment to lead. That means taking three steps: seize the Russian assets, lower the price cap for Putin's oil, and back the Sanctions Bill now in the US Senate. Charles de Gaulle once advised a British ambassador to pause every day and consider events 'from the point of view of the future historian'. In 50 years, historians are going to be astonished that even as Putin was waging the bloodiest European war since 1945, Europe was sitting on about €230 billion (£196 billion) of Russian state assets, lying frozen in dozens of banks. Think what could be done with that colossal sum, amounting to 140 per cent of Ukraine's GDP. We could give it all to Kyiv, allowing Mr Zelensky to multiply his military spending fivefold. Or we could use €100 billion to capitalise a bank to kick-start Europe's rearmament while still leaving almost enough to triple Ukraine's defence budget. That money could have what generals call 'strategic effect': it might change the course of the war. Best of all, Europe has the power to force Russia to become the first aggressor in history to fund the resistance to its own aggression. Then we could tell every Russian that their own money was buying the shells and bullets killing their own soldiers. So why hasn't it happened? There is a legal basis for pressing ahead, but seizing the assets would still be held to violate property rights, deter investment and damage the reputation of Europe's law-abiding open economies. These objections, once decisive, have surely been overtaken by the gravity of events. In fact Europe has already crossed the Rubicon and undermined property rights by freezing the assets and using their interest payments to underwrite a $50 billion loan for Ukraine. But there is still no EU consensus behind full seizure. Our Government should remember that Britain is no longer bound by EU decision-making. At this moment, £25 billion of Russian assets lie frozen in UK institutions. Britain should go ahead and seize them, establishing a precedent for the EU to follow. If that needs emergency legislation, so be it. Taking £25 billion would not have strategic effect but it would still fund a 60 per cent increase in Ukraine's defence budget, or allow this year's £3 billion of British military aid to be multiplied eightfold. Our Government should get on and do it and break the deadlock. As we strengthen Ukraine's finances, so we must do more to weaken Russia's. The G7 has imposed a price cap on Russian oil exports, denying insurance or services to any tanker carrying Putin's oil unless it sells its cargo for $60 a barrel or less. But the market price for oil is now down to around $66, making the price cap virtually meaningless. The obvious answer would be to lower the limit, but that would require a G7 consensus and America can no longer be relied upon. Should we stare helplessly at this impasse or try to break it? Britain is the biggest provider of maritime insurance in the G7. We could use that lever to impose our own price cap for Russian oil, say of $30 per barrel, and once again set a precedent for others to follow. Meanwhile, not every American Republican agrees with Trump on Russia. On April 1, Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, introduced a Bill in the Senate to impose what he called 'bone-breaking sanctions' on Russia, designed to choke Putin's oil exports once and for all by levying a 500 per cent tariff on any country that buys them. That Bill now has the public backing of 55 senators, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The votes are there to get it passed. Does the British Government have a view? Is our embassy in Washington lobbying in favour of Senator Graham's sanctions? Is Lord Mandelson, our new ambassador, gliding the corridors of Capitol Hill, using his famous diplomatic skills to promote this measure. If not, why not? Everything I have written challenges the deeply ingrained culture of the Foreign Office. During nearly eight years working there and in Downing Street, I saw how our diplomats are steeped in the belief that Britain can never achieve anything important except in concert with others, preferably America, and if that is impossible then it's usually best to do nothing. Their mantra is: act 'in company' or not at all. The problem with saying 'never act alone' is that it becomes 'never act first' and then 'never lead'. Boris Johnson had to overrule the weight of Whitehall opinion when, in January 2022, he sent 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine just before the full-scale invasion, when no other country was publicly arming Kyiv. By proposing the unilateral use of hard power – supplying missiles – he was challenging a sacred dogma of British diplomacy. But Johnson was vindicated when those weapons helped Ukraine to wreck Russia's invasion plan and defeat Putin's assault on Kyiv. Soon dozens of European countries were following Britain's lead and sending arms. We should learn the lesson: we are not powerless and sometimes it pays to go first. In Mr Trump's new world, waiting for Washington can no longer be a reflex. Today nothing matters more than for the Foreign Office to shake off the outdated attitude that ties our hands.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
It's not too late for Britain to act and lead Europe in defending Ukraine
The sight of Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky conferring in the majestic calm of St Peter's Basilica offers a reminder that all is not lost in Ukraine. Yes, their encounter came straight after Vladimir Putin's open-armed greeting for Steve Witkoff, the American envoy; true, Mr Trump's seven-point peace plan obviously favours Russia. But the president might yet redeem everything by giving Ukraine the clear American security guarantee that remains the only sure way of ending this war and deterring Putin from coming back for a third invasion. To maximise this chance, our Government needs to do something difficult and profoundly counter-cultural for many of our diplomats. There is no point fuming over Mr Trump's folly or portraying him as the villain of Ukraine's ordeal, or hoping that a miraculous combination of blandishment and flattery (a state visit!) might still win him over. Instead, Britain should use the levers that are in our hands, setting an example that European allies might follow. Now is the moment to lead. That means taking three steps: seize the Russian assets, lower the price cap for Putin's oil, and back the Sanctions Bill now in the US Senate. Charles de Gaulle once advised a British ambassador to pause every day and consider events 'from the point of view of the future historian'. In 50 years, historians are going to be astonished that even as Putin was waging the bloodiest European war since 1945, Europe was sitting on about €230 billion (£196 billion) of Russian state assets, lying frozen in dozens of banks. Think what could be done with that colossal sum, amounting to 140 per cent of Ukraine's GDP. We could give it all to Kyiv, allowing Mr Zelensky to multiply his military spending fivefold. Or we could use €100 billion to capitalise a bank to kick-start Europe's rearmament while still leaving almost enough to triple Ukraine's defence budget. That money could have what generals call 'strategic effect': it might change the course of the war. Best of all, Europe has the power to force Russia to become the first aggressor in history to fund the resistance to its own aggression. Then we could tell every Russian that their own money was buying the shells and bullets killing their own soldiers. So why hasn't it happened? There is a legal basis for pressing ahead, but seizing the assets would still be held to violate property rights, deter investment and damage the reputation of Europe's law-abiding open economies. These objections, once decisive, have surely been overtaken by the gravity of events. In fact Europe has already crossed the Rubicon and undermined property rights by freezing the assets and using their interest payments to underwrite a $50 billion loan for Ukraine. But there is still no EU consensus behind full seizure. Our Government should remember that Britain is no longer bound by EU decision-making. At this moment, £25 billion of Russian assets lie frozen in UK institutions. Britain should go ahead and seize them, establishing a precedent for the EU to follow. If that needs emergency legislation, so be it. Taking £25 billion would not have strategic effect but it would still fund a 60 per cent increase in Ukraine's defence budget, or allow this year's £3 billion of British military aid to be multiplied eightfold. Our Government should get on and do it and break the deadlock. As we strengthen Ukraine's finances, so we must do more to weaken Russia's. The G7 has imposed a price cap on Russian oil exports, denying insurance or services to any tanker carrying Putin's oil unless it sells its cargo for $60 a barrel or less. But the market price for oil is now down to around $66, making the price cap virtually meaningless. The obvious answer would be to lower the limit, but that would require a G7 consensus and America can no longer be relied upon. Should we stare helplessly at this impasse or try to break it? Britain is the biggest provider of maritime insurance in the G7. We could use that lever to impose our own price cap for Russian oil, say of $30 per barrel, and once again set a precedent for others to follow. Meanwhile, not every American Republican agrees with Trump on Russia. On April 1, Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, introduced a Bill in the Senate to impose what he called 'bone-breaking sanctions' on Russia, designed to choke Putin's oil exports once and for all by levying a 500 per cent tariff on any country that buys them. That Bill now has the public backing of 55 senators, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The votes are there to get it passed. Does the British Government have a view? Is our embassy in Washington lobbying in favour of Senator Graham's sanctions? Is Lord Mandelson, our new ambassador, gliding the corridors of Capitol Hill, using his famous diplomatic skills to promote this measure. If not, why not? Everything I have written challenges the deeply ingrained culture of the Foreign Office. During nearly eight years working there and in Downing Street, I saw how our diplomats are steeped in the belief that Britain can never achieve anything important except in concert with others, preferably America, and if that is impossible then it's usually best to do nothing. Their mantra is: act 'in company' or not at all. The problem with saying 'never act alone' is that it becomes 'never act first' and then 'never lead'. Boris Johnson had to overrule the weight of Whitehall opinion when, in January 2022, he sent 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine just before the full-scale invasion, when no other country was publicly arming Kyiv. By proposing the unilateral use of hard power – supplying missiles – he was challenging a sacred dogma of British diplomacy. But Johnson was vindicated when those weapons helped Ukraine to wreck Russia's invasion plan and defeat Putin's assault on Kyiv. Soon dozens of European countries were following Britain's lead and sending arms. We should learn the lesson: we are not powerless and sometimes it pays to go first. In Mr Trump's new world, waiting for Washington can no longer be a reflex. Today nothing matters more than for the Foreign Office to shake off the outdated attitude that ties our hands. These three steps are within our power. So what are we waiting for? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
