Latest news with #legitimacy
Zawya
6 days ago
- Politics
- Zawya
Libyan University students: Elections are needed urgently
Fifty-seven young men and women from universities across Libya joined the United Nations Support Mission in Libya for in a dedicated youth consultation on Wednesday to share their ideas around the Advisory Committee's recommendations and stressed the need for urgent inclusive election to establish stability and legitimacy. Students from Bent Bayya, Western Mountain, Gharyan, Ain Zara, Azzawya, Abu Salim, Tripoli Center, Sabratha, Zintan, Qasr Ben Ghashir, Sirt, Al-Bayda, Hay Andlus, Sebha, Benghazi, Murzuq, Al-Khums, Al-Araban, and Kabo joined the discussion, with many favouring the first option, which suggests holding near simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections. over others to avoid perpetuating division. Participants said it was essential that the military be unified and divisive instituons be institutions to avoiding reproducing the status quo. They highlighted a lack of trust and said that corruption was a significant obstacle to securing fair elections. Others added that cultural components are often marginalized politically in Libya, making the reality of inclusive elections unlikely. 'The second option, holding legislative elections first, is a continuation of a vicious cycle that we have tried twice and which has not succeeded since 2011,' said one participant. 'We need presidential elections.' Others agreed saying they feared a repeat of the 2014 scenario when a parliament was elected that rejected a peaceful transfer of power and added that the first option avoided the prolongation of transitional periods. 'The people's current priority is to expedite the dismantling of existing institutions,' another participant said, arguing in favour of the Advisory Committee's fourth option, under which a political dialogue forum would be convened to establish a constituent assembly that would establish an interim government. 'National reconciliation is being used to make money by those in power. The fourth option is the best option for the roadmap.' Other participants highlighted that there must be agreement on a clear constitutional basis before moving forward with elections – the Advisory Committee's third option – saying democracy could not be built in the current distorted situation. 'The lack of legitimacy is the greatest challenge,' said another participant. 'Therefore, a clear and binding date must be set, under the supervision of UNSMIL, allowing everyone to participate in the elections without excluding any party for any reason, and ensuring the voice of the people is heard." Distributed by APO Group on behalf of United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL).
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
AP Top Extended Financial Headlines at 12:56 a.m. EDT
The House has passed two bills intended to boost the legitimacy of the cryptocurrency industry with new regulations as President Donald Trump has pushed to make the U_S_ the 'crypto capital of the world.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Russia Today
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Moscow outlines why Zelensky wants to meet with Putin
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is seeking a personal meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to defend his claims to legitimacy and resist Western attempts to push him out of power, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. Zelensky's presidential term expired last year, and Moscow views him as illegitimate. In an interview with First Sevastopol TV released on Saturday, Zakharova was asked why she believes the Ukrainian leader is so insistent on meeting with Putin. 'Because he needs to reaffirm his legitimacy, not through legal procedures, but by any other means to prove that he is in power,' she stated. Zelensky's five-year presidential term ended in May 2024, but he refused to hold a new election, citing martial law. Moscow has declared him illegitimate, insisting that under Ukrainian law, legal authority now rests with the parliament. According to Zakharova, Zelensky also seeks a meeting with Putin because he is driven by 'a monstrous fear of being consigned to oblivion.' 'He is insanely afraid of being forgotten, of becoming unnecessary for the West. That somehow the West will sideline him. And you can see he doesn't step away from the microphones. I think he already sleeps with a webcam,' she said. Zelensky has on numerous occasions insisted that he wants to meet with Putin, describing this as a prerequisite for peace. In May, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov suggested that a meeting between Putin and Zelensky could be possible, but only after negotiations between Moscow and Kiev reach 'specific arrangements' on various diplomatic tracks. This year, Russia and Ukraine held two rounds of direct talks, which did not result in a breakthrough with regard to ending the conflict, but led to several prisoner exchanges. In January, Putin said Moscow could pursue negotiations with anyone, but due to Zelensky's 'illegitimacy, he has no right to sign anything.' In autumn 2022, Zelensky signed a presidential decree banning talks with the current Russian leadership, after the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye voted in referendums to join Russia. Though Zelensky has not canceled the decree, he has since insisted that it only applies to other Ukrainian politicians, not to himself.
Malay Mail
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Debunking the Histrionics: Why Anwar's Myanmar engagement does not legitimise the junta — Phar Kim Beng
MAY 19 — The recent Malaysiakini article titled 'Ex-minister, UN experts: Anwar must now drive Asean's Myanmar shift' is a prime example of well-meaning commentary lapsing into histrionics. While the intentions of the UN experts and former foreign minister Saifuddin Abdullah may be commendable, their criticism of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's recent engagements with Myanmar lacks both geopolitical nuance and diplomatic logic. Their central claim—that Anwar risks conferring legitimacy on Myanmar's junta by meeting with its leader, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing—is not only weak but based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how legitimacy operates in international relations. The idea that a short, humanitarian-focused meeting automatically translates into recognition or political validation is intellectually disingenuous and diplomatically naïve. Meeting a dictator does not confer legitimacy Let us first dismantle the central assumption of the article: that engaging with Min Aung Hlaing somehow lends him credibility or legitimacy. That is categorically false. A junta, by its very nature, is illegitimate in democratic terms. It seizes power by force, not consent. Its existence violates the foundational principles of constitutionalism, rule of law, and representative governance. No amount of bilateral meetings or photo-ops can suddenly elevate a military regime to the status of a legitimate government. If diplomacy alone could perform such a feat, then we must believe that Kim Jong Un became a democrat after his three meetings with Donald Trump—an absurd proposition. The international community has long maintained relations with regimes it does not recognize as legitimate. The United Nations' humanitarian arms routinely engage with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Assad regime in Syria, or North Korea's leadership—not out of approval, but out of necessity. Malaysia's meeting in Bangkok with the junta leader occurred in the context of a humanitarian crisis, specifically following a deadly earthquake in Myanmar. That context cannot be ignored. Anwar's engagement was humanitarian, not political It is disingenuous for critics to conflate humanitarian diplomacy with political endorsement. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was not in Naypyidaw shaking hands for a trade deal. He was in Bangkok participating in a regional meeting convened to address the earthquake that had left thousands dead and many more displaced. In that context, Malaysia pledged RM10 million for humanitarian assistance, a move consistent with both international law and ASEAN's own frameworks for disaster relief. To suggest that this humanitarian outreach was a coded signal of political approval is not only false—it is morally questionable. Are we now to hold the lives of innocent civilians hostage to an impossible political purity test? Refusing to engage with the junta at all, even to save lives, would have been the real dereliction of moral responsibility. Malaysia has been consistently balanced on Myanmar More importantly, Anwar Ibrahim's approach to Myanmar has been far more comprehensive and principled than the article gives credit for. His administration has quietly engaged with Myanmar's shadow government, the National Unity Government (NUG), in addition to supporting regional efforts to uphold the Five-Point Consensus adopted by ASEAN in April 2021. Anwar's Malaysia has maintained the firm position that the junta should not be allowed political representation in high-level ASEAN meetings. Indeed, during Malaysia's current ASEAN chairmanship, no senior representative of the junta has been invited to any ministerial-level meeting. The country's position is thus crystal clear: humanitarianism does not equal recognition. This balanced strategy—engaging both official and unofficial stakeholders—aligns with the long-standing Malaysian diplomatic ethos: quiet engagement, firm principles, and consistent multilateralism. Anwar (second from left) and Thaksin (second from right) held a discussion about neighbouring Myanmar and cryptocurrencies on February 2, 2025. — Picture from Facebook/Anwar Ibrahim Saifuddin Abdullah's critique rings hollow The lead critic quoted in the article, former foreign minister Saifuddin Abdullah, appears to be engaging in political point-scoring rather than offering genuine foreign policy insight. During his tenure, Saifuddin made similar overtures toward the NUG but stopped short of any decisive policy change. The suggestion that Anwar is 'backtracking' or lacks direction ignores the fact that Malaysia's regional leadership under Anwar is arguably firmer and more pragmatic than during previous administrations. It is important to recall that diplomacy is not theatre. It is not measured in hashtags, press releases, or loud condemnations. It is measured in results—lives saved, conflicts de-escalated, and influence preserved. By that metric, Anwar's strategy, while less visible, is far more grounded in strategic rationality. Asean is not a blunt instrument The article also fails to appreciate the structural limitations of ASEAN itself. It is not a supranational body like the European Union. It does not possess enforcement power or a standing military. ASEAN works on the basis of consensus, non-interference, and dialogue. Any meaningful progress on Myanmar must therefore be delicately negotiated among ten very different member states. Expecting Malaysia alone to impose a new direction on ASEAN without fracturing the group is both unrealistic and dangerous. Anwar's cautious balancing act reflects the burden of leadership within ASEAN: too firm, and you lose the group; too soft, and you lose credibility. Walking that tightrope is not cowardice—it is statesmanship. Conclusion: Pragmatism over posturing The Malaysiakini article, while reporting on a legitimate policy debate, ultimately suffers from dramatization and a shallow understanding of diplomacy. It unfairly casts Anwar Ibrahim's nuanced diplomacy as indecision or appeasement, when in fact it is consistent with Malaysia's historical approach to international crises. Humanitarian engagement with the junta does not equal political endorsement. Malaysia's record speaks for itself: strong support for democracy, open channels with the NUG, and a refusal to allow the junta any formal platform in ASEAN. Critics who ignore these facts in favor of rhetorical flourish risk undermining Malaysia's diplomatic leverage and distorting public understanding of a complex crisis. In international affairs, symbolism matters—but not as much as substance. And on Myanmar, Anwar Ibrahim is prioritizing substance: saving lives, preserving Malaysia's influence, and steering ASEAN forward—however slowly—toward a just resolution. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
