Latest news with #unification
South China Morning Post
11 hours ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Taiwan's former leader Ma Ying-jeou calls for ‘peaceful and democratic' unification
Former Taiwanese leader Ma Ying-jeou proposed that unification between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be achieved peacefully and democratically – rejecting the use or threat of force – in a rare unscripted moment during a speech on the mainland on Thursday. Advertisement It marked the first time Ma, also the former chairman of the mainland-friendly Kuomintang (KMT), has explicitly expressed his views on unification during his four visits to mainland China. His current trip started on June 14 and ends on Friday. 'My position is that the two sides of the strait should pursue peaceful and democratic unification,' said Ma, who served as Taiwan's leader from 2008 to 2016. He made the remarks at a Chinese cultural event in Dunhuang , a city in Gansu province, according to Taiwan's United Daily News on Thursday. He went on to clarify that unification should not be achieved through 'the use or threat of force' and must 'respect the will of the people of Taiwan', according to the report. The comments – delivered off-script during a carefully arranged visit – were addressed to roughly 180 attendees, which included Song Tao , head of the mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office. Advertisement In response to Ma's surprise comment, Song said in his remarks following Ma's speech that 'the future and destiny of Taiwan should be jointly decided by all Chinese people on both sides of the strait', according to a separate report by United Daily News.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Northern Ireland nationalists fear focus on reconciliation stalling push for unity referendum
In Northern Ireland, it used to be the one goal that everyone could agree on: reconciliation. Whether the region stayed in the UK or united with Ireland, all sides acknowledged the need to heal wounds from the Troubles and to bridge differences between Catholics and Protestants. Even those who riled the other side invoked reconciliation. How could they not? It was self-evidently a good thing. Not any more. Increasing numbers of nationalists say the R-word has been hijacked and twisted to block their campaign for a referendum on unification. 'The goal of reconciliation is very worthy but it is being manipulated and bastardised,' said Kevin Rooney, the founder of Irish Border Poll, a group that lobbies for a referendum. 'It has become an undisguised unionist veto.' Rooney and others fear that an elusive, ill-defined rapprochement between Northern Ireland's two biggest blocs is morphing into a precondition that gives unionists and the Irish and British governments a pretext to dodge a referendum. For Rooney, such a precondition would entrench the status quo in an entity designed a century ago for unionist dominance – and paradoxically undermine reconciliation. 'It creates a perverse incentive for hardline loyalists to resist everything and threaten violence.' Under this scenario, tensions associated with the traditional summer marching season, or the Irish-language rap trio Kneecap's outspoken statements on British rule, or any number of controversies, can be harnessed as purported evidence that Northern Ireland is not ready for a vote on its constitutional future. Stalled momentum for unification compounds nationalist anxiety: in Northern Ireland, Catholic birthrates are dwindling, the Brexit shock has faded, and Sinn Féin faltered in Ireland's election last November, paving the way for a renewed Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael coalition government that is in no rush for a referendum. Simon Harris, the tánaiste, has said he does not expect a vote this decade and that it is not a priority. The taoiseach, Micheal Mártin, has emphasised not unification but the government's Shared Island Initiative, which promotes reconciliation and cross-border cooperation and infrastructure. Dublin, in other words, is not putting pressure on Keir Starmer's government for a referendum, which under the Good Friday agreement must be called if it appears that most people in Northern Ireland would vote to leave the UK. The combined vote share for Sinn Féin and the moderate nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP) has hovered at about 40% since 1998, a stagnation that has persisted despite the number of Catholics overtaking Protestants, but dwindling support for unionist parties has tilted recent elections to pro-unification candidates. For nationalists who think the conditions for a referendum will soon be met, the focus on reconciliation has set off alarm bells. Colum Eastwood, an MP and former SDLP leader, criticised what he called a 'creeping normalisation' to make it a prerequisite. 'Reconciliation is a moral imperative for our whole society – the southern establishment can't use it to justify telling citizens in the north that we can't have a decent economy, jobs and public services,' he tweeted. Elaborating via email, Eastwood said creating a new, united Ireland could advance reconciliation. 'Will there be tension? Yes. Can we confront that in a way that promotes understanding and actually contributes to reconciliation? Absolutely. We shouldn't run away from that – we should be rushing into that space,' he said. Leo Varadkar, the former taoiseach, has urged the current Irish government to push for a referendum, saying the Irish state would not have been founded in 1922, nor would there have been a Good Friday agreement, if full reconciliation had been a precondition. A '50 plus one' vote in favour of unification would suffice, he told the Féile an Phobail festival in Belfast last week. 'A majority is a majority' but it would be better to have 'maximum consent', he said. Michelle O'Neill, Sinn Féin's Northern Ireland first minister, told a republican commemoration last weekend that the party remained 'laser focused' on unity and urged the Irish government to put the matter before a citizens' assembly. A report by Ireland's Future, a non-profit that advocates unification, notes that the Good Friday agreement does not insist on reconciliation before a referendum. 'Our view is that any such objective will only follow the transition to a new constitutional arrangement on our shared island. Reunification is a reconciliation project,' it says. However, others – unionists as well as some nationalists – say it would be reckless to call a vote for existential change unless and until Northern Ireland's sectarian tensions ease. 'Demands for a referendum will only add to communal polarisation and be entirely counter-productive,' said Liam Kennedy, a history professor at Queen's University Belfast. He cited the so-called peace walls that divide Catholic and Protestant areas and the region's 'unstable equilibrium' as warnings. 'We need a much higher degree of reconciliation to lay the foundations of a united Ireland that would work. It would be madness for the republic to take on the political and financial burdens of unification unless it was clear most people in Northern Ireland were either satisfied with or at least accepting of Irish unity.' David Adams, who helped to broker the loyalist paramilitary ceasefire in 1994, said segregated housing and education had 'corralled' Catholics and Protestants and embedded tribalism. 'There is no violence but we remain divided. Without some sign of reconciliation advancing I don't think the republic would touch this place with a barge pole.' Peter Shirlow, the director of the University of Liverpool's Institute of Irish Studies, said reconciliation had in fact progressed – he cited power-sharing at Stormont, integrated workplaces, mixed marriages – but that falling Catholic birthrates and static nationalist support had weakened the referendum push. 'There ain't going to be a border poll,' he said. Trevor Ringland, a former international rugby player and unionist politician who served on the Northern Ireland Policing Board, said some referendum advocates undermined reconciliation by legitimising IRA violence during the Troubles. 'They've been selling the message to young people that we had to kill our neighbours to achieve constitutional change.' Ringland said songs such as Get Your Brits Out by Kneecap – 'Brits out' was an IRA-era slogan – elided the British identity of many people in Northern Ireland. 'The kids think they're being edgy but edgy was being in the police, which meant you could get a bullet through you.' Northern Ireland needed more reconciliation before voting on constitutional change, Ringland said. 'Let's keep a focus on building relationships and future generations can decide where to take it.' Unity advocates, in contrast, believe constitutional change – to be achieved by winning elections in Northern Ireland and prodding the Irish government into action – is a task for the current generation. Rooney said: 'The Dublin establishment has been lukewarm about unity for quite a while – some basically want an easy life and don't want to think about the north at all. It's our job to win them over.'
RNZ News
18-06-2025
- Sport
- RNZ News
Boxing: Claressa Shields warns Lani Daniels: 'I'mma lay your ass out!'
Daniels meets the reigning queen in Detroit on July 29 in a bid to make New Zealand history as the first ever fighter to unify the world heavyweight belts. Photo: Photosport If the belt was decided by a war of words, Claressa Shields would barely break a sweat against Lani Daniels. The Kiwi appeared visibly intimidated when trading barbs with the larger than life American, alas it will be fists which determine the true baddest woman on the planet. Daniels meets the reigning queen in Detroit on 29 July in a bid to make New Zealand history as the first ever fighter to unify the world heavyweight belts. But standing in her way is the phenom of the women's boxing world, and Shields was quick to remind Daniels of the monumental task awaiting her when they met at today's press conference. After thanking her ancestors, Daniels shared her gratitude for the opportunity. "One thing my coach has taught me is to respect boxing and it will respect you. So I am planning to come here and win and I've been preparing and I am preparing the best that I can to give a mean fight. And I know it's going to an entertaining one and the only way I'm going home is on a stretcher." But Shields wasn't in a cordial mood, and was vicious with her retort. "I promise you - you said stretcher? You will be going out on one!" she said. "Lani, if you come out there and try to stand there in front of me and brawl with get inside the ring and prove your point, there is no woman in the world that can beat me in a fight, I'mma lay your ass out, and then your coach will have to pick you up, I'm not playing around." Daniels and Shields will fight for the undisputed, unified heavyweight championship, an accolade no Kiwi has achieved in any division. After initially predicting a round seven finish, Shields altered this after hearing Daniels' coach John Conway say they plan to brawl. "I was giving Lani round seven, but from what her coach got there and said today, that done piss me clean off, saying that she gonna stand there and fight or third. I'm gonna make Lani quit. I'm gonna make her throw in the towel." Daniels though, offered her own opinion on when the bout will end. "If we are talking numbers, I think I stop her in round nine." Asked what she has to do in order to finish the champ in the ninth... "I have to make it there." Shields vs Daniels Undisputed world heavyweight title July 29 Detroit
The Independent
12-06-2025
- Sport
- The Independent
Opetaia-Zurdo, Fundora-Murtazaliev and more - unification bouts we need to see
For many boxers, simply having one belt is not enough. Thanks to the machinations of sanctioning bodies, multiple world champions can co-exist in a weight class – but both fighters and fans alike love to see titleholders converge in unification bouts. Two belts are always better than one, whilst boxers that claim champion status with two sanctioning bodies also boast bragging rights over their rivals. Some champions even manage to negotiate the politics of the sport to combine all four major belts to become undisputed at their weight, a dream shared by many fighters over the decades. Unification bouts constantly capture the attention, but these five champion-versus-champion fights could produce blockbuster nights. Jai Opetaia - Gilberto 'Zurdo' Ramirez The cruiserweight division, perhaps unfairly, has largely been seen as a stepping stone weight, with fighters learning their trade before assaulting boxing's most-glamorous class, heavyweight. Only three fighters have ever reigned as undisputed champion at 200lbs, Evander Holyfield, O'Neil Bell, and Oleksandr Usyk. Holyfield instantly moved up to heavyweight; Usyk defended his titles once before following in the footsteps of his predecessor. Unified champions are also quite rare, with current WBO and WBA champ Gilberto 'Zurdo' Ramirez just the sixth example in the four-belt era, after Murat Gassiev (WBA, IBF), Denis Lebedev (WBA, IBF), Oleksandr Usyk (Undisputed), David Haye (WBA, WBC, WBO), and Jean-Marc Mormeck (WBA, WBC). Both Ramirez and IBF belt holder Jai Opetaia have not been shy about discussing a unification bout. Last November, Ramirez became the first man to unify two titles in the division since Usyk after beating then-WBO champion Chris Billam-Smith. Opetaia successfully defended his IBF crown earlier in June, whilst Ramirez is in action at the end of the month against challenger Yuniel Dorticos. If the Mexican navigates his first defence of his unified status, a bout with Opetaia could – and should – be on the cards for later this year. Both fighters appear keen on the prospect, but it remains to be seen whether we will see a cruiserweight with three straps by the end of 2025. Janibek Alimkhanuly - Carlos Adames Kazakh Janibek Alimkhanuly is another two-belt champion, holding the IBF and WBO titles at middleweight. Owning half of the belts in the division, Alimkhanuly is the man to beat, especially for WBC champion Carlos Adames. That is because the Dominican refuses to face stablemate Erislandy Lara, who holds the WBA crown at 160lbs. Whilst Adames has ruled out a bout with Lara, he wants to fight Alimkhanuly. The two have exchanged barbs for some time, with Alimkhanuly petitioning Turki Alalshikh to organise a bout between the pair for the undercard of Canelo-Crawford later this year. Reports suggest that negotiations have taken place between both champions' camps, implying that we could see a unification bout at middleweight sooner rather than later. Nick Ball - Rafael Espinoza Conversation around Nick Ball has focused on a potential bout with undisputed super bantamweight champion Naoya Inoue for some time, but it appears both fighters are happy to keep that fight on the back burner. WBA champion at featherweight, Ball looks set to face a different super bantamweight in his next fight, with a defence against Australian Sam Goodman scheduled for a Riyadh Season card in August. Inoue himself seems content to bide his time before moving up to featherweight, the Japanese fighter instead waiting for his compatriot Junto Nakatani to step up to super bantamweight for an all-Japan fight. That is a view shared by Ball, who has suggested that while he waits for Inoue to join the featherweight ranks, he will look to add more belts to his collection. The Liverpudlian could have potentially been a two-belt champion, missing out on the WBC crown after a controversial draw with Rey Vargas in 2024. Current WBC champion Stephen Fulton will move up to face the organisation's super-featherweight titleholder O'Shaquie Foster in August, nixing a bout with Ball. Having previously spoken about liking a fight with Fulton, diminutive scouser Ball has also discussed fighting WBO champion Rafael Espinoza. Aside from being a unification bout, the difference in height would add a certain level of intrigue to the fight. Ball stands at around 5' 2', whilst the lanky Espinoza has been measured at 6' 1', despite both operating at 126lbs. The difference in styles – and wingspans – would throw up a very interesting bout. Sebastian Fundora - Bakhram Murtazaliev Sebastian Fundora became a unified champion in his first full world title shot, defeating Tim Tszyu by split decision to take the WBO and WBC belts at super welterweight. After making a defence against Chardale Booker in March, Fundora faces Tszyu in a rematch this July. It was after Fundora's victory over Booker that IBF champ Bakhram Murtazaliev announced his desire to face the American, but it would only unify two belts. That is because Fundora vacated the WBO's title, deciding to honour a rematch clause with Tszyu, rather than face mandatory Xander Zayas. Murtazaliev has been dormant since defeating Tszyu himself in October, with the California-based fighter waiting for a unification shot. With the future of Terence Crawford, holder of the WBA belt and the interim WBO title, uncertain at super welterweight, the winner of a potential Fundora-Murtazaliev bout would be well placed to establish themselves as top dog of the 154lbs division. Oscar Collazo - Pedro Taduran There are still big fights to be made in boxing's lightest division. Oscar Collazo reigns as champion of both the WBA and WBO, with the IBF belt held by Pedro Maduran, and Melvin Jerusalem in possession of the WBC strap. Puerto Rican Collazo and Filipino Taduran are both 28-years-old and arguably in the primes, making a unification bout a tasty prospect. Collazo defeated the division's other champion, Jerusalem, in 2023, taking the Filipino's WBO strap. Jerusalem has done well to bounce back and earn the WBC belt, but a rematch with undisputed status on the line has a better ring to it than a unification bout. As such, rather than see Collazo and Jerusalem run it back, it would be interesting to see who comes out on top of a potential bout between the Puerto Rican and Taduran.
Irish Times
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Many Northern nationalists doubt Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael's commitment to Irish unity
Northern nationalists felt betrayed by Dublin 100 years ago, after the collapse of the Boundary Commission in December 1925. It left the border with Northern Ireland unchanged despite their hopes that it would make unification inevitable. Many of their descendants still feel that way. Most Irish nationalists believed the commission, set up as part of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, would see much of the territory of the six counties of the Northern Ireland state that was established in May 1921 being transferred to the fledging Irish Free State. The shifting of Tyrone, Fermanagh, south Armagh, south Down (including Newry) and Derry City with their Catholic majorities to the Free State, it was hoped, would leave the remainder of Northern Ireland an unviable rump. Irish unity would then be inevitable. Events, however, did not turn out as nationalists hoped, for a catalogue of reasons, including the ambiguous wording of Article 12 in the Treaty that set up the commission and allowed for multiple interpretations. READ MORE From the off, the newly-created, inexperienced Free State government was politically and diplomatically outmanoeuvring by both London and the new authorities in Stormont. And, throughout, Northern nationalists were naive. In the end, the commission ended in rancour when it proposed that only slight rectifications should be made to the original boundary lines drawn up in the Anglo-Irish Treaty, leaving the Border as it was then and remains today. Even the simple things were not handled properly by the Irish side. The commission was chaired by a British-appointed head, not by an independent chairperson, while there were lengthy delays in setting the body up. Following a largely accurate forecast of the expected final boundary recommendations published by the diehard unionist Morning Post newspaper on November 7th, 1925, WT Cosgrave 's Free State government insisted the report as a whole should be shelved. The newspaper's report had rightly claimed that the commission would propose only minimal transfers from Northern Ireland to the Free State. Crucially, the Free State would lose parts of east Donegal and north Monaghan. The furore led the commission's Free State representative Eoin MacNeill to resign from the role. Once it was revealed, however, that he had appeared to consent to the changes, or had not substantially objected, he was forced to resign as the Free State's minister for education. In a panic, Cosgrave rushed over to London to have the Boundary Commission report buried, and after a week of intense negotiations involving the Free State, British and Northern Irish governments, a tripartite agreement was signed on December 3rd, 1925. Under the agreement, Article 12 of the Treaty, which set up the commission, was revoked and Northern Ireland's boundary remained as it had been defined under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Meanwhile, Article 5, which had created a £150,000,000 bill that the fledgling State was to pay to London, was waived, with the Free State becoming liable for malicious damage incurred during the War of Independence. Under the treaty, 40 parliamentarians, 20 each from Stormont and Dublin, were to have looked after subjects of common concern, including railways, fisheries and contagious diseases of animals. Extra powers could have been added, as required. However, these were scrapped too. While the Council of Ireland was considered an 'irritant' to the Northern Ireland government, it was the Free State government that readily abandoned it. In lieu of it, the Northern Ireland prime minister James Craig 'suggested joint meetings of the two governments in Ireland 'at an early date' so that both governments could deal with charges brought by one against the other'. Cosgrave agreed but they never met again. In fact, the next meeting between the heads of both Irish governments was 40 years later, when Seán Lemass met Terence O'Neill in 1965. Instead of engaging with Ulster unionists with a view to ending or limiting partition, Irish governments of different hues preferred to preach about its evils without offering anything like practical or tangible policies that could deal with the issue. It was only from the 1960s that Irish governments promoted the merits of North-South bodies, such as the Council of Ireland, as well as bodies that exist today such as the Shared Island initiative. The fallout from the Boundary Commission has left a bitter taste in the mouths of Northern nationalists ever since 1925. Their trust in British governments (always threadbare) evaporated completely, but, perhaps more importantly, their trust in the South suffered an irrevocable blow, due to the Free State government's abandonment of the North for financial benefits. That mistrust still resonates today. Many Northern nationalists believe there is a partitionist mindset in the South and that the 'establishment' political parties of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are not interested in Irish unity, despite rhetoric to the contrary. There is contempt for the geo-blocking of programmes in the North by RTÉ (particularly sporting ones), the provision of weather information from Met Éireann for just the 26 counties, the naming of the 26 county state as Ireland under the Constitution, and the prohibition of citizens in the North from voting in Irish presidential elections. [ Geography and destiny – Ronan McGreevy on the Boundary Commission Opens in new window ] As prospects of a Border poll have entered public discourse since the acceptance of the Belfast Agreement of 1998, focus has shifted to an ambiguous clause in that agreement: Schedule 1 (2), which states that the British secretary of state for Northern Ireland 'shall exercise the power' to call a Border poll 'if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland'. As with the Boundary Commission, many Northern nationalists believe this clause leaves the power in the hands of the British government. Some fear that this could prevent a Border poll from occurring at all. While there appears to be a clear avenue to Irish unity now through the Belfast Agreement, people are still very wary that the way the commission imploded in 1925 could happen again through what they would see as underhand and devious methods over calling a Border poll. Cormac Moore is a historian, currently serving as historian-in-residence with Dublin City Council. His latest book, The Root of All Evil, about the Boundary Commission, is published by Irish Academic Press
