Submit your Article

The main opposition CPN-UML boycotted the clause-wise discussion on the Finance Bill 2079 in the National Assembly.

The UML lawmakers obstructed the meeting soon after it started.

As soon as National Assembly Chairman Ganesh Timilsina gave time to Finance Minister Janardan Sharma to present a proposal asking to start clause-wise discussion on the Finance Bill 2079 endorsed by the House of Representatives with a message, UML lawmakers stood from their seats in a gesture of protest.

Later, Timilsina gave time to UML lawmaker Bhairab Sundar Shrestha to speak.

He said that they would not take part in the discussion until Finance Minister Sharma resigns from his post.

The lawmakers walked out of the hall after lawmaker Shrestha said that the party had decided not to take part in the discussion on the proposal presented by Minister Sharma.

The UML had been demanding resignation of Sharma saying that it is not morally appropriate for him to remain in the post after questions have been raised pertaining to changing tax rates on the eve of the budget presentation.

An unstable world could get even more dangerous if NATO does not remain strong and united, the head of the alliance said Thursday at the end of a summit where Western leaders labeled Russia “a direct threat” to the security of their nations, Associated Press reported.

During their three-day meeting in Madrid, NATO members confronted a geopolitical landscape marked by big-power competition and myriad threats, from cyberattacks to climate change. The leaders cast their sights around the world —- drawing a rebuke after accusing China of posing “serious challenges ” to global stability. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine dominated the summit. 

“We live in a more dangerous world and we live in a more unpredictable world, and we live in a world where we have a hot war going on in Europe,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said. “At the same time, we also know that this can get worse.”

That is why the Western military alliance has a “core responsibility” to keep the war in Ukraine from spilling into other countries while making clear to Moscow that it would “protect every inch of NATO territory,” Stoltenberg said.

That territory is set to grow. At the summit, NATO leaders formally invited Finland and Sweden to join the alliance, after striking an agreement to end opposition from Turkey. However, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he could still block the Nordic countries’ membership, if the Nordic pair do not keep their promises.

If the accession is approved by all 30 member nations, it will give NATO a new 800-mile (1,300 kilometer) border with Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned he would respond in kind if Sweden or Finland agreed to host NATO troops and military infrastructure. He said Russia would have to “create the same threats for the territory from which threats against us are created.”

Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said Putin’s threats were “nothing new.”

“Of course, we have to expect some kind of surprises from Putin, but I doubt that he is attacking Sweden or Finland directly,” Kallas said, according to Associated Press.

NATO leaders turned their gaze south for a final summit session Thursday focused on Africa’s Sahel region and the Middle East, where political instability — aggravated by climate change and food insecurity sparked by the war in Ukraine — is driving large numbers of migrants toward Europe.

The U.S. and other Western nations also are seeking to counterbalance the growing influence of China and Russia in the developing world. Stoltenberg said “Moscow and Beijing are using economic leverage, coercion and hybrid approaches to advance their interests in the region.”

The Beijing government called the alliance a “Cold War remnant” and accused it of “maliciously attacking and smearing” China by including it on NATO’s list of global challenges.

But Stoltenberg said it was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that had brought “the biggest overhaul of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.” In response, NATO has poured troops and weapons into Eastern Europe on a scale unseen in decades. 

The NATO leaders agreed at the Madrid summit to dramatically scale up military force along the alliance’s eastern flank, where countries from Romania to the Baltic states worry about Russia’s future plans.

NATO announced plans to increase almost eightfold the size of the alliance’s rapid reaction force, from 40,000 to 300,000 troops, by next year — though details of specific troop commitments remained vague. 

Most of the troops would be based in their home nations but dedicated to specific countries in the east, where the alliance plans to build up stocks of equipment and ammunition.

Member nations have given Ukraine billions in military and civilian aid to strengthen its resistance. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who addressed the summit by video link, asked for more, Associated Press reported.

He urged NATO to send modern artillery systems and other weapons — or “face a delayed war between Russia and yourself.”

“The question is, who’s next? Moldova? Or the Baltics? Or Poland? The answer is: all of them,” he said. 

US President Joe Biden, whose country provides the bulk of NATO’s firepower, announced a hefty boost in America’s military presence in Europe, including a permanent US base in Poland, two more Navy destroyers based in Spain, and two more F35 squadrons in the UK.

Yair Lapid has become Israel's interim prime minister, taking over from PM Naftali Bennett after just one year, BBC reported.

Mr Lapid, head of a centrist party, will lead the country as it heads towards elections on 1 November.

It follows the collapse last week of the coalition which he formed with Mr Bennett. The upcoming elections will be Israel's fifth in less than four years.

Mr Lapid faces a tough challenge from former PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who has vowed to return to power.

Although the new prime minister has previously said he is committed to a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, he is unlikely to begin any bold new initiatives as an interim leader.

Naftali Bennett handed over to Mr Lapid on Thursday in accordance with an existing agreement to rotate the premiership. Mr Bennett will occupy the post of alternate prime minister until the November election, which he has said he will not take part in.

Israel has seen a record-setting cycle of elections since April 2019 as parties time and again failed to secure enough seats to form a governing coalition with a majority. The Lapid-Bennett coalition temporarily broke the stalemate.

Mr Lapid, a 58-year-old former TV news anchor, ousted Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest serving leader, last June, according to BBC.

The outgoing government was the most diverse in Israel's history, comprising eight parties from across the political spectrum - including those with ideologically opposing views. It also contained an independent Arab party for the first time since the state was established in 1948.

Despite Mr Bennett's attempts to focus only on issues where parties could work together, it started to fray towards the end of its first year, becoming a minority government when a member of his right-wing Yamina party quit earlier this month.

In an emotional TV address last week, Mr Bennett said he and Mr Lapid had "turned over every single rock" to try to keep the coalition going, but that they had run out of options. 

Mr Netanyahu welcomed the announcement as "great news for millions of Israeli citizens". 

Polls currently indicate that his party will take most seats in a new election but will still struggle to form a governing majority with its religious and nationalist allies. 

The prospect of a further period of political uncertainty comes at a sensitive time, as Israel faces the challenges of rising living costs, an upsurge in violence in its conflict with the Palestinians, and renewed international efforts to revive a nuclear deal with Iran - something which alarms Israel, BBC reported.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lost some of its power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, BBC reported.

The landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court represents a major setback to President Joe Biden's climate plans.

He called it a "devastating decision" but said it would not undermine his effort to tackle the climate crisis.

The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation's largest coal companies.

They argued that the agency did not have the authority to limit emissions across whole states.

These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be forced to move away from using coal, at a severe economic cost.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court sided with the conservative states and fossil-fuel companies, agreeing that the EPA did not have the authority to impose such sweeping measures.

Attorney General Eric Schmitt for Missouri - one of the 19 states - called it a "big victory... that pushes back on the Biden EPA's job-killing regulations".

The court hasn't completely prevented the EPA from making these regulations in the future - but says that Congress would have to clearly say it authorises this power. And Congress has previously rejected the EPA's proposed carbon limiting programmes, according to BBC.

Environmental groups will be deeply concerned by the outcome as historically the 19 states that brought the case have made little progress on reducing their emissions - which is necessary to limit climate change.

The states made up 44% of the US emissions in 2018, and since 2000 have only achieved a 7% reduction in their emissions on average.

"Today's Supreme Court ruling undermines EPA's authority to protect people from climate pollution at a time when all evidence shows we must take action with great urgency," said Vickie Patton, general counsel for Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

It means President Biden is now relying on a change of policy from these states or a change from Congress - otherwise the US is unlikely to achieve its climate targets.

This is a significant loss for the president who entered office on a pledge to ramp up US efforts on the environment and climate.

On his first day in office he re-entered the country into the Paris Agreement, the first legally-binding universal agreement on climate change targets.

And he committed the country to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 52% by 2030 against 2005 levels.

"While this decision risks damaging our nation's ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis," he said.

The outcome of this case will be noted by governments around the world, as it will affect global efforts to tackle climate change. The US accounts for nearly 14% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, BBC reported.

A United Nations spokesman called it "a setback in our fight against climate change" but added that no single nation could derail the global effort.

In the US, this ruling could also affect the EPA's broader existing and future regulatory responsibilities - including consumer protections, workplace safety and public health.

The ruling gives "enormous power" to the courts to target other regulations they don't like, Hajin Kim, assistant professor of law at University of Chicago, tells the BBC.

This is because judges can say Congress did not explicitly authorise the agency to do that particular thing, she adds, according to BBC.