resolution

WASHINGTON — Russia stood alone Friday to veto a U.N. resolution condemning its “brutal” invasion of Ukraine, killing the measure — for now. But all other members in the solemn session of the U.N. Security Council either voted in favor or abstained, testament to rounds of intensive diplomatic pleas by the Biden administration.

The U.S.-drafted measure, which demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the Russian troops battering Ukraine, was approved by 11 members. Most notably, China, thought to be in Moscow’s corner, abstained. So did two U.S. allies, India and the United Arab Emirates, in a disappointment for the U.S. Russia, as one of five permanent members, holds veto power, which it exercised.

That Russia’s “isolation” was so starkly drawn was hailed as a major victory by U.S. diplomats. And they vowed they will carry a similar resolution to the full 193-member General Assembly, where there are no vetoes and only a simple majority is needed to pass.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said that she was not surprised by the Russian veto but that it would not deter efforts to rebuke and stop Moscow’s aggression.

“Russia, you can veto this resolution, but you cannot veto our voices,” she said, looking directly at the Russian representative, Vasily Nebenzya, who, in one of the peculiarities of U.N. politics, was chairing the session as rotating president of the council.

“You cannot veto the truth,” Thomas-Greenfield continued. “You cannot veto our principles. You cannot veto the Ukrainian people. You cannot veto the U.N. Charter. And you will not veto accountability.”

Nebenzya, after the vote but with the council still in session, took Thomas-Greenfield and several other Western representatives to task for what they had condemned as egregious abuses and attacks on civilians by Russian forces.

“Who are you to moralize?” he said. Thomas-Greenfield looked back at him, stone-faced.

He and the Ukrainian ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya, also had testy exchanges. Nebenzya called his Ukrainian counterpart “boorish,” while Kyslytsya said Nebenzya and his comments accusing Ukraine of repression earned him a special “seat in hell.”

Friday’s vote followed senior U.S. diplomats’ intense lobbying of their counterparts from dozens of countries to back the resolution at the Security Council or at a possible later meeting of the full United Nations, where a similar condemnation could be brought.

Russia “will be shown to be isolated on the world stage,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said a couple of hours ahead of the vote.

Although the Americans were disappointed that India and the UAE did not join in the “yes” column, it was China’s decision to abstain that gave them particular relief.

Before Friday’s meeting, U.S. diplomats expressed the likelihood that Beijing would side with Moscow. They saw glimmers of hope, however: President Xi Jinping has been publicly measured in support for the invasion. Although he values a growing relationship with Moscow, he may also be reluctant to pick too bitter a fight with the U.S. and NATO.

The Chinese representative to the Security Council, Zhang Jun, explained his country’s vote saying that although China did not support violating the sovereignty of another nation, as Russia has done, the resolution might add “fuel to the fire” rather than contributing to a diplomatic path to peace. He also said Russia’s “legitimate security aspirations” had to be addressed.

“Ukraine should become a bridge between East and West, not an outpost for confrontation among major powers,” Zhang said.

Similarly, the UAE and India said that although they abhorred Russia’s actions, they feared the resolution would shut the door to diplomacy and dialogue. Both countries, especially India, also have strong ties to Russia.

The Security Council vote came after increased economic sanctions the Biden administration imposed on Russia on Thursday — and on Putin himself on Friday — which had been augmented by a series of measures by the European Union.

Rallying broader support for a condemnation of Russia, however, had been a surprisingly difficult task for U.S. diplomats.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and his deputy, Wendy R. Sherman, as well as other officials, had been on the phone to counterparts from a host of nations, including Portugal, Turkey, Moldova, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Those efforts followed months of in-person and virtual consultations and warnings among allies about Russia’s designs on Ukraine.

India had been an especially prickly case. In addition to historical ties with Moscow, New Delhi in recent years has built a defense and diplomatic partnership with Washington.

But India was tepid in its initial response to Russia’s aggression. During a Security Council session that unfolded in New York on Wednesday night as President Vladimir Putin unleashed Russian troops on Ukraine, India’s representative called for de-escalation but did not condemn Moscow. So, while not a “yes,” India’s abstention Friday could have been worse, diplomats said.

A Biden administration official who briefed reporters on the U.S. strategy for the Security Council rejected any suggestion that the difficulty in putting together a united front reflected the impotence of consensus-based global organizations like the United Nations and especially the Security Council, where Russia and China are permanent members, along with the United States, France and Britain. Russia currently holds the rotating president’s seat on the council.

“It’s important that we send a message to Ukraine, to Russia and to the world that the Security Council will not look away,” said the official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity to discuss behind-the-scenes deliberations. “The council was established to respond to precisely this scenario: a stronger country waging war against a weaker neighbor in violation of the U.N. Charter and the principles of the U.N. Charter.”

But U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who spoke to reporters after the Security Council meeting, was clearly disappointed.

The United Nations “was born out of war, to end war,” he said. “Today that objective was not achieved.”

Former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday lauded South Korea’s co-sponsorship of this year’s U.N. resolution condemning human rights violations in North Korea.

Ban made the remarks in his keynote speech to an international conference on North Korean human rights held in Seoul, after the U.N. General Assembly’s Third Committee adopted a resolution against North Korea’s human rights abuses last week in New York.

A total of 61 countries co-sponsored the annually adopted resolution, including South Korea under the liberal Lee government, which has been making overtures to resume dialogue with North Korea.

The move marks a departure from the former liberal Moon Jae-in administration, which withheld its support for the resolution from 2019 to 2021.

The resolution will be reviewed at the upcoming General Assembly plenary session next month for final adoption.

“It is noteworthy,” Ban said of the action. “(It) would be viewed as the new Korean government’s recognition that North Korean human rights issues constitute one of the universal values.”

Ban pointed to “a lack of coherence” in South Korea’s approach to North Korean human rights issues, depending on changes of government between the conservative and progressive blocs, as he delved into obstacles to addressing the issue.

Political deadlock between the two major parties has also left the North Korean Human Rights Foundation, an organization intended to promote research and activities on North Korean human rights and envisioned under the 2016 North Korea human rights law, still unlaunched, he said.

“North Korea’s human rights situation remains grim for long-suffering North Koreans, while Pyongyang’s spending continues to expand,” he noted, urging the international community not to overlook the issue.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Nov. 22 (UPI) — A Democrat and a Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives have co-sponsored a resolution that calls for raising the number of votes needed to censure a colleague from a majority to 60% as a way to force “bipartisan support.”

The two-page resolution introduced by Democrat Don Beyer of Virginia and Republican Don Bacon of Nebraska on Friday comes amid efforts to censure three House members in an escalating numbers of members looking to take action against one another.

“The process of censures and disciplinary measures in the House is broken, and all of us know it,” Beyer said in a joint press release with Bacon announcing the legislation.

“These measures were historically reserved for rare and exceptional cases after a lengthy process that allowed time for investigations and due process, but that precedent has deteriorated,” he said. “Our resolution would break the cycle of censures to help return focus in the House to solving problems for the American people.”

The effort, the duo told colleagues in a letter on Thursday, would fix the problem and raise the level of sanity in the chamber, the New York Times reported.

“A U.S. House ruled by mob mentality cannot function. The institution and American people deserve better than what we’ve seen this week. The vast middle must stand up to the extremes and put commonsense safeguards in place,” Bacon said in the release.

The bill already had 29 sponsors by Friday afternoon, Roll Call reported.

“It has become a political tactic, rather than an action to protect the reputation of the House,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who in past years served as the majority and minority leader, told the Times. “If it becomes common, it will lose its prophylactic effect.”

Since 1832, the House has censured members 25 times and issued reprimands 11 times — and censured members just six times in the 21st century, according to NBC News.

Bacon and Beyer noted in the press release that most censures in history have come “after lengthy ethics investigations that established criminal activity or serious misconduct.”

Expulsion from Congress requires two-thirds approval, with 16 members of the House and five members of the Senate having been ejected from office, according to Congressional records. The vast majority — 17 — got the boot during the Civil War for backing the Confederacy.

The most recent expulsion was former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., who was later convicted in federal court, although President Donald Trump commuted his sentence after he had served three months in prison.

“The proliferation of resolutions to punish our fellow Members with censure, disapproval or the revocation of committee assignments has become unsustainable, to the point that they now impair our ability to work together to address serious issues. I fear this is inflicting lasting damage on this institution,” Beyer said Friday.

Just this week, there has been a raft of censure efforts introduced in the House, some successful and some not.

On Tuesday, the House rebuked Rep. Jesus Garcia, a Democrat serving Illinois, for hand-selecting his successor after announcing his retirement after the filing deadline for the Democratic primary.

Also on Tuesday, the House voted against censuring Stacey Plaskett, the U.S. delegate representing the U.S. Virgin Islands, amid revelations that she received information via text from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., filed a resolution to censure Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., who has been accused of financial misconduct and domestic abuse. In that case, the House voted to refer the matter to the House Ethics Committee.

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., also threatened to censure, and then expel, fellow Floridian, Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick after she was indicted this week for allegedly stealing $5 million in federal disaster funds.

SEOUL, Nov. 20 (UPI) — A U.N. committee adopted a resolution condemning North Korea’s human rights violations, Seoul’s Foreign Ministry said Thursday, with 61 co-sponsors including South Korea and the United States.

The draft resolution, introduced earlier this month to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly, “condemns in the strongest terms the long-standing and ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights in and by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including those that may amount to crimes against humanity.”

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

The resolution calls on Pyongyang to “respect, protect and fulfill all human rights and fundamental freedoms” and to “immediately close the political prison camps and release all political prisoners unconditionally.”

It was approved by consensus during a plenary meeting of the Third Committee on Wednesday.

South Korea was among the initial 41 member states to co-sponsor the resolution, despite speculation that the liberal administration of President Lee Jae Myung might withhold support in an effort to improve relations with Pyongyang.

However, South Korea maintained the position of former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s conservative government, with the Foreign Ministry noting that Seoul’s approach to North Korean human rights would remain a matter of principle.

In a statement on Thursday, the Foreign Ministry said the resolution “urges the DPRK to establish an operating environment conducive to the return of international and humanitarian staff and encourages all Member States and U.N. entities to provide more support for the work of civil society organizations.”

“The ROK government will continue its close cooperation with the international community for the substantive enhancement of human rights of DPRK people,” the ministry added, using the official acronym for South Korea.

North Korea has long rejected such resolutions as hostile acts, accusing the United Nations and Western powers of using human rights as a pretext to undermine its government.

During Wednesday’s plenary meeting, North Korean Ambassador to the United Nations Kim Song said Pyongyang “strongly condemns and totally rejects” the resolution, calling it “a document of political plots motivated by the impure intention of defaming the dignity of our republic and undermining its sovereign political system.”

Representatives of China and Russia also dissociated themselves from the consensus, with Beijing rejecting what it called a “politicized approach to human rights issues.”

A September report by the U.N. Human Rights Office found that North Korea’s human rights situation “has not improved over the past decade and, in many instances, has degraded,” citing worsening food shortages, widespread forced labor and tight restrictions on movement and expression.

This week, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un praised his regime’s state security forces, which run the political prison system and have been widely accused of employing brutal methods of repression and torture. The security apparatus has long been central to maintaining the Kim family’s grip on power through pervasive surveillance and the suppression of dissent.

The United States, which was not initially among the co-sponsoring nations, later joined the group that also includes Australia, Britain, France, Germany and Japan.

The resolution will be reviewed at the upcoming General Assembly plenary next month for final adoption.

In October 2025, a group of powerful states attempted to do in a few days what fifty years of occupation, war and repression had failed to achieve: close the file of Western Sahara in Morocco’s favour at the UN Security Council.

Using diplomatic blitzkrieg tactics, Morocco’s allies pushed a strongly pro-Moroccan “zero draft” resolution that they hoped to pass as a fait accompli. Had it gone through unchanged, Western Sahara would have been pushed closer toward erasure as a decolonisation question and recast as an internal Moroccan matter.

Instead, on 31 October 2025, the Council adopted Resolution 2797. Far from rubber-stamping Morocco’s claims, the final text reaffirmed every previous Security Council resolution on Western Sahara and restated an essential truth: any political solution must be just, mutually acceptable and consistent with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, including the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination.

Several Council members pushed back against the original US-circulated draft, which had aligned closely with Morocco’s position. Their amendments restored the text to the legal framework that has governed this issue for decades. The result is not perfect, but it is unmistakable: Western Sahara remains an unfinished decolonisation process. It is not a settled dispute, and it is not Morocco’s to absorb.

Had the Council endorsed the early draft, it would have risked becoming a 21st-century version of the Berlin Conference, a chamber where great powers redraw Africa’s map without Africans present. In 1884–85, European states divided a continent in ways that still shape its borders. The danger today is subtler but no less serious: that the future of Western Sahara might once again be written in foreign ink, this time on UN letterhead.

Western Sahara in International Law: An Unfinished decolonisation

Legally, Western Sahara’s status is unambiguous. It remains listed by the UN as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, one of the last awaiting decolonisation. International law recognises the Sahrawi people as possessing an inalienable right to self-determination and independence.

When Spain withdrew in 1975, it failed to organise the required act of self-determination. Instead, it divided the territory between Morocco and Mauritania. Mauritania later withdrew; Morocco did not. Its military occupation sparked a long war with the Sahrawi liberation movement, the Frente Polisario.

The 1991 UN-brokered ceasefire created MINURSO, the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara. The mission’s very name is a reminder of the international commitment made: a referendum in which Sahrawis would choose between independence and integration with Morocco. That referendum has never taken place.

Today, around 200,000 Sahrawis remain in refugee camps near Tindouf, Algeria, waiting in harsh conditions for the vote they were promised. In the occupied territory, Sahrawis face systematic repression and severe constraints on political expression. Yet they remain the only people with no seat at the table where their future is being debated.

Autonomy and the Logic of Conquest

The current situation cannot be understood without the US administration’s 2020 recognition of “Moroccan sovereignty over the entire Western Sahara territory” in exchange for Morocco’s normalisation with Israel. This reversed decades of US adherence to UN-led self-determination and signalled that territorial questions could once again be traded as diplomatic currency.

Support for Morocco’s autonomy proposal is the political expression of that bargain. Marketed as a pragmatic compromise, it is predicated on accepting Moroccan sovereignty upfront, removing independence from consideration and redefining self-determination as ratification of annexation. A solution that excludes independence is not self-determination. It is the formalisation of conquest.

Those who insist that independence is “unrealistic” are elevating raw power above law. As scholars such as Stephen Zunes have warned, accepting autonomy as the final settlement would mark an unprecedented moment: the international community would be endorsing the expansion of a state’s territory by force after 1945. Every aspiring land-grabber on the planet would take note.

This argument that diplomacy must conform to power rather than principle dresses surrender up as pragmatism. “Realism” that ignores law and rights is not realism; it is complicity. The entire post-1945 legal order was built to end the idea that war and annexation are acceptable methods of drawing borders. Undermining that norm in Western Sahara does not make the world safer; it normalises the very behaviour many of these same states claim to oppose elsewhere.

A proposal is not a peace plan. A “solution” written by one side and handed to the other as the only acceptable outcome is not a negotiation — it is an ultimatum for surrender.

A Call to President Trump: A chance to stand on the Right Side of History

There is still time, and still a path, for the United States to reclaim a constructive role in resolving this conflict. For President Donald Trump in particular, the question of Western Sahara offers a rare opportunity to stand on the right side of history, to uphold the very Wilsonian principle of self-determination that the United States once championed, and to return American policy to its long-standing position of neutrality and respect for international law.

For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations alike supported a UN-led process and recognised Western Sahara as a decolonisation question, not as a bargaining chip. Restoring that principled approach would not only correct the 2020 departure from US tradition, but would reaffirm the American commitment to a world where borders cannot be changed by force and where the rights of small nations are protected from the ambitions of larger ones.

If President Trump were to bring the United States back to its historical role, supporting a fair, just and lasting solution rooted in genuine self-determination, he would achieve something that eluded every administration before him. He would be remembered not as a participant in a geopolitical trade, but as the president who helped resolve one of the world’s longest-running and most clear-cut decolonisation cases. He would be remembered as the leader who chose law over expediency, principle over pressure, David over Goliath.

There is a rare chance here: to correct a historic wrong, to end a conflict that has defeated presidents, prime ministers and UN Secretaries-General, and to bring justice to a small, peaceful and long-suffering people. Standing with the Sahrawi right to self-determination is not only the moral choice; it is the choice that aligns the United States with its own ideals and its own stated values and ultimately its interests.

Anything else, any endorsement of the logic of conquest or any attempt to force a people to accept subjugation as “autonomy”, would be a political act that history will not forget, and the Sahrawi people will not forgive.

Call for International Solidarity

Behind every debate in New York are people living under occupation, in refugee camps and in exile, waiting for a vote they were promised decades ago. The Sahrawi people are not seeking special treatment. They are asking for the same right that helped dismantle colonial rule from Asia to Africa: the right of a people to freely determine their political future.

What was right for Timor and Namibia is right for Western Sahara.

History offers many examples of colonial powers that looked immovable until, suddenly, they were not. East Timor, Namibia, Eritrea, all show that no amount of repression or diplomatic engineering can extinguish a people’s demand for freedom. In each case, global civil society, more than great powers, ultimately helped shift the balance.

The Sahrawi people are determined to reclaim their homeland. Determination alone, however, cannot overcome tanks, drones, a 2,700-kilometre sand berm, prisons and diplomatic horse-trading. Stronger international solidarity is urgently needed—not only in support of a just cause, but in defence of the international system itself. The Sahrawi struggle today stands at the frontline of protecting both the right to self-determination and the principles on which the United Nations was built.

To stand with Western Sahara is to defend the rule that borders cannot be changed by force and that colonialism cannot be rebranded as “autonomy”. States that champion a “rules-based international order” should match their rhetoric with action: refuse to recognise Moroccan sovereignty; support a free and fair act of self-determination that includes independence; and ensure that UN resolutions are implemented rather than endlessly recycled.

Civil society and solidarity networks also have important roles to play, from advocacy to material support for Sahrawi institutions and refugee communities.

The Final Question

The UN Security Council is not mandated to rubber-stamp an illegal occupation and baptise it as decolonisation. Doing so would violate the UN Charter, particularly Article 24. Under the Charter and decolonisation law, the Council’s room for manoeuvre is constrained by the peremptory right of self-determination. It cannot lawfully override that foundational right. Article 24(2) requires the Council to act in accordance with the purposes of the Charter—including self-determination—and its decisions cannot derogate from jus cogens norms.

Decolonisation remains the only lawful path to ending this conflict. The core question is simple: does the international community still believe that peoples, especially colonised peoples, have the right to choose their own future? If the answer is yes, then sovereignty in Western Sahara remains, in law and in principle, with the Sahrawi people.

The map of Africa was once drawn in imperial ink. Whether Western Sahara remains the last stain of that era or becomes part of a different future depends on whether the world insists that decolonisation means what it says.

Hamas says a UN Security Council resolution backing Trump’s Gaza plan fails to meet the political and humanitarian demands of Palestinians.

The UN Security Council has adopted the US’s 20-point Gaza ceasefire plan, approving an international stabilisation force and a ‘board of peace’ with extensive powers to oversee Gaza’s governance and reconstruction.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The measure mandates transitional administration for Gaza and floats ‘credible pathway’ for Palestinian statehood.

The United Nations Security Council has approved a resolution mandating a transitional administration and an international stabilisation force in Gaza, which envisions a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood.

The resolution, drafted by the United States as part of President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan, passed in a 13-0 vote on Monday, paving the way for the crucial next steps for the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Russia and China abstained from the vote.

Arab and other Muslim countries that expressed interest in providing troops for an international force had previously indicated that a UN mandate was essential for their participation. At their behest, the US had included more defined language about Palestinian self-determination in the draft to get it over the finish line.

The draft now says that “conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” after the Palestinian Authority, which has limited self-governance in the occupied West Bank, carries out reforms and advances are made in the the redevelopment of Gaza.

That language angered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said on Sunday that Israel remained opposed to a Palestinian state and pledged to demilitarise Gaza “the easy way or the hard way”.

US ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz said after the vote that “today’s resolution represents another significant step that will enable Gaza to prosper and an environment that will allow Israel to live in security”.

Amar Bendjama, Algeria’s ambassador to the UN, said his country was grateful to Trump “whose personal engagement has been instrumental in establishing and maintaining the ceasefire in Gaza”.

“But we underline that genuine peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without justice. Justice for the Palestinians who have waited for decades for the establishment of their independent state,” he said.

Hamas rejects resolution

The US resolution says the stabilisation troops will help secure border areas, along with a trained and vetted Palestinian police force, and they will coordinate with other countries to secure the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. It says the force should closely consult and cooperate with neighbouring Egypt and Israel.

It also calls for the stabilisation force to ensure “the process of demilitarising the Gaza Strip” and “the permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups”, authorising it to “use all necessary measures to carry out its mandate”.

Hamas, which has not accepted disarmament, rejected the resolution, saying that it failed to meet Palestinians’ rights and demands and sought to impose an international trusteeship on the enclave that Palestinians and resistance factions oppose.

“Assigning the international force with tasks and roles inside the Gaza Strip, including disarming the resistance, strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favour of the occupation,” the group said.

As the international force establishes control and brings stability, the resolution says Israeli forces will withdraw from Gaza “based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarisation”. These would be agreed by the stabilisation force, Israeli forces, the US and the guarantors of the ceasefire, it says.

Russia’s rival resolution

Trump said on Truth Social that the Board of Peace overseeing Gaza would “include the most powerful and respected Leaders throughout the World”, thanking countries that “strongly backed the effort, including Qatar, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkiye, and Jordan”.

Russia had circulated a rival resolution stressing that the occupied West Bank and Gaza must be joined as a contiguous state under the Palestinian Authority and underlining the importance of a Security Council role to provide security in Gaza and for implementing the ceasefire plan.

Reporting from New York, Al Jazeera’s Gabriel Elizondo said: “There is some certain criticism of [the US] draft resolution. A lot of people are saying that it simply changes the dynamics, but it still leaves Gaza essentially occupied, just by a different entity.”

Washington and other governments had hoped Moscow would not use its veto power on the UN’ most powerful body to block the adoption of the US resolution.

Frank McCourt’s proposed gondola from Union Station to Dodger Stadium hit what appears to be its most significant roadblock yet on Wednesday, when the Los Angeles City Council voted to urge Metro to kill the project.

The resolution, approved by an 11-2 vote, is not in itself any kind of formal decision. It would not take effect unless Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass concurs, and Bass previously voted in favor of the project as a member of the Metro board.

But it makes clear that a City Council vote to approve the project, which is expected next year, could be an increasingly challenging hurdle for McCourt and his allies to overcome.

“This resolution tells Metro that the city of Los Angeles refuses to be bought by shiny renderings and empty promises,” councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, whose district includes Dodger Stadium, told her colleagues in Wednesday’s council meeting.

No councilmember spoke in support of the gondola.

The project requires approvals from the council, the state parks agency and Metro, which approved an environmental impact report for the project last year. A court demanded fixes to two defects in the report, and Metro is scheduled to vote next month on whether to approve the revised report.

The resolution approved Wednesday urges Metro to reject the revised report and “deny reapproval of the project.”

McCourt, the former Dodgers owner and still half-owner of the Dodger Stadium parking lots, first pitched the gondola in 2018 and later said fans would ride free. The projected construction cost is about $500 million; none of the promised private funding has been publicly identified.

“This project is an insult to our communities, and the process has been an insult to our collective intelligence,” Hernandez said.

Project opponents — and the resolution itself — cite among other issues that 160 trees from a beloved park would be permanently removed to make way for the gondola and that a UCLA study projected Dodger Stadium traffic would not even be decreased by 1%.

In a letter to councilmembers, the board of directors of Zero Emissions Transit — the nonprofit charged with funding and operating the gondola — urged the council to reject what it called “serious inaccuracies and misleading claims.”

The 160 trees would be temporarily removed and then restored, with 480 trees added as well, the letter said. The UCLA study retracted its conclusion, the letter also said, based on “biased data supplied by individuals affiliated with project opposition groups.”

Said ZET spokesman Nathan Click: “We continue to move forward with all the approval processes: Metro, city, state.”

SEOUL, Nov. 12 (UPI) — South Korea will again co-sponsor a United Nations resolution condemning North Korea‘s human rights violations, its Foreign Ministry confirmed Wednesday, amid speculation that Seoul might withhold support in an effort to improve relations with Pyongyang.

The draft resolution, introduced last week to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly, “condemns in the strongest terms the long-standing and ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights in and by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including those that may amount to crimes against humanity.”

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

The resolution calls on Pyongyang to “respect, protect and fulfill all human rights and fundamental freedoms” and to “immediately close the political prison camps and release all political prisoners unconditionally.”

South Korea was among the 41 U.N. member states that co-sponsored the resolution, maintaining the position of former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s conservative government.

The Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that Seoul’s approach to North Korean human rights would remain a matter of principle.

“Our government, recognizing the importance of substantially improving the human rights of North Korean citizens and committed to continuing cooperation with the international community to this end, has participated as a co-sponsor of this resolution,” the ministry said in a statement sent to UPI.

The move comes as Seoul weighs how to balance engagement with Pyongyang against pressure to address its human rights record. President Lee Jae Myung has made efforts to improve relations between the two Koreas since taking office in June, with conciliatory gestures such as dismantling propaganda loudspeakers and restricting activist groups from floating balloons carrying information across the border.

He has expressed support for renewed diplomacy between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, saying last month he hoped Trump would have a chance to play the role of “peacemaker” on the Korean Peninsula.

South Korea co-sponsored the resolution from 2008 through 2018, but withdrew during a period of inter-Korean detente between 2019 and 2022 under then-President Moon Jae-in.

In late October, Human Rights Watch and 20 other groups sent an open letter urging Lee’s government to back the resolution, warning that recent domestic policy shifts “signal a troubling move away from support for the victims of North Korea’s repression.”

The rights watchdog praised Seoul for its support on Wednesday.

“South Korea’s co-sponsorship showcases leadership as a democracy upholding law and dignity,” Lina Yoon, senior Korea researcher at Human Rights Watch, told UPI.

“Seoul should sustain it, by supporting U.N. accountability, protecting North Korean escapees, expanding information flows and pressing Pyongyang along with other governments for reforms to end repression,” she said.

The United States was not among the sponsoring countries. In February, President Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Council, reinstating the position he adopted during his previous term.

North Korea has long rejected such resolutions as hostile acts, accusing the United Nations and Western powers of using human rights as a pretext to undermine its government.

Following the adoption of last year’s measure, Pyongyang’s Foreign Ministry denounced it as a “politically motivated provocation.”

A September report by the U.N. Human Rights Office found that North Korea’s human rights situation “has not improved over the past decade and, in many instances, has degraded,” citing worsening food shortages, widespread forced labor and tight restrictions on movement and expression.

The U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote on the resolution in December.

Nov. 9 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate on Sunday night voted to advance a proposal that, if passed by Congress, would fund the federal government through the end of January, marking an important step toward ending the nation’s longest shutdown.

The Senate advanced the continuing appropriations bill in a 60-40 vote, with eight Democrats joining their Republican colleagues, after the Democratic caucus had maintained a strong resistance to passing a bill to reopen the government during 14 previous votes.

The bill was advanced as the 40-day government shutdown strained the United States, with many airports facing significant delays and flight reductions due to worker shortages and the food supplies of low-income households threatened by a lack of federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, who was among those who voted in favor of the resolution, said in a statement Sunday that the bill is not the same as the one Democrats rejected 14 previous times.

“Republicans finally woke up and realized their Groundhog Day needed to end. This bill is not perfect, but it takes important steps to reduce their shutdown’s hurt,” he said on X.

“Not only would it fully fund SNAP for the year ahead, but it would reverse the mass firings the Trump administration ordered throughout the shutdown.”

Along with Durbin, the other Democrats who voted in favor of the bill are: Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen of Nevada.

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine but who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted “yes” to the resolution.

Explaining his vote, King said the bill will “alleviate the crisis that is now occurring in SNAP, in food insecurity across the country.”

“Food pantries can’t do it by themselves,” he said in a video message published late Sunday to his X account.

The resolution still needs to be debated and passed by the Senate and House and then be signed by President Donald Trump for the government shutdown to end.

The resolution included a “minibus” package of legislation, which, if it is approved by the Senate, would then be amended to include a full year of government funding.

The deal also includes a vote on extending tax credits for people who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act — agreement on which has been the linchpin in the 40-day federal government shutdown.

Durbin, in his statement, said it was now up to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to schedule the promised vote on the ACA tax credits for next month.

“And we will see to it that he makes good on his word for the millions of Americans worried they won’t be able to afford healthcare in January,” he said.

The resolution was advanced after it was reported Sunday afternoon that the Republicans had secured enough Democratic votes to advance it.

Some lawmakers had expressed hope that they might be able to end the shutdown after Senators discussed three bills that would fund the government for a full year.

Programs for veterans affairs and agriculture subsidies were released early Sunday, and a more complete funding measure for the legislative branch was released later in the day.

The extended shutdown has put SNAP benefits on hold and snarled air traffic at the nation’s busiest airports amid the ongoing impasse, which has stretched well into its second month.

Staffing shortages and flight cancellations have caused travel disruptions and forced many air traffic controllers to work without pay.

Senate Democrats have been holding out for a one-year extension of Biden-era subsidies for health insurance premiums for people who buy coverage on the federal Marketplace under the Affordable Care Act.

The shutdown also prompted the Trump administration to cancel scheduled military flyovers at a handful of NFL games, including at the Washington, D.C., area stadium that hosts the Washington Commanders, where Trump attended the game Sunday between the Commanders and Detroit Lions.

Trump has expressed wishes to have the Commanders rename the stadium after him. ESPN reported that it would be discussed between the president and team ownership during the contest.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Friday he’s considering granting Hungary an exemption from U.S. sanctions on Russian energy as he sat down with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at the White House. “We’re looking at it because its very difficult for him to get the oil and gas from other areas,” Trump said.

Orbán said it’s a “vital” issue for his landlocked country, and said he planned to discuss with Trump the “consequences for the Hungarian people” if the sanctions took effect.

In comments on Friday, Orbán said he would present Trump with several “suggestions” for implementing an exemption.

“I’m not asking for some kind of gift from the Americans or some kind of unusual thing. I am simply asking for the realization that the sanctions recently imposed on Russian energy puts certain countries like Hungary, which do not have access to the sea, in an impossible situation,” Orbán said on state radio. “I’m going to ask the president to acknowledge that.”

A large delegation of cabinet members, business leaders and numerous right-wing political influencers with close connections to Hungary’s government accompanied Orbán to Washington. The delegation rented a 220-passenger commercial jet from Hungarian carrier Wizz Air for the journey.

Prior to Orbán’s arrival on Thursday, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced a resolution calling on Hungary to end its dependence on Russian energy.

The resolution was co-signed by 10 senators including Republicans Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, as well as Democrats Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Chris Coons of Delaware. It “expresses concern that Hungary has shown no sign of reducing its dependence on Russian fossil fuels,” and urges Budapest to adhere to a European Union plan to cease all Russian energy imports into the bloc by the end of 2027.

“Europe has made extraordinary progress cutting its energy ties with Moscow, but Hungary’s actions continue to undermine collective security and embolden the Kremlin,” Shaheen wrote in a statement. The resolution, she continued, “sends a clear message that when it comes to buying Russian energy, all allies should be held to the same standard, and that includes Hungary.”

On Friday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said in Washington that he will sign a bilateral nuclear energy cooperation agreement with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to Hungarian state news agency MTI.

The deal will involve Hungary’s first-ever purchases of American nuclear fuel, which it currently buys from Russia, and introduce U.S. technology for the on-site storage of spent fuel at Hungary’s Paks nuclear plant. The agreement will also include cooperation on small modular reactors.

After arriving in Washington, Orbán and some of his top officials met with Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who in September was sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup after an election loss. Orbán posted on social media: “We stand firmly with the Bolsonaros in these challenging times — friends and allies who never give up. Keep fighting: political witch-hunts have no place in democracy, truth and justice must prevail!”

Megerian and Spike write for the Associated Press. Spike reported from Budapest