First US Navy ships sail through Taiwan Strait since Trump inauguration

First US Navy ships sail through Taiwan Strait since Trump inauguration
The US Navy said the vessels that sailed through Taiwan Strait this week included the Pathfinder-class survey ship, USNS Bowditch, above. (AFP file photo)
Short Url
Updated 27 sec ago
Follow

First US Navy ships sail through Taiwan Strait since Trump inauguration

First US Navy ships sail through Taiwan Strait since Trump inauguration
  • The US Navy, occasionally accompanied by ships from allied countries, transits the strait about once a month
  • China, which claims Taiwan as its own territory, says the strategic waterway belongs to it

BEIJING/TAIPEI: Two US Navy ships sailed through the sensitive Taiwan Strait this week in the first such mission since President Donald Trump took office last month, drawing an angry reaction from China, which said the mission increased security risks.
The US Navy, occasionally accompanied by ships from allied countries, transits the strait about once a month. China, which claims Taiwan as its own territory, says the strategic waterway belongs to it.
The US Navy said the vessels were the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson and Pathfinder-class survey ship, USNS Bowditch. The ships carried out a north-to-south transit February 10-12, it said.
“The transit occurred through a corridor in the Taiwan Strait that is beyond any coastal state’s territorial seas,” said Navy Commander Matthew Comer, a spokesperson at the US military’s Indo-Pacific Command. “Within this corridor all nations enjoy high-seas freedom of navigation, overflight, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms.”
China’s military said that Chinese forces had been dispatched to keep watch.
“The US action sends the wrong signals and increases security risks,” the Eastern Theatre Command of the People’s Liberation Army said in a statement early Wednesday.
China considers Taiwan its most important diplomatic issue and it is regularly a stumbling block in Sino-US relations.
China this week complained to Japan over “negative” references to China in a statement issued after a meeting between Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.
That statement called for “maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait,” and voiced support for “Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations.”
Asked in Beijing on Wednesday about the US warships, Zhu Fenglian, spokesperson for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, said that Taiwan was a “core interest” for the country and that the United States should act with caution.
“We are resolutely opposed to this and will never allow any outside interference, and have the firm will, full confidence and capability to uphold the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” she said.
Taiwan’s defense ministry said its forces had also kept watch but noted the “situation was as normal.”
The last publicly acknowledged US Navy mission in the strait was in late November, when a P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft flew over the waterway.
The last time a US Navy ship was confirmed to have sailed through the strait was in October, a joint mission with a Canadian warship.
China’s military operates daily in the strait as part of what Taiwan’s government views as part of Beijing’s pressure campaign.
On Wednesday, Taiwan’s defense ministry said that it had detected 30 Chinese military aircraft and seven navy ships operating around the island in the previous 24 hour period.
“I really don’t need to explain further who is the so-called troublemaker around the Taiwan Strait. All other countries in the neighborhood have a deep appreciation of this,” ministry spokesperson Sun Li-fang told reporters in Taipei.
Taiwan President Lai Ching-te rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims, saying only Taiwan’s people can decide their future.


Russia’s missile attack on Kyiv kills one, sparks fires, Ukraine says

Russia’s missile attack on Kyiv kills one, sparks fires, Ukraine says
Updated 1 min 11 sec ago
Follow

Russia’s missile attack on Kyiv kills one, sparks fires, Ukraine says

Russia’s missile attack on Kyiv kills one, sparks fires, Ukraine says
  • Prospects for renewed peace negotiations increased after US President Donald Trump said that he had been in contact with Kyiv and Vladimir Putin
KYIV: Russia’s early morning missile attack on Kyiv killed at least one civilian, injured three, and sparked several fires throughout the city, Ukrainian officials said.
“Russia carried out a missile strike on Kyiv and the Kyiv region,” Andriy Yermak, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief of staff, said in a post on the Telegram messaging app.
“This is how (Vladimir) wants the war to end.”
Prospects for renewed peace negotiations to end the war that Russia launched on Ukraine nearly three years ago have increased after US President Donald Trump said that he had been in contact with Kyiv and Putin. Zelensky also said on Tuesday that Kyiv will soon hold talks with US officials.
Kyiv’s Mayor Vitali Klitschko said on Telegram that at least one person was killed and three injured, including a 9-year-old child, as a result of the attack and emergency services were called to at least four districts of the Ukrainian capital.
The military administration said that fires broke out at several residential and non-residential buildings.
Air raid alerts were imposed only at the start of the attack at around 0227 GMT. It was not immediately clear what missiles were used, but the late launch of air raid alerts suggests they were difficult to detect by radar.
Reuters’ witnesses reported hearing a series of explosions in what sounded like air defense systems in operation.

White House correspondents protest access denial over ‘Gulf of Mexico’ naming issue

White House correspondents protest access denial over ‘Gulf of Mexico’ naming issue
Updated 12 February 2025
Follow

White House correspondents protest access denial over ‘Gulf of Mexico’ naming issue

White House correspondents protest access denial over ‘Gulf of Mexico’ naming issue
  • AP Executive Editor Julie Pace said in a statement earlier that its reporter had been blocked from attending an Oval Office event after being informed by the White House it would be barred unless it aligned its editorial standards with Trump’s order

WASHINGTON: The White House Correspondents’ Association protested a decision by the White House on Tuesday to bar an Associated Press reporter from an event with President Donald Trump over the news agency’s decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico.
Trump signed an executive order in January directing the Interior Secretary to change the name to the Gulf of America.
“The White House cannot dictate how news organizations report the news, nor should it penalize working journalists because it is unhappy with their editors’ decisions,” Eugene Daniels, president of the association, said on Tuesday in a statement posted on X.
“The move by the administration to bar a reporter from the Associated Press from an official event open to news coverage today is unacceptable,” Daniels said.
AP Executive Editor Julie Pace said in a statement earlier that its reporter had been blocked from attending an Oval Office event after being informed by the White House it would be barred unless it aligned its editorial standards with Trump’s order.
“It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism,” Pace said, adding that limiting access violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution guaranteeing freedom of the press.
The AP says in its stylebook that the Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years and, as a global news agency, the AP will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the statements by the WHCA and the AP. Mexico’s foreign ministry also did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
Like the US, Mexico has a long coastline circling the body of water. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum in January jokingly suggested North America, including the United States, be renamed “Mexican America” — a historic name used on an early map of the region.
Most news organizations, including Reuters, call it the Gulf of Mexico although, where relevant, Reuters style is to include the context about Trump’s executive order.

 


OpenAI’s board has not received Musk’s takeover bid, source says

OpenAI’s board has not received Musk’s takeover bid, source says
Updated 12 February 2025
Follow

OpenAI’s board has not received Musk’s takeover bid, source says

OpenAI’s board has not received Musk’s takeover bid, source says
  • OpenAI’s board of directors has not yet received a formal bid from Musk’s group, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday

NEW YORK/PARIS: OpenAI’s board has not yet received a formal bid from an Elon Musk-led consortium, although a lawyer for the billionaire said the offer had been sent to OpenAI’s outside counsel. A day after Musk publicized a bid to offer $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls ChatGPT maker OpenAI, the two sides were still at odds over what exactly happened to the formal bid.
OpenAI’s board of directors has not yet received a formal bid from Musk’s group, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday, adding to the confusion over the unsolicited attempt to take control of the world’s most prominent AI company.
Musk’s lawyer, Marc Toberoff, told Reuters that he sent the offer by email on Monday to OpenAI’s outside counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. The law firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The bid — attached to an email — was in the form of a “detailed four-page Letter of Intent” to purchase OpenAI’s assets, signed by Musk and other investors and addressed to the board, Toberoff said.
“Whether Sam Altman chose to provide or withhold this from OpenAI’s other Board members is outside of our control,” he said, referring to OpenAI’s CEO.
The nonprofit that controls OpenAI is not for sale, Altman told Reuters on Tuesday when asked about Musk’s offer to buy it. The offer by the Musk-led consortium came amid the billionaire’s fight to block the artificial intelligence startup from transitioning to a for-profit firm.
“I have nothing to say. I mean, it’s ridiculous,” Altman said on the sidelines of an AI summit in Paris when asked about the offer.
“The company is not for sale. It’s another one of his tactics to try to mess with us,” Altman said, referring to Musk.
In an internal message to OpenAI employees on Monday, Altman said the board, though it had not officially reviewed the offer, planned to reject it based on the interest of OpenAI’s mission.
Musk cofounded OpenAI with Altman in 2015 as a nonprofit, but left before the company took off due to a disagreement over the company’s direction and funding sources with Altman and other co-founders. In 2023, he launched the competing AI startup, xAI. Musk, the CEO of Tesla and owner of technology company X, is a close ally of US President Donald Trump. He leads the Department of Government Efficiency, a new arm of the White House tasked with radically shrinking the federal bureaucracy.
OpenAI, in the process of raising $40 billion, is also seeking to transition into a for-profit from a nonprofit entity, which it says is required to secure the capital needed for developing the best AI models. The complicated transition involves putting a price tag on OpenAI’s nonprofit control of the for-profit arm.
Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings has said she is reviewing OpenAI’s proposed changes to ensure the company is “adhering to its specific charitable purposes for the benefit of the public beneficiaries, as opposed to the commercial or private interests of OpenAI’s directors or partners.”
Legal experts said Musk’s bid complicates the fair value held by OpenAI, particularly regarding charitable assets in its complicated corporate conversion, meaning the price it needs to pay in exchange for the nonprofit to give up control.
“It does help set a price point for the thinking about the valuation of the nonprofit assets,” Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, the consumer rights watchdog, told Reuters. “If it were to occur as proposed, the regulators have a duty to ensure that if there’s a selloff of assets to a for-profit entity, that fair market value is obtained.”


WHO facing ‘new realities’ as US withdrawal looms

WHO facing ‘new realities’ as US withdrawal looms
Updated 12 February 2025
Follow

WHO facing ‘new realities’ as US withdrawal looms

WHO facing ‘new realities’ as US withdrawal looms
  • “We regret the announcement by the United States of its intention to withdraw, and it was also sad to see them participating less this week,” he said

GENEVA: The World Health Organization on Tuesday wrapped up its executive board meeting, held against the backdrop of the United States — by far its largest donor — heading for the exit.
The agenda-setting eight-day gathering at the WHO’s Geneva headquarters wrestled with the impact of US President Donald Trump’s January 20 decision to start the one-year process of withdrawing from the UN health agency.
“We are operating with twin strategic goals: to mobilize resources and to tighten our belts,” WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in his closing remarks.
“We regret the announcement by the United States of its intention to withdraw, and it was also sad to see them participating less this week,” he said.
“I think we all felt their absence. We very much hope they will reconsider and we would welcome the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue.”
The United States is on the executive board, but made only fleeting contributions throughout the eight-day event.
The board is composed of 34 member states, who nominate a board member who is technically qualified in health.
The board agrees the agenda and resolutions for the decision-making World Health Assembly in May.
“We have had to face new realities, with the announcement of the withdrawal of the US from the WHO,” said Barbados’s health minister Jerome Walcott, the board’s chair, as he closed the meeting.
“Despite the many challenges we faced, we have come together and found agreement on 40 decisions and seven resolutions, which aim to strengthen our work and to enhance good public health.”

If anything, the US move has driven home the need for more secure and reliable funding at WHO, which in recent years has relied heavily on voluntary contributions.
As part of a plan to swell membership fees to cover at least half of the organization’s budget by 2030, the board recommended a 20 percent fee hike.
Boosting membership fees is seen as a way for WHO to reduce its reliance on a handful of major donors and ensure more predictable and flexible finances.
“This is a very strong signal of your support, and it’s a major step toward putting WHO on a more predictable and sustainable financial footing,” Tedros said.
“You said we need to prioritize based on realistic funding. We agree,” he added.
“You said we need to improve efficiency, enhance oversight and reduce unnecessary expenditures. We agree.”
Last week, the board also re-adopted a resolution on responding to the health conditions in the Palestinian territories.
The total planned costs required to implement the decision were given as $648 million, including $275 million for emergency response and $265 million for early recovery and rehabilitation.
Other topics discussed by the board included non-communicable diseases, mental health, skin diseases, environmental health, air pollution, the global health workforce, substandard and falsified medicines, maternal and newborn health, health emergencies, and universal health coverage.
 

 


Why Trump’s proposal on Gaza is ringing alarm bells in the region

Why Trump’s proposal on Gaza is ringing alarm bells in the region
Updated 12 February 2025
Follow

Why Trump’s proposal on Gaza is ringing alarm bells in the region

Why Trump’s proposal on Gaza is ringing alarm bells in the region
  • Egyptian authorities have publicly rejected the idea of displacement of Palestinians on human rights grounds
  • From the earliest days of the Gaza war, Arab governments, particularly Egypt and Jordan, have said Palestinians must not be driven from land where they want to make a future state, which would include the occupied West Bank and Gaza

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump has infuriated the Arab world by saying that Palestinians would not have the right of return to the Gaza Strip under his proposal to redevelop the enclave, which has been devastated by an Israeli offensive. From the earliest days of the Gaza war, Arab governments, particularly Egypt and Jordan, have said Palestinians must not be driven from land where they want to make a future state, which would include the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Trump first suggested on January 25 that Egypt and Jordan should take in Palestinians from Gaza, a proposal they strongly oppose. In a shock announcement on February 4, after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, Trump proposed resettling Gaza’s 2.2 million Palestinians and the US taking control and ownership of the demolished seaside enclave, redeveloping it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
On February 10, he said Palestinians would not have the right of return to Gaza under his plan, contradicting his own officials who had suggested Gazans would only be relocated temporarily. Trump’s plan touches on one of the most sensitive issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the right of Palestinians to return. Trump, known as a tough dealmaker in his earlier career as a property developer in New York, said that he believed he could persuade Jordan and Egypt to take in displaced Palestinians. He also said Palestinians could be resettled in “much better housing.”
Many of Gaza’s buildings have turned into rubble since the war between Hamas and Israel erupted on October 7, 2023.
Trump’s plans are likely to heighten fears among Palestinians in Gaza of being driven out of the coastal strip, and stoke concern in Arab states that have long worried about the destabilising impact of any such exodus.

WHAT IS BEHIND THE CONCERNS?
Palestinians have long been haunted by what they call the “Nakba,” or catastrophe, when 700,000 of them were dispossessed from their homes during the war that surrounded the creation of Israel in 1948.
Many were driven out or fled to neighboring Arab states, including to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, where many of them and their descendants still live in refugee camps. Some went to Gaza. Israel disputes the account that they were forced out.
Today about 5.6 million Palestinian refugees — mainly the descendants of those who fled — currently live in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza. About half of registered refugees remain stateless, according to the Palestinian foreign ministry, many living in crowded camps.
Trump’s talk of resettling some two million Gazans is a nightmare for Jordan, which has long feared the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, and echoes a vision long propagated by right-wing Israelis of Jordan as an alternative Palestinian home.
The anxiety dates back to what is known as Black September. In 1970 the Jordanian army launched a huge offensive by that name to retake control of territory occupied by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Jordan.
King Hussein, fearing the growing influence of Palestinian factions, cracked down on Palestinian nationalists. His generals ordered tanks into the capital Amman. Over 3,000 Palestinians were estimated killed and some 20,000 fled Jordan.
The latest conflict, currently paused amid a fragile ceasefire agreement, has seen an unprecedented Israeli bombardment and land offensive in Gaza, devastating urban areas.
Most Gazans have been displaced several times in Israel’s offensive, launched after the 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas that killed 1,200 people, according to Israeli tallies.
More than 48,000 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to Palestinian health officials.

HOW HAVE PALESTINIANS MOVED DURING THIS CONFLICT?
Before Israel launched its offensive in 2023, it told Palestinians in north Gaza to move to what it said were safe areas in the south. As the offensive expanded, Israel told them to head further south toward Rafah, on the border with Egypt.
Later in the war, before launching a campaign in Rafah, it instructed them to move to a new designated humanitarian zone in Al-Mawasi, an area that stretches 12 km (7 miles) along the coast, starting from the western areas of Deir Al-Balah in central Gaza to Khan Younis and Rafah in the south.
According to UN estimates, up to 85 percent of the population of Gaza — one of the world’s most densely populated areas — have already been displaced from their homes.

COULD A MAJOR DISPLACEMENT FROM GAZA HAPPEN?
Many Palestinians in Gaza have said they would not leave the enclave even if they could because they fear it might lead to another permanent displacement in a repeat of 1948.
Egyptian authorities have publicly rejected the idea of displacement of Palestinians on human rights grounds.
The most populous Arab country would also be wary of hosting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians potentially including members of Hamas, after years of crackdowns on domestic Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which had close ties to Hamas.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has shown no tolerance for Islamists. He views them as an existential threat to his country and thousands of Islamist militants have been imprisoned.

WHAT HAVE ISRAEL’S GOVERNMENT AND ITS POLITICIANS SAID?
Israel’s then-Foreign Minister Israel Katz, now serving as defense minister, said on February 16, 2024, that Israel had no plans to deport Palestinians from Gaza. Israel would coordinate with Egypt on Palestinian refugees and find a way to not harm Egypt’s interests, Katz added.
However, comments by some in the Israeli government have stoked Palestinian and Arab fears of a new Nakba. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has repeatedly called for a policy of “encouraging the migration” of Palestinians from Gaza and for Israel to impose military rule in the territory.