ReportWire

Tag: International law

  • Donald Trump Says ‘I Don’t Need International Law’ In Quest For World Dominance: ‘Only’ THIS ‘Can Stop Me’ – Perez Hilton

    Well, this is concerning…

    Donald Trump is once again serving up a quote that sounds less like a presidential soundbite and more like a rejected line from a supervillain origin movie. And yes, it’s as alarming as it is headline-ready.

    Related: Jimmy Kimmel THANKS Donald Trump?! Whoa!

    In a new interview with the New York Times that has everyone clutching their pearls, Trump made it clear that pesky little things like international laws, rules, and norms are more of a suggestion than an actual obstacle. When discussing his ever-expanding vision for American dominance on Thursday, he casually dropped this gem:

    “I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.”

    Oh, okay! If you say so! Nothing says reassuring like dismissing international law in the same breath as claiming you’ll only have benevolent intentions… Yeah, tell that to the multiple civilians who’ve been killed of late..

    When the Times tried to gently nudge him back toward reality by pointing out that, yes, laws do apply, Trump doubled down with a rhetorical shrug that could be heard around the globe:

    “It depends what your definition of international law is.”

    WHAT?!

    Because definitions are so subjective, right? Gravity, laws, facts: all vibes-based, apparently. Sheesh…

    But wait, it gets better. According to Trump, there is exactly one thing holding him back from full-on global supremacy. And no, it’s not Congress, the courts, or literally the rest of the world. It’s this:

    “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

    Take a moment, y’all. Breathe. Scream into a pillow if needed.

    This interview lands just days after US forces under Trump’s direction seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores during strikes on the city of Caracas before shipping them off to face narco terrorism charges. Venezuela may have an interim leader now, but Trump has been boasting America is basically running the show.

    Related: Trump Makes Rare Melania Marriage Confession — Reveals What She ‘Hates’ About Him!

    And why stop there? Greenland is still on his wishlist, too. To that end, Trump explained to the Times on Thursday that being allies with Denmark simply isn’t enough. He wants full ownership of the land mass. In his own words:

    “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

    Add this to past musings about Colombia, Cuba, Iran, and Mexico, and suddenly this feels less like foreign policy and more like a Monopoly board where someone flipped the table.

    Buckle up, y’all. Apparently the only thing between us and Trump’s global takeover is… Trump. Yikes.

    [Image via MEGA/WENN]

    Perez Hilton

    Source link

  • Who is Delcy Rodríguez? The woman who’s Venezuela’s interim president

    As uncertainty simmers in Venezuela, interim President Delcy Rodríguez has taken the place of her ally deposed President Nicolás Maduro, captured by the United States in a nighttime military operation, and offered “to collaborate” with the Trump administration in what could be a seismic shift in relations between the adversary governments.Rodríguez served as Maduro’s vice president since 2018, overseeing much of Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy and its feared intelligence service, and was next in the presidential line of succession.She’s part of a band of senior officials in Maduro’s administration that now appears to control Venezuela, even as U.S. President Donald Trump and other officials say they will pressure the government to fall in line with its vision for the oil-rich nation.On Saturday, Venezuela’s high court ordered her to assume the role of interim president, and the leader was backed by Venezuela’s military.Ally or adversaryRodríguez, a 56-year-old lawyer and politician has had a lengthy career representing the revolution started by the late Hugo Chávez on the world stage. It’s been unclear if the leader would warm up to the Trump administration or follow the same adversarial line as her predecessor.Her rise to become interim leader of the South American country came as a surprise on Saturday morning, when Trump announced that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had been in communication with Rodríguez and that the Venezuelan leader was “gracious” and would work with the American government. Rubio said Rodríguez was someone the administration could work with, unlike Maduro.But in a televised address, Rodríguez gave no indication that she would cooperate with Trump, referring to his government as “extremists” and maintaining that Maduro was Venezuela’s rightful leader.“What is being done to Venezuela is an atrocity that violates international law,” Rodríguez said, surrounded by high-ranking civilian officials and military leaders.Trump warned on Sunday, if Rodríguez didn’t fall in line, “she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.” He added that he wanted her to provide “total access,” from oil facilities to basic infrastructure like roads, so they can be rebuilt.Trump’s comments also followed Rubio having asserted in TV interviews on Sunday that he didn’t see Rodríguez and her government as “legitimate” because he said the country never held free and fair elections.On Sunday, in statements posted to her Instagram, she took a major shift in tone in a conciliatory message where she said she hoped to build “respectful relations” with Trump.“We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence,” she wrote.Rise to interim presidentA lawyer educated in Britain and France, the interim president and her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, head of the Maduro-controlled National Assembly, have sterling leftist credentials born from tragedy. Their father was a socialist leader who was arrested for his involvement in the kidnapping of American business owner William Niehous in 1976, and later died in police custody.Unlike many in Maduro’s inner circle, the Rodríguez siblings have avoided criminal indictment in the U.S., though the interim president did face U.S. sanctions during Trump’s first term for her role in undermining Venezuelan democracy.Rodríguez held a number of lower-level positions under Chávez’s government, but gained prominence working under Maduro to the point of being seen as his successor. She served the economic minister, foreign affairs minister, petroleum minister and others help stabilize Venezuela’s endemically crisis-stricken economy after years of rampant inflation and turmoil.Rodríguez developed strong ties with Republicans in the oil industry and on Wall Street who balked at the notion of U.S.-led regime change. The interim president also presided over an assembly promoted by Maduro in response to street protests in 2017 meant to neutralize the opposition-majority legislature.She enjoys a close relationship with the military, which has long acted as the arbiter of political disputes in Venezuela, said Ronal Rodríguez, a spokesperson for the Venezuela Observatory of Rosario University in Bogota, Colombia.“She has a very particular relationship with power,” he said. “She has developed very strong ties with elements of the armed forces and has managed to establish lines of dialogue with them, largely on a transactional basis.”Future in powerIt’s unclear how long Rodríguez will hold power, or how closely she will work with the Trump administration.Geoff Ramsey, a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington research institute, said Rodríguez’s initially firm tone with the Trump administration may have been an attempt to “save face.” Others have noted that Maduro’s capture required some level of collaboration within the Venezuelan government.“She can’t exactly expect to score points with her revolutionary peers if she presents herself as a patsy for U.S. interests,” Ramsey said.Venezuela’s constitution requires an election within 30 days whenever the president becomes “permanently unavailable” to serve. Reasons listed include death, resignation, removal from office or “abandonment” of duties as declared by the National Assembly.That electoral timeline was rigorously followed when Maduro’s predecessor, Chavez, died of cancer in 2013. However, the loyalist Supreme Court, in its decision Saturday, cited another provision of the charter in declaring Maduro’s absence a “temporary” one.In such a scenario, there is no election requirement. Instead, the vice president, an unelected position, takes over for up to 90 days — a period that can be extended to six months with a vote of the National Assembly.In handing temporary power to Rodríguez, the Supreme Court made no mention of the 180-day time limit, leading some to speculate she could try to remain in power even longer as she seeks to unite the disparate factions of the ruling socialist party while shielding it from what would certainly be a stiff electoral challenge.—Janetsky reported from Mexico City and Debre reported from Buenos Aires, Argentina. Associated Press writers Joshua Goodman in Miami, Darlene Superville aboard Air Force One and Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela, contributed to this report.

    As uncertainty simmers in Venezuela, interim President Delcy Rodríguez has taken the place of her ally deposed President Nicolás Maduro, captured by the United States in a nighttime military operation, and offered “to collaborate” with the Trump administration in what could be a seismic shift in relations between the adversary governments.

    Rodríguez served as Maduro’s vice president since 2018, overseeing much of Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy and its feared intelligence service, and was next in the presidential line of succession.

    She’s part of a band of senior officials in Maduro’s administration that now appears to control Venezuela, even as U.S. President Donald Trump and other officials say they will pressure the government to fall in line with its vision for the oil-rich nation.

    On Saturday, Venezuela’s high court ordered her to assume the role of interim president, and the leader was backed by Venezuela’s military.

    Ally or adversary

    Rodríguez, a 56-year-old lawyer and politician has had a lengthy career representing the revolution started by the late Hugo Chávez on the world stage. It’s been unclear if the leader would warm up to the Trump administration or follow the same adversarial line as her predecessor.

    Her rise to become interim leader of the South American country came as a surprise on Saturday morning, when Trump announced that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had been in communication with Rodríguez and that the Venezuelan leader was “gracious” and would work with the American government. Rubio said Rodríguez was someone the administration could work with, unlike Maduro.

    But in a televised address, Rodríguez gave no indication that she would cooperate with Trump, referring to his government as “extremists” and maintaining that Maduro was Venezuela’s rightful leader.

    “What is being done to Venezuela is an atrocity that violates international law,” Rodríguez said, surrounded by high-ranking civilian officials and military leaders.

    Trump warned on Sunday, if Rodríguez didn’t fall in line, “she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.” He added that he wanted her to provide “total access,” from oil facilities to basic infrastructure like roads, so they can be rebuilt.

    Trump’s comments also followed Rubio having asserted in TV interviews on Sunday that he didn’t see Rodríguez and her government as “legitimate” because he said the country never held free and fair elections.

    On Sunday, in statements posted to her Instagram, she took a major shift in tone in a conciliatory message where she said she hoped to build “respectful relations” with Trump.

    “We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence,” she wrote.

    Rise to interim president

    A lawyer educated in Britain and France, the interim president and her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, head of the Maduro-controlled National Assembly, have sterling leftist credentials born from tragedy. Their father was a socialist leader who was arrested for his involvement in the kidnapping of American business owner William Niehous in 1976, and later died in police custody.

    Unlike many in Maduro’s inner circle, the Rodríguez siblings have avoided criminal indictment in the U.S., though the interim president did face U.S. sanctions during Trump’s first term for her role in undermining Venezuelan democracy.

    Rodríguez held a number of lower-level positions under Chávez’s government, but gained prominence working under Maduro to the point of being seen as his successor. She served the economic minister, foreign affairs minister, petroleum minister and others help stabilize Venezuela’s endemically crisis-stricken economy after years of rampant inflation and turmoil.

    Rodríguez developed strong ties with Republicans in the oil industry and on Wall Street who balked at the notion of U.S.-led regime change. The interim president also presided over an assembly promoted by Maduro in response to street protests in 2017 meant to neutralize the opposition-majority legislature.

    She enjoys a close relationship with the military, which has long acted as the arbiter of political disputes in Venezuela, said Ronal Rodríguez, a spokesperson for the Venezuela Observatory of Rosario University in Bogota, Colombia.

    “She has a very particular relationship with power,” he said. “She has developed very strong ties with elements of the armed forces and has managed to establish lines of dialogue with them, largely on a transactional basis.”

    Future in power

    It’s unclear how long Rodríguez will hold power, or how closely she will work with the Trump administration.

    Geoff Ramsey, a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington research institute, said Rodríguez’s initially firm tone with the Trump administration may have been an attempt to “save face.” Others have noted that Maduro’s capture required some level of collaboration within the Venezuelan government.

    “She can’t exactly expect to score points with her revolutionary peers if she presents herself as a patsy for U.S. interests,” Ramsey said.

    Venezuela’s constitution requires an election within 30 days whenever the president becomes “permanently unavailable” to serve. Reasons listed include death, resignation, removal from office or “abandonment” of duties as declared by the National Assembly.

    That electoral timeline was rigorously followed when Maduro’s predecessor, Chavez, died of cancer in 2013. However, the loyalist Supreme Court, in its decision Saturday, cited another provision of the charter in declaring Maduro’s absence a “temporary” one.

    In such a scenario, there is no election requirement. Instead, the vice president, an unelected position, takes over for up to 90 days — a period that can be extended to six months with a vote of the National Assembly.

    In handing temporary power to Rodríguez, the Supreme Court made no mention of the 180-day time limit, leading some to speculate she could try to remain in power even longer as she seeks to unite the disparate factions of the ruling socialist party while shielding it from what would certainly be a stiff electoral challenge.

    Janetsky reported from Mexico City and Debre reported from Buenos Aires, Argentina. Associated Press writers Joshua Goodman in Miami, Darlene Superville aboard Air Force One and Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela, contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • What Britain’s silence on Iran’s protests says about its foreign policy priorities

    Why is there no statement about supporting regime change in Iran? And why are there no comments about the international law violations by the Iranian regime as it cracks down on protesters?

    “Starmer’s silence on Iran is shocking,” the UK’s Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel opined on Saturday, referring to a dramatic absence of commentary from British politicians and British media regarding the weeklong anti-regime protests in Iran.

    “With Iran’s cruel authoritarian regime emboldened by its brutal crackdown of freedom and democracy advocates within the country, Britain stands in silence as we see the chilling images of protesters being silenced and young activists being detained,” she added.

    “All this is not happening in secret but in plain sight, which is why the lack of robust action and condemnation by Starmer’s feeble government is shocking. Senior figures in the Labour Government seem unwilling and incapable of stepping up.”

    Mass demonstrations broke out across Iran on December 28, with citizens protesting over the collapse of the rial and soaring inflation, as well as dissatisfaction with the Islamic regime.
    These are the largest anti-regime protests since 2022’s Mahsa Amini protests. And yet there have been no tweets from Prime Minister Keir Starmer nor Yvette Cooper showing solidarity with the Iranian people or condemning the brutal Islamic regime’s crackdown on protests.

    The BBC – the country’s state broadcaster – has only published four articles. If one were relying on the BBC for coverage, one could be forgiven for not knowing anything was happening in Iran at all. A large group of Iranian and Jewish protesters actually gathered outside the BBC HQ on Sunday, chanting, “Ayatollah BBC, shame on you.”
    Yet when there is any development in Israel or Palestine, Cooper, David Lammy, and Starmer – and of course the BBC – scramble to chime in.

    And it’s not just the BBC. The Guardian, which has dedicated itself to the noble task of Israel-bashing, focused its coverage on an op-ed by Iran’s foreign ministerAbbas Araghchi about how “Israel’s recklessness is a threat to all.”
    The Jerusalem Post has seen countless images on Iranian citizen Telegram channels and X/Twitter accounts showing horrific injuries, including an X-ray of a woman with hundreds of metal bearings in her skull. Yet, according to The Guardian, Israel is the greatest threat.

    People stand outside the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) headquarters in London, (credit: REUTERS/HENRY NICHOLLS)

    So why the silence?
    One reason could be that British politicians and British media view Iran’s internal issues abstractly, whereas the Israel-Palestine conflict is seen as somewhat symbiotic with British history and policy and therefore of domestic importance. The last two years have shown that Israel-Palestine developments have a strong impact on British domestic policy and are treated as a Westminster issue.

    Iranian internal struggles, on the other hand, are regarded at a distance. The UK sometimes takes the side of quiet diplomacy, fearing that any public condemnation of internal Iranian affairs may jeopardize any future negotiations.
    Some have said that British politicians are playing a waiting game, fearful to chip in before more is clear. Others argued that they do not want to comment on foreign regime changes. However, this argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

    After the US’s capture and indictment of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Saturday, Starmer and Cooper both immediately came out with statements about endorsing “transition of power” in Venezuela, so long as it is with respect to international law. Why is there no statement about supporting regime change in Iran? And why are there no comments about the international law violations by the Iranian regime as it cracks down on protesters?

    The BBC has given some dubious reasons for its lack of coverage. BBC World Affairs reporter John Simpson responded to queries by saying it is “very difficult for news organizations to get correspondents in [Iran]. The BBC is banned, and so are most others. It’s a bit like Gaza.”

    Not being able to enter Gaza has not stopped the BBC from writing incessantly about it over the last two years, so why this would be a barrier to covering Iran is unclear.

    “Understood, but BBC can report on the tide of social media posts, many of which are obviously authentic – but the total blackout on the story is absolutely astounding and irresponsible,” retorted historian Simon Schama, highlighting the double standards.

    The National Union for Democracy in Iran – which delivered a groundbreaking report on Iran’s web of influence in the UK last year – magnanimously offered to help the BBC with its coverage. “We are analyzing, monitoring, verifying, and translating protest videos and slogans on a daily basis. We are happy to help.”If the Islamic Republic falls, it will change the future of not just the Iranian people but the entire world. Regardless of the outcome, the UK will be directly affected. Surely the BBC wants to be leading the tide of reporting on this? Surely Britain’s government wants to preemptively assure the Iranian people of its support, should the regime fall.
    The Iranian people are asking to be heard. The question remains of why key British establishments are choosing not to give them a voice.

    Source link

  • Capture of Maduro and US claim that it will run Venezuela raise new legal questions

    The Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s president and claims that it will “run” the country are raising stark new questions about the legality of the U.S. actions and its future operations in the South American nation.Related video above: U.S. strikes Venezuela, captures President Maduro in overnight operationThe middle-of-the-night seizure of Nicolás Maduro, who was transported with his wife on a U.S. warship to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges in New York, is beyond even the most high-profile historical examples of aggressive American actions toward autocratic governments in Panama, Iraq and elsewhere, legal experts said. It came after a surprise U.S. incursion that rocked the Venezuelan capital with overnight explosions.”This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame Law School professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.The stunning development caps months of aggressive U.S. military action in the region, including the bombing of boats accused of trafficking drugs and seizures of oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted 35 known boat strikes against vessels, killing more than 115 people since September, and positioned an armada of warships in nearby waters.The bigger debate than legality is yet to come, said John Yoo, an early architect of the George W. Bush administration’s policy in Iraq and now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.”It’s easier to remove a dictator,” he said, based on his experience in the Iraq War. But ensuring the transition to a stable democratic government is “the harder part.”Maduro’s arrest on anniversary of Noriega’s surrenderMaduro’s arrest came 36 years to the date of the surrender of Panama’s strongman, Manuel Noriega, a notable milestone in American involvement in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 to arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges.In Panama, however, U.S. national security interests were directly at stake in the form of the Panama Canal as well as the safety of American citizens and U.S. military installations in the country.Video below: Former Alabama exchange student reacts to Maduro captureBy contrast, Congress has not authorized any American military strike or law enforcement move against Venezuela.”The President will claim that this fits within a vast body of precedent supporting broad executive power to defend the United States, its citizens, and its interests,” Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who was a national security official in the Bush administration, said by email. “Critics will charge that this exceeds the bounds of presidential power without congressional authorization.”While U.S. agents have a long history of snatching defendants abroad to execute arrest warrants without authorization, federal courts have long deferred to the White House in foreign policy and national security matters.For example, U.S. bounty hunters, working under the direction of the Drug Enforcement Administration, in 1990 abducted in Mexico a doctor accused of killing DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena.”Courts give great deference to the president on issues related to national security,” said Gurule, who led the prosecution against Camarena’s killers. “But great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”Congress has yet to authorize or ban US actionsTrump’s administration has declared the drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants and has said the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained in October by The Associated Press.The memo appears to represent an extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers, with Trump effectively declaring that trafficking of drugs into the U.S. amounts to armed conflict requiring the use of military force. That is a new rationale for past and future actions.Congress, which has broad authority to approve or prohibit the president’s war powers, has failed to do either, even as lawmakers from both political parties grow increasingly uneasy with the military actions in the region, particularly after it was revealed that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack with a follow-up strike.Congress’ Democratic leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, demanded immediate briefings for the “gang of eight” leaders on Capitol Hill, which includes top members of the Intelligence committees, as well as for other lawmakers. Congressional leaders were not notified of the actions until after the operation was underway.”The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, said the entire operation — the boat strikes as well as the apprehension of Maduro — clearly violates international law.”Lawyers call it international armed conflict,” Schmitt said. “Lay people call it war. So as a matter of law, we are now at war with Venezuela because the use of hostilities between two states clearly triggers an internal armed conflict.”War powers vote aheadHouse Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the administration “is working to schedule briefings” for lawmakers next week.Republican lawmakers in Congress largely welcomed the capture of Maduro as ridding the region of a leader they say is responsible for drug trafficking, but Democratic lawmakers warned that in veering from the rule of law, the administration is potentially greenlighting other countries such as China or Russia to do the same.”Beyond the legality, what kind of precedent does it send?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said in an interview that the rebuilding plan ahead has echoes of the Iraq War as the Trump administration promises to use Venezuela’s oil revenue to pay the costs.Waxman, the Columbia University law professor, said seizing control of Venezuela’s resources opens up additional legal issues: “For example, a big issue will be who really owns Venezuela’s oil?”The Senate is expected to try again next week to curtail Trump’s actions, with a vote expected on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block using U.S. forces against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he is grateful for the armed forces “who carried out this necessary action.” He said he spoke to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and wants more information.”I look forward to receiving further briefings from the administration on this operation as part of its comprehensive counternarcotics strategy when the Senate returns to Washington next week,” Thune said.Rubio said at a briefing Saturday with Trump that because of the nature of the surprise operation, it was not something that could be shared beforehand with the lawmakers.Goodman reported from Miami.

    The Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s president and claims that it will “run” the country are raising stark new questions about the legality of the U.S. actions and its future operations in the South American nation.

    Related video above: U.S. strikes Venezuela, captures President Maduro in overnight operation

    The middle-of-the-night seizure of Nicolás Maduro, who was transported with his wife on a U.S. warship to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges in New York, is beyond even the most high-profile historical examples of aggressive American actions toward autocratic governments in Panama, Iraq and elsewhere, legal experts said. It came after a surprise U.S. incursion that rocked the Venezuelan capital with overnight explosions.

    “This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame Law School professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.

    The stunning development caps months of aggressive U.S. military action in the region, including the bombing of boats accused of trafficking drugs and seizures of oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted 35 known boat strikes against vessels, killing more than 115 people since September, and positioned an armada of warships in nearby waters.

    The bigger debate than legality is yet to come, said John Yoo, an early architect of the George W. Bush administration’s policy in Iraq and now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

    “It’s easier to remove a dictator,” he said, based on his experience in the Iraq War. But ensuring the transition to a stable democratic government is “the harder part.”

    Maduro’s arrest on anniversary of Noriega’s surrender

    Maduro’s arrest came 36 years to the date of the surrender of Panama’s strongman, Manuel Noriega, a notable milestone in American involvement in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 to arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges.

    In Panama, however, U.S. national security interests were directly at stake in the form of the Panama Canal as well as the safety of American citizens and U.S. military installations in the country.

    Video below: Former Alabama exchange student reacts to Maduro capture

    By contrast, Congress has not authorized any American military strike or law enforcement move against Venezuela.

    “The President will claim that this fits within a vast body of precedent supporting broad executive power to defend the United States, its citizens, and its interests,” Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who was a national security official in the Bush administration, said by email. “Critics will charge that this exceeds the bounds of presidential power without congressional authorization.”

    While U.S. agents have a long history of snatching defendants abroad to execute arrest warrants without authorization, federal courts have long deferred to the White House in foreign policy and national security matters.

    For example, U.S. bounty hunters, working under the direction of the Drug Enforcement Administration, in 1990 abducted in Mexico a doctor accused of killing DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena.

    “Courts give great deference to the president on issues related to national security,” said Gurule, who led the prosecution against Camarena’s killers. “But great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”

    Congress has yet to authorize or ban US actions

    Trump’s administration has declared the drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants and has said the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained in October by The Associated Press.

    The memo appears to represent an extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers, with Trump effectively declaring that trafficking of drugs into the U.S. amounts to armed conflict requiring the use of military force. That is a new rationale for past and future actions.

    Congress, which has broad authority to approve or prohibit the president’s war powers, has failed to do either, even as lawmakers from both political parties grow increasingly uneasy with the military actions in the region, particularly after it was revealed that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack with a follow-up strike.

    Congress’ Democratic leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, demanded immediate briefings for the “gang of eight” leaders on Capitol Hill, which includes top members of the Intelligence committees, as well as for other lawmakers. Congressional leaders were not notified of the actions until after the operation was underway.

    “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

    Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, said the entire operation — the boat strikes as well as the apprehension of Maduro — clearly violates international law.

    “Lawyers call it international armed conflict,” Schmitt said. “Lay people call it war. So as a matter of law, we are now at war with Venezuela because the use of hostilities between two states clearly triggers an internal armed conflict.”

    War powers vote ahead

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the administration “is working to schedule briefings” for lawmakers next week.

    Republican lawmakers in Congress largely welcomed the capture of Maduro as ridding the region of a leader they say is responsible for drug trafficking, but Democratic lawmakers warned that in veering from the rule of law, the administration is potentially greenlighting other countries such as China or Russia to do the same.

    “Beyond the legality, what kind of precedent does it send?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said in an interview that the rebuilding plan ahead has echoes of the Iraq War as the Trump administration promises to use Venezuela’s oil revenue to pay the costs.

    Waxman, the Columbia University law professor, said seizing control of Venezuela’s resources opens up additional legal issues: “For example, a big issue will be who really owns Venezuela’s oil?”

    The Senate is expected to try again next week to curtail Trump’s actions, with a vote expected on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block using U.S. forces against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he is grateful for the armed forces “who carried out this necessary action.” He said he spoke to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and wants more information.

    “I look forward to receiving further briefings from the administration on this operation as part of its comprehensive counternarcotics strategy when the Senate returns to Washington next week,” Thune said.

    Rubio said at a briefing Saturday with Trump that because of the nature of the surprise operation, it was not something that could be shared beforehand with the lawmakers.


    Goodman reported from Miami.

    Source link

  • U.S. capture of Maduro in Venezuela criticized as violation of international, U.S. law

    President Trump’s decision to send U.S. forces into Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and return them to the U.S. to face drug charges elicited condemnation from legal experts and other critics who argued that the operation — conducted without congressional or United Nations approval — clearly violated U.S. and international law.

    Such criticism came from Democratic leaders, international allies and adversaries including Mexico, France, China and Russia, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and experts on international law and wartime powers.

    “Nicolás Maduro was a thug and an illegitimate leader of Venezuela, terrorizing and oppressing its people for far too long and forcing many to leave the country. But starting a war to remove Maduro doesn’t just continue Donald Trump’s trampling of the Constitution, it further erodes America’s standing on the world stage and risks our adversaries mirroring this brazen illegal escalation,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote on X.

    A U.N. spokesman said Guterres was “deeply alarmed” by the U.S. operation and “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.”

    China’s foreign ministry said “such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty,” while France’s foreign minister said the U.S. operation “contravenes the principle of the non-use of force that underpins international law.”

    Republicans largely backed the president, with both House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) defending the operation as “decisive” and legally justified. However, other Republicans questioned Trump’s authority to act unilaterally, and raised similar concerns as Schiff about other world leaders citing Trump’s actions to justify their own aggression into neighboring nations.

    Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) defended Trump’s actions as “great for the future of Venezuelans and the region,” but said he was concerned that “Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan.”

    Trump defended the operation as a legitimate law enforcement action necessary to combat threats to the U.S. from Maduro, whom he accused of sending violent gang members and deadly drugs across the U.S. border on a regular basis.

    “The illegitimate dictator Maduro was the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States,” Trump said at a news conference. “As alleged in the indictment, he personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles, which flooded our nation with lethal poison responsible for the deaths of countless Americans.”

    However, Trump also made no secret of his interest in Venezuela’s oil. He said U.S. officials would be running Venezuela for the foreseeable future and ensuring that the nation’s oil infrastructure is rebuilt — to return wealth to the Venezuelan people, but also to repay U.S. businesses that lost money when Maduro took over the industry.

    Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced that Maduro, who had previously been indicted in the U.S. in 2020, is now the subject of a superseding indictment charging him, his wife and several others with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess such weapons and devices.

    “They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” Bondi wrote on X.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio also framed the operation as a law enforcement effort, and defended the lack of advance notice to Congress.

    “At its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice, and the Department of War supported the Department of Justice in that job,” Rubio said. “It’s just not the kind of mission that you can pre-notify, because it endangers the mission.”

    Trump said Congress could not be notified in advance because “Congress will leak, and we don’t want leakers.”

    Michael Schmitt, an international law professor at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom and a professor emeritus of international law at the U.S. Naval War College, said Trump’s actions were a “clear violation” of international law.

    He said the U.S. had no authority from the U.N. Security Council to conduct military operations in Venezuela, nor any legitimate justification to act in self-defense against an armed attack — which drug trafficking does not amount to.

    Schmitt said the operation in Venezuela went far beyond a normal law enforcement action. But even if it were just a law enforcement action, he said, the U.S. would still lack legal authority under international law to engage in such activity on Venezuelan soil without the express permission of Venezuelan authorities — which it did not have.

    “International law is clear. Without consent, you cannot engage in investigations or arrest or seizure of criminal property on another state’s territory,” he said. “That’s a violation of that state’s sovereignty.”

    Because the operation was illegitimate from the start, the resulting occupation and interference in Venezuela’s oil industry are also unlawful, Schmitt said — regardless of whether the country’s nationalizing of U.S.-tied oil infrastructure was also unlawful, as some experts believe it was.

    “That unlawfulness — of seizing U.S. business interests, nationalizing them, in a way that was not in accordance with the required procedures — is not a basis for using force,” Schmitt said.

    Matthew Waxman, chair of the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School, said that in the days ahead, he expects the Trump administration to try to justify its actions not just as a law enforcement operation, but “as part of a larger campaign to defend the United States against what it has characterized as an attack or invasion by Maduro-linked drug cartels.”

    “All modern presidents have claimed broad constitutional power to use military force without congressional authorization, but that is always hotly contested. We’ll see if there’s much pushback in Congress in this case, which will probably depend a lot on how things now play out in Venezuela,” Waxman said. “Look at what happened last year in Iran: The president claimed the power to bomb nuclear program infrastructure, and when the operation didn’t escalate, congressional opponents backed off.”

    Already on Saturday, some members of Congress were softening their initial skepticism.

    Within hours of posting on X that he was looking forward “to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) had posted again, saying Rubio told him that the military action was “to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant” for Maduro.

    Such action “likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” Lee added.

    Others remained more skeptical.

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said Trump’s remarks about taking over the country and controlling its oil reserves did not seem “the least bit consistent” with Bondi’s characterization of the operation as a law enforcement effort.

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • US military carries out second strike, killing survivors on suspected drug boat, sources say

    The U.S. military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.“I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF , because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.“They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”“Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

    The U.S. military carried out a followup strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.

    While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.

    The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.

    Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.

    “I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF [sensitive compartmented information facility], because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”

    People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.

    “They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”

    Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.

    Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

    “Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.

    The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.

    The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.

    It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.

    In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”

    The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.

    Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.

    Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.

    But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.

    That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.

    Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.

    Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.

    The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

    Source link

  • UN human rights chief says US strikes on alleged drug boats are ‘unacceptable’

    The U.N. human rights chief said Friday that U.S. military strikes against boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean allegedly carrying illegal drugs from South America are “unacceptable” and must stop.The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, called for an investigation into the strikes, in what appeared to mark the first such condemnation of its kind from a United Nations organization.Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman for Türk’s office, relayed his message Friday at a regular U.N. briefing: “These attacks and their mounting human cost are unacceptable. The U.S. must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats.”She said Türk believed “airstrikes by the United States of America on boats in the Caribbean and in the Pacific violate international human rights law.”President Donald Trump has justified the attacks on the boats as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States, but the campaign against drug cartels has been divisive among countries in the region.The strikes and the U.S. military’s growing presence near Venezuela have stoked fears that the Trump administration could try to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faces charges of narcoterrorism in the United States.Asked Friday if he’s considering land strikes in Venezuela, Trump said, “No.” He did not elaborate as he spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed to Florida for the weekend.Speaking earlier this week from the USS George Washington aircraft carrier in Japan, Trump noted the U.S. attacks at sea and reiterated that “now we’ll stop the drugs coming in by land.”U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday announced the latest U.S. military strike in the campaign, against a boat he said was carrying drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean. All four people aboard were killed. It was the 14th strike since the campaign began in early September, while the death toll has grown to at least 61.Shamdasani noted the U.S. explanations of the efforts as an anti-drug and counterterrorism campaign, but said countries have long agreed that the fight against illicit drug trafficking is a law enforcement matter governed by “careful limits” placed on the use of lethal force.Intentional use of lethal force is allowed only as a last resort against someone representing “an imminent threat to life,” she said. “Otherwise, it would amount to a violation of the right of life and constitute extrajudicial killings.”The strikes are taking place “outside the context” of armed conflict or active hostilities, Shamdasani said.

    The U.N. human rights chief said Friday that U.S. military strikes against boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean allegedly carrying illegal drugs from South America are “unacceptable” and must stop.

    The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, called for an investigation into the strikes, in what appeared to mark the first such condemnation of its kind from a United Nations organization.

    Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman for Türk’s office, relayed his message Friday at a regular U.N. briefing: “These attacks and their mounting human cost are unacceptable. The U.S. must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats.”

    She said Türk believed “airstrikes by the United States of America on boats in the Caribbean and in the Pacific violate international human rights law.”

    President Donald Trump has justified the attacks on the boats as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States, but the campaign against drug cartels has been divisive among countries in the region.

    The strikes and the U.S. military’s growing presence near Venezuela have stoked fears that the Trump administration could try to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faces charges of narcoterrorism in the United States.

    Asked Friday if he’s considering land strikes in Venezuela, Trump said, “No.” He did not elaborate as he spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed to Florida for the weekend.

    Speaking earlier this week from the USS George Washington aircraft carrier in Japan, Trump noted the U.S. attacks at sea and reiterated that “now we’ll stop the drugs coming in by land.”

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday announced the latest U.S. military strike in the campaign, against a boat he said was carrying drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean. All four people aboard were killed. It was the 14th strike since the campaign began in early September, while the death toll has grown to at least 61.

    Shamdasani noted the U.S. explanations of the efforts as an anti-drug and counterterrorism campaign, but said countries have long agreed that the fight against illicit drug trafficking is a law enforcement matter governed by “careful limits” placed on the use of lethal force.

    Intentional use of lethal force is allowed only as a last resort against someone representing “an imminent threat to life,” she said. “Otherwise, it would amount to a violation of the right of life and constitute extrajudicial killings.”

    The strikes are taking place “outside the context” of armed conflict or active hostilities, Shamdasani said.

    Source link

  • Contributor: Democrats will pay for ignoring base’s qualms about Gaza

    As the Democratic Party searches for direction in the post-2024 landscape, its leaders seem bent on alienating their own base over Gaza. This is not a matter of nuance or tactical positioning; it’s a profound moral and political miscalculation.

    That failure is on vivid display in the decision by House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (Redlands) to help lead a delegation of mostly freshman Democratic representatives recently to Israel. The trip included meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption in Israel and is the subject of arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    Polling makes the disconnect impossible to ignore. In July, Gallup found that just 8% of Democrats approve of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, with disapproval overwhelming. Pew Research Center reported in April that 69% of Democrats now hold an unfavorable view of Israel — a striking shift from just a few years ago. And Data for Progress has consistently found supermajority Democratic support for a permanent ceasefire; in May 2024, 83% of Democrats backed a permanent ceasefire, and in a June 12, 2024, poll a majority of Democrats said they believed Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza.

    Aguilar’s role makes this especially galling. He isn’t a backbencher; he’s a high-ranking member of the Democratic Party leadership. That gives him a particular responsibility to model principled conduct for newer members. Instead, he’s showing them the wrong lesson: that obedience to the donor class matters more than representing constituents. The point is underscored by his fundraising: OpenSecrets reports Aguilar received about $678,000 from donors categorized as “Pro-Israel” in the 2023–24 cycle.

    The mechanics of that influence are no mystery. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and allied pro-Israel PACs reward loyalty with torrents of campaign cash and punish dissent with lavishly funded primary challenges. Reps. Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush — both outspoken critics of Israel’s conduct in Gaza — have been textbook examples: Bowman was unseated after record outside spending flooded his race, and Bush faced a barrage of super-PAC money that ultimately toppled her. The incentive structure is clear: Toe the line and your coffers swell; cross it and a financial juggernaut rolls over you.

    There is a political price for complying with this pressure, however. The Institute for Middle East Understanding, using YouGov, found that among voters who backed Joe Biden in 2020 but chose someone else in 2024 “ending Israel’s violence in Gaza” was the top issue for 29% nationally — ahead of the economy — and 20% in battleground states. Those results point to a straightforward conclusion: Ignoring Democratic voters on Gaza depresses enthusiasm and peels away enough support to matter in close races.

    Gaza is politically damaging not only because of the issue itself — though the moral stakes could hardly be higher — but also because it has become a measure of where leaders’ loyalties lie. Voters read it as a test of whether their representatives will stand with the people who elected them or with wealthy donors and foreign lobbies. Fail that test and many will assume you might betray them on other critical issues in the future.

    The Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to adapt is not just bad politics; it’s a betrayal of basic democratic principles. Rank-and-file Democrats overwhelmingly want an end to the carnage, an end to unconditional military aid to Israel, and policies rooted in human rights and international law. Yet too many leaders seem more concerned with keeping favor in donor circles than with honoring the public’s will.

    If Democrats hope to retain their coalition, they need to realign policy with their voters’ values: call for a permanent ceasefire; condition U.S. military assistance on compliance with international law; and replace photo-op delegations with diplomacy that centers on justice and accountability.

    Until then, every AIPAC-sponsored trip led by a party leader will read like a declaration of priorities — and a reminder of the price the party will continue to pay at the ballot box.

    George Bisharat is a professor emeritus at UC Law San Francisco and a longtime commentator on U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

    Insights

    L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

    Viewpoint
    This article generally aligns with a Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
    Perspectives

    The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

    Ideas expressed in the piece

    • The Democratic Party elite continues to cling to pro-Israel policies despite a dramatic shift in voter sentiment, with DNC chair Ken Martin exemplifying this resistance by backing resolutions that maintain commitments to Israel’s “qualitative military edge” while pressuring pro-Palestine delegates to water down alternative proposals[3]. The party leadership’s obedience to pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC and Democratic Majority for Israel contradicts the clear will of Democratic voters who increasingly oppose the status quo[3].

    • Polling data consistently demonstrates overwhelming Democratic opposition to Israel’s military actions in Gaza, with just 8% of Democratic voters approving of Israel’s military campaign according to recent Gallup surveys, down dramatically from earlier periods in the conflict[5][6]. This represents the lowest approval rating among Democrats since polling began on the issue, creating a stark disconnect between party leadership and base voters[5].

    • The influence of pro-Israel campaign contributions is evident in the behavior of Democratic representatives who continue to participate in AIPAC-sponsored trips to Israel despite their constituents’ opposition, with California representatives receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from pro-Israel groups while ignoring polling showing 92% of Democrats oppose Israel’s actions[2]. These trips occur while Gaza faces unprecedented humanitarian devastation, with over 60,000 Palestinian civilians killed and two million people facing starvation[2].

    • The declining number of Democrats willing to participate in AIPAC trips reflects growing awareness among elected officials of their constituents’ opposition, with recent delegations representing the smallest ever congressional group of Democrats to visit Israel as many invited House members reportedly declined to participate[4]. This trend suggests that elected officials are beginning to respond to public pressure despite continued lobbying efforts[2].

    Different views on the topic

    • Pro-Israel Democratic organizations argue that divisive resolutions calling for arms embargos and Palestinian state recognition would damage party unity and provide political advantages to Republicans, particularly as the party approaches midterm elections where maintaining cohesion is crucial for retaking Congress[1]. These groups contend that such measures fail to address the root cause of the conflict by not mentioning Hamas’s October 7 attacks or the terrorist organization’s role in perpetuating the war[1].

    • Supporters of continued military aid to Israel maintain that arms embargos would actually prolong the conflict and extend suffering on both sides, arguing that pressure should instead be directed toward Hamas to accept ceasefire deals and release hostages[1]. The Democratic Majority for Israel emphasizes that unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state would reward terrorism and embolden Israel’s adversaries in the region[1].

    • Pro-Israel advocates stress that the fundamental relationship between the United States and Israel remains strong due to shared democratic values and mutual security interests that have endured for over 75 years, suggesting that temporary political pressures should not override these longstanding strategic considerations[1]. Congressional delegations to Israel are defended as necessary to witness firsthand the aftermath of terrorist attacks and assess ongoing security threats[4].

    George Bisharat

    Source link

  • Genocide Fast Facts | CNN

    Genocide Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at genocide, the attempted or intentional destruction of a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, whether in wartime or peace.

    The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations after World War II.

    Article II of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group:
    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    1932-1933 – Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union inflict a famine upon Ukraine after people rebel against the imposed system of land management known as “collectivization,” which seizes privately owned farmlands and puts people to work in collectives. An estimated 25,000-33,000 people die every day. There are an estimated six million to 10 million deaths.

    December 1937-January 1938 – The Japanese Imperial Army marches into Nanking, China, and kills an estimated 300,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers. Tens of thousands are raped before they are murdered.

    1938-1945 – Nazi Germany, under Adolf Hitler, deems the Jewish population racially inferior and a threat, and kills six million Jewish people in Germany, Poland, the Soviet Union and other areas around Europe during World War II.

    1944 – The term “genocide” is coined by lawyer Raphael Lemkin.

    December 9, 1948The United Nations adopts the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

    January 12, 1951 – The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide enters into force. It is eventually ratified by 142 nations.

    1975-1979 – Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot’s attempt to turn Cambodia into a Communist peasant farming society leads to the deaths of up to two million people from starvation, forced labor and executions.

    1988 – The Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein attacks civilians who have remained in “prohibited” areas. The attacks include the use of mustard gas and nerve agents and result in the death of an estimated 100,000 Iraqi Kurds.

    1992-1995 – Yugoslavia, led by President Slobodan Milosevic, attacks Bosnia after it declares its independence. Approximately 100,000 people – the majority of whom are Muslims, or Bosniaks, – are killed in the conflict. There are mass executions of “battle-age” men and mass rape of women.

    1995 – Ratko Mladic, former leader of the Bosnian Serb army, is indicted by the UN-established International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for war crimes and atrocities. In 2011, Mladic is arrested in Serbia. On November 22, 2017, Mladic is sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity.

    1994 – In Rwanda, an estimated 800,000 civilians, mostly from the Tutsi ethnic group, are killed over a period of three months.

    July 17, 1998 – The Rome Statute, to establish a permanent international criminal court, is adopted.

    1998 – The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) establishes the precedent that rape during warfare is a crime of genocide. In Rwanda, HIV-infected men participated in the mass rape of Tutsi women.

    1998 – The first genocide conviction occurs at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Jean Paul Akayesu, the Hutu mayor of the town, Taba, is convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity.

    July 1, 2002 – The International Criminal Court (ICC) opens at The Hague, Netherlands, as the first permanent war crimes tribunal, with jurisdiction to try perpetrators of genocide. Previously, the UN Security Council created ad hoc tribunals to try those responsible for genocide in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda.

    2003-2004 – In the Darfur region of Sudan, the United Nations estimates that 300,000 people have been killed. In July 2004, the US House of Representatives and the Senate pass resolutions declaring the crisis in Darfur to be genocide.

    2008 – Fugitive Radovan Karadzic, former Bosnian Serb leader, is arrested. He is charged with genocide in connection with the Srebrenica massacre of 1995. On March 24, 2016, Karadzic is found guilty of 10 of the 11 charges against him, including one count of genocide. He is sentenced to 40 years in prison. Three years later, the sentence is changed to life in prison by appeal judges at a UN court in the Hague, Netherlands.

    March 4, 2009 – The ICC issues an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

    June 4, 2013 – The ICTR unseals a 2012 updated indictment against Ladislas Ntaganzwa. The former mayor of a town in south Rwanda is indicted on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and other violations of international humanitarian law during the 1994 killings in Rwanda.

    August 2014 – ISIS fighters attack the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar, home of a religious minority group called the Yazidis. A Yazidi lawmaker says that 500 men have been killed, 70 children have died of thirst and women are being sold into slavery.

    December 9, 2015 The arrest of Ntaganzwa is announced. On May 28, 2020, Ntaganzwa is convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international humanitarian law by the High Court Chamber for International Crimes in Rwanda. He is sentenced to life in prison for his role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

    January 2016 – According to a 2016 United Nations report, ISIS is believed to be holding 3,500 people as slaves, most of which are women and children from the Yazidi community and other minority groups. On March 17, 2016, US Secretary of State John Kerry announces that the United States has determined that ISIS’ action against the Yazidis and other minority groups in Iraq and Syria constitutes genocide.

    September 18, 2018 – In its “Report of the independent international fact-finding mission on Myanmar,” the United Nations finds that “there is sufficient information to warrant the investigation and prosecution of senior officials” on charges of genocide against Rohingya Muslims.

    November 2018 – Two Khmer Rouge senior surviving leaders are found guilty of genocide and other charges against Cambodians between 1975 and 1979. Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan, now 92 and 87, are sentenced to life in prison by an international tribunal in Cambodia.

    January 23, 2020 The UN’s top court orders Myanmar to prevent acts of genocide against the country’s persecuted Rohingya minority and to stop destroying evidence, in a landmark case at The Hague. The case was brought to the International Court of Justice by the tiny West African nation of The Gambia, which in November alleged that Myanmar committed “genocidal acts.”

    May 16, 2020 Félicien Kabuga, one of the last key suspects in the Rwandan genocide, is captured in Asnières-Sur-Seine, a Paris suburb. Indicted in 1997 on seven counts including genocide, he has been a fugitive for more than 20 years. Kabuga is transferred to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) October 26. In an order published June 6, 2023, the IRMCT rules that Kabuga is no longer capable of “meaningful participation” in his trial.

    March 21, 2022 – US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announces that the United States has determined that the military of Myanmar committed genocide against the country’s Rohingya population in 2016 and 2017.

    December 29, 2023 – According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), South Africa has filed an application at the court to begin proceedings over allegations of genocide against Israel for its war against Hamas in Gaza. In a hearing on January 26, 2024, the ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza but stopped short of calling for Israel to suspend its military campaign in Gaza, as South Africa had requested.

    February 2, 2024 – The ICJ says that it will move forward with a 2022 case brought by Ukraine over Russia’s justification of its February 2022 invasion. Kyiv had asked the court to declare it did not commit genocide in eastern Ukraine – a claim made by Russia as a pretext for launching its attack.

    Remembering the Rwanda genocide, 25 years on

    Source link

  • Advocates Deliver Over 540,000 Signatures Demanding Increased Regulation to Combat Child Sexual Abuse Online

    Advocates Deliver Over 540,000 Signatures Demanding Increased Regulation to Combat Child Sexual Abuse Online

    The Petition’s Delivery to EU Institutions Marks the First Mass Public Outcry Calling for Legislators’ Attention Amid Global Debates

    Since 2022, proposed legislation to combat online child abuse — the Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse — has gone through a number of iterations, the latest of which child protection advocates view as a compromise too far. This echoes happenings globally, as legislation in countries like the United States and United Kingdom face roadblocks. However, with over 540,000 signatures, a petition submitted to the European Union demonstrates mass support to enact comprehensive legislation protecting children online.

    The Justice Initiative led the petition’s delivery in the European Parliament on December 6th attended by NGOs, survivors, and politicians including European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson, Members of the European Parliament, former United States Ambassador-at-Large John Cotton Richmond, and a Spanish Council Presidency representative.

    Advocates urged lawmakers to champion the rights of children. As survivor Mie Kohyiama said, “The compromise in the European Parliament is a clear step back in the protection of children online.”

    In 2022, there were 32 million reports globally of suspected online child sexual exploitation. Powerful interest groups have done everything they can to weaken the proposal, but survivors say, “Enough is enough.” This stance is in line with results of recent EU-wide surveys such as the Eurobarometer and one conducted by ECPAT-NSPCC, whose results show an overwhelming majority of citizens support legislation to prevent, detect, and report child sexual abuse online.

    As global debates continue, the European Union has a crucial role to play. With a user base higher than the United States, as Guido Fluri of the Justice Initiative said, “What the EU decides to do about the sexual abuse images on the internet will have repercussions around the world. This is an opportunity for global child protection.”

    With significant events set to occur internationally including landmark testimony on the issue of online child sexual abuse and exploitation to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee from five of the largest tech CEOs slated for January 31st, the legislation faces another round of revisions. At the event, calling on governments to act, former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons Richmond said, “We’re not going to stop this problem if we don’t hold the perpetrators, whether it be individuals or companies, accountable.”

    Ylva Johansson, European Commissioner for Home Affairs urged, “This is a decisive moment. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are deciding on the final text of the proposal. I urge you to listen to the silent majority, to listen to the survivors and support my proposal, to protect children from the worst crime imaginable.”

    Access photos from the event here.

    Source: The Justice Initiative

    Source link

  • Ahead of UN General Assembly, pharmaceutical industry underscores need for pandemic preparedness plans to support innovation and equity

    Ahead of UN General Assembly, pharmaceutical industry underscores need for pandemic preparedness plans to support innovation and equity

    • Global pharmaceutical industry trade body calls for pandemic preparedness plans to protect what worked well in response to COVID-19 pandemic and ensure equity in the roll out of vaccines and treatments.  

    • Industry underlines that future plans must ensure science and innovation can again deliver at record speed and scale. It is critical to ensure scientists continue to have unhindered access to pathogen data and supporting voluntary technology transfer. 

    • Pharmaceutical industry urges support for its proposals to ensure equitable access to vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics in lower income countries for future pandemics. 

    Newswise — 13 SEPTEMBER 2023, GENEVA – Ahead of discussions at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA78), the trade association representing the innovative pharmaceutical industry, the IFPMA, has warned that current pandemic preparedness plans should not undermine what worked well in response to COVID-19 and must support both “innovation and equity.” 

    The UNGA will see world leaders consider a political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response as one of three health-focused high-level meetings. IFPMA has called for current plans to be strengthened to support the development of vaccines and treatments that will be needed for the next pandemic, alongside practical measures to ensure there is equity in access to medical countermeasures in lower-income countries.  

    Pharmaceutical industry commitment to innovate to address future pandemics   

    Effective vaccines and treatments were critical in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent research estimates that if effective vaccines are rolled out 100 days after the discovery of a new pathogen, the likelihood of a pandemic as deadly as COVID-19 taking place in the next decade drops from 27.5% to 8.1%.   

    The pharmaceutical industry has committed to play an active role in plans to prevent and prepare for future pandemics, and is a partner to the 100 Days Mission, which sets the ambition to deliver safe and effective vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics within 100 days of a pandemic threat being identified.  

    Seven leading pharmaceutical companies have also established The INTREPID Alliance, working to accelerate progress in the discovery and development of new antiviral treatments for future pandemics. The Alliance seeks to have 25 antiviral therapies for respiratory viral diseases with pandemic potential ready for Phase II/III clinical trials by 2026.  

    Placing innovation at the heart of future pandemic preparedness  

    However, progress will require coordinated action by industry, governments, and multilateral organizations. This will include putting in place the right incentives to support the pipeline of vaccines and treatments that will be needed to respond to future pandemics; ensuring scientists have rapid and unhindered access to pathogens and their genetic information; and the ability for companies to partner on a voluntary basis to rapidly scale up production.   

    IFPMA calls for these measures to be integrated into pandemic preparedness plans, including in the pandemic preparedness Political Declaration being considered by the UN General Assembly, alongside the focus on ensuring greater equity of access.   

    To rapidly scale-up production and deliver vaccines and treatments to at risk groups in the most affected regions, alongside wider measures, the industry has underlined the importance of sustainably boosting local capabilities in underserved regions and the need to support voluntary collaborations between companies, necessary to rapidly scale up production. Almost 450 voluntary collaborations are in place to support the global supply of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Pharmaceutical companies continue to extend their manufacturing and supply chain footprint via partnerships and investments in such regions. 

     

    Delivering equitable access to medical countermeasures in future pandemics 

    IFPMA has reiterated that future pandemic plans must also tackle the inequity we saw in the roll out of vaccines and treatments in response to COVID-19.  

    Last year, the industry published plans to address this in the Berlin Declaration, proposing a commitment by pharmaceutical companies to reserve an allocation of real-time production of vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics for priority populations in lower-income countries. The plans were endorsed by the Developing Countries Vaccines Manufacturing Network and the Biotechnology Industry Organization. 

    The Berlin Declaration is designed to provide a concrete solution to avoid a small number of countries securing the majority of supply of vaccines and treatments in the early months of a pandemic. 

    Alongside this, the industry has repeated that governments of countries that host manufacturing facilities need to commit to facilitating the export and import of raw materials and finished products to prevent trade restrictions hampering equitable rollout as we saw in response to COVID-19.   

    Thomas Cueni, Director General of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations said:  

    “When the next pandemic hits, the success of our response will depend on how well we prepared and worked together in this moment between pandemics.  

    “The collective challenge facing us is to deliver innovation and equity: how to incentivize the research needed to develop the vaccines and treatments we will need, and how we make sure there is equitable access to these medical countermeasures across the globe when we have them.   

    “A new Political Declaration presents an opportunity to get all stakeholders around the table and get this right, but it is critical that we don’t undermine what worked well in response to COVID19 and instead strengthen the innovation ecosystem that underpins the development of new medicines and vaccines for when we need them most.” 

     

    Notes to editors 

    • The UNGA will see world leaders gather to consider political declarations on three important global health security priorities – pandemic preparedness, ending tuberculosis, and delivering universal healthcare coverage.  

    • The innovative pharmaceutical industry set out a vision for equitable access to medicines and vaccines in future pandemics in the Berlin Declaration. The Declaration includes the commitment to reserve an allocation of real-time production of vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics for priority populations in lower income countries and take measures to make them available and affordable. 

    • Following the publication of the Berlin Declaration, IFPMA also published five priorities for future pandemic preparedness and response, which set out action needed in the following areas: sustaining a thriving innovation ecosystem; building equitable access early on into pandemic responses; fostering sustainable manufacturing globally; removing barriers to trade; and ensuring greater country readiness. 

    • The 100 Days Mission was put forward by the UK during its G20 presidency in 2021. It aims to have safe and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics within 100 days of an epidemic or pandemic threat being identified. IFPMA and the pharmaceutical industry continue to be a supporter of the 100 Days Mission. 

    • The INTREPID Alliance is a group of seven pharmaceutical companies who are working to accelerate progress in the discovery and development of new antiviral treatments for future pandemics and in support of the 100 Days Mission. The Alliance seeks to have 25 antiviral therapies for viral diseases with pandemic potential ready for Phase II/III clinical trials by 2026. 

       

    About the IFPMA  

    The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) represents over 90 innovative pharmaceutical companies and associations around the world. Our industry’s almost three million employees discover, develop, and deliver medicines and vaccines that advance global health. Based in Geneva, IFPMA has official relations with the United Nations and contributes industry expertise to help the global health community improve the lives of people everywhere. For more information, visit ifpma.org. 

     

     

    International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations

    Source link

  • Immigration experts on Title 42, analysis of immigration policies, and other migrant news in the Immigration Channel

    Immigration experts on Title 42, analysis of immigration policies, and other migrant news in the Immigration Channel

    Title 42, the United States pandemic rule that had been used to immediately deport hundreds of thousands of migrants who crossed the border illegally over the last three years, has expired. Those migrants will have the opportunity to apply for asylum. President Biden’s new rules to replace Title 42 are facing legal challenges. The US Homeland Security Department announced a rule to make it extremely difficult for anyone who travels through another country, like Mexico, to qualify for asylum. Border crossings have already risen sharply, as many migrants attempted to cross before the measure expired on Thursday night. Some have said they worry about tighter controls and uncertainty ahead. Immigration is once again a major focus of the media as we examine the humanitarian, political, and public health issues migrants must face. 

    Below are some of the latest headlines in the Immigration channel on Newswise.

    Expert Commentary

    Experts Available on Ending of Title 42

    George Washington University Experts on End of Title 42

    ‘No one wins when immigrants cannot readily access healthcare’

    URI professor discusses worsening child labor in the United States

    Biden ‘between a rock and a hard place’ on immigration

    University of Notre Dame Expert Available to Comment on House Bill Regarding Immigration Legislation, Border Safety and Security Act

    American University Experts Available to Discuss President Biden’s Visit to U.S.-Mexico Border

    Title 42 termination ‘overdue’, not ‘effective’ to manage migration

    Research and Features

    Study: Survey Methodology Should Be Calibrated to Account for Negative Attitudes About Immigrants and Asylum-Seekers

    A study analyses racial discrimination in job recruitment in Europe

    DACA has not had a negative impact on the U.S. job market

    ASBMB cautions against drastic immigration fee increases

    Study compares NGO communication around migration

    Collaboration, support structures needed to address ‘polycrisis’ in the Americas

    TTUHSC El Paso Faculty Teach Students While Caring for Migrants

    Immigrants Report Declining Alcohol Use during First Two Years after Arriving in U.S.

    How asylum seeker credibility is assessed by authorities

    Speeding up and simplifying immigration claims urgently needed to help with dire situation for migrants experiencing homelessness

    Training Individuals to Work in their Communities to Reduce Health Disparities

    ‘Regulation by reputation’: Rating program can help combat migrant abuse in the Gulf

    Migration of academics: Economic development does not necessarily lead to brain drain

    How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected immigration?

    Immigrants with Darker Skin Tones Perceive More Discrimination

     

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Chinese ambassador sparks European outrage over suggestion former Soviet states don’t exist | CNN

    Chinese ambassador sparks European outrage over suggestion former Soviet states don’t exist | CNN


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    European countries are demanding answers from Beijing after its top diplomat in Paris questioned the sovereignty of former Soviet republics, in comments that could undermine China’s efforts to be seen as a potential mediator between Russia and Ukraine.

    The remarks by China’s ambassador to France Lu Shaye, who said during a television interview that former Soviet countries don’t have “effective status in international law,” have caused diplomatic consternation, especially in the Baltic states.

    Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia would be summoning Chinese representatives to ask for clarification, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis confirmed on Monday.

    Officials including from Ukraine, Moldova, France and the European Union also all hit back with their own criticisms of Lu’s comments.

    Lu made the remarks in response to a question whether Crimea, which was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014, was part of Ukraine.

    “Even these ex-Soviet countries don’t have an effective status in international law because there was no international agreement to materialize their status as sovereign countries,” Lu said, after first noting that the question of Crimea “depends on how the problem is perceived” as the region was “at the beginning Russian” and then “offered to Ukraine during the Soviet era.”

    The remarks appeared to disavow the sovereignty of countries that became independent states and United Nations members after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 – and come amid Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine under leader Vladimir Putin’s vision the country should be part of Russia.

    China has so far refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or call for a withdrawal of its troops, instead urging restraint by “all parties” and accusing NATO of fueling the conflict. It has also continued to deepen diplomatic and economic ties with Moscow.

    EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell said that China will be discussed during a foreign ministers meeting on Monday.

    “We have been talking a lot about China (over) the last days, but we will have to continue discussing about China because it’s one of the most important issues for our foreign policy,” Borrell said.

    The EU foreign ministers will also raise the situation in Moldova and Georgia, as those countries “see the war (in Ukraine) very close, they feel the threat,” he added.

    Moldova is a small country on Ukraine’s southwestern border that has been caught in the crossfire of Russia’s invasion.

    Georgia, which shares a frontier with Russia further east, has also come under the spotlight, after protests erupted over a controversial foreign agents bill similar to one adopted in the Kremlin to crack down on political dissent.

    “For us Georgia is a very important country and remember that it has specific security issues because its territory is partially occupied by Russia,” Borrell said.

    On Sunday, he tweeted that the remarks by the Chinese ambassador were “unacceptable” and “the EU can only suppose these declarations do not represent China’s official policy.”

    France also responded Sunday, with its Foreign Ministry stating its “full solidarity” with all the allied countries affected and calling on China to clarify whether these comments reflect its position, according to Reuters.

    Several leaders in former Soviet states, including Ukraine, were quick to hit back following the interview, which aired Friday on French station LCI.

    Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics called for an “explanation from the Chinese side and complete retraction of this statement” in a post on Twitter Saturday.

    He pledged to raise the issue during a meeting of EU foreign ministers Monday, where relations with China are expected to be discussed.

    “We are surprised about Chinese (ambassador’s) statements questioning sovereignty of countries declaring independence in ’91. Mutual respect & (territorial) integrity have been key to Moldova-China ties,” the Moldovan ministry said on its official Twitter account.

    “Our expectations are that these declarations do not represent China’s official policy.”

    “It is strange to hear an absurd version of the ‘history of Crimea’ from a representative of a country that is scrupulous about its thousand-year history,” Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukraine’s Presidential Administration, also wrote on Twitter.

    “If you want to be a major political player, do not parrot the propaganda of Russian outsiders…”

    When asked about Lu’s remarks at a regular press briefing Monday, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said China respects the “sovereign state status” of former Soviet Union countries.

    “After the Soviet Union dissolved, China was the one of the first countries to establish diplomatic ties with the countries concerned … China has always adhered to the principles of mutual request and equality in its development of amicable and cooperative bilateral relations,” spokesperson Mao Ning said, without directly directly addressing questions on Lu’s views.

    This is not the first time that Lu – a prominent voice among China’s so-called aggressive “wolf-warrior” diplomats – has sparked controversy for his views.

    “He’s been a well-known provocateur,” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a professor of political science at Hong Kong Baptist University.

    “But he’s a diplomat, he represents his government, so it reflects some thinking within China about the issue,” he said. adding, however, that it’s “not the time for China to put at risk its relationship” with France.

    The comments place Beijing under the spotlight at a particularly sensitive moment for its European diplomacy.

    Ties have soured as Europe has uneasily watched China’s tightening relationship with Russia and its refusal to condemn Putin’s invasion.

    Beijing in recent months has sought to mend its image, highlighting its stated neutrality in the conflict and desire to play a “constructive role” in dialogue and negotiation, further fueling debate in European capitals over how to calibrate its relationship with China, a key economic partner.

    That debate intensified this month following a visit to Beijing from French President Emmanuel Macron, who signed a raft of cooperation agreements with China during a trip he framed as an opportunity to start work with Beijing to push for peace in Ukraine.

    Voices in former Soviet states, where many remember being under Communist authoritarian rule, have been among those in Europe critical of such an approach.

    “If anyone is still wondering why the Baltic States don’t trust China to ‘broker peace in Ukraine,’ here’s a Chinese ambassador arguing that Crimea is Russian and our countries’ borders have no legal basis,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Landsbergis wrote on Twitter Saturday following Lu’s interview.

    Moritz Rudolf, a fellow and research scholar at the Paul Tsai China Center of the Yale Law School in the US, said China had been “increasingly successful in being perceived as a responsible power that might play a constructive role in a peace process in Ukraine.”

    “It remains to be seen whether the leadership in Beijing realizes how damaging those words may turn out to be for its ambitions in Europe if the Foreign Ministry does not distance the (People’s Republic of China) from the words of Ambassador Lu,” he said.

    He added that China’s “official position and practice” contradict Lu’s comments, including as China had not recognized the sovereignty of Russia over Crimea or any territory it annexed since 2014.

    Others suggested Lu’s remarks may also shed light on Beijing’s real diplomatic priorities.

    For Russia, giving up control of Crimea is widely seen as a non-starter in any potential peace settlement on Ukraine. This means Beijing may have a hard time giving a straight answer on this question, according to Yun Sun, director of the China Program at the Washington-based think tank Stimson Center.

    “The question is impossible to answer for China. China’s relationship with Russia is where its influence comes from,” she said, adding that didn’t mean Lu could have given a “better answer.”

    “Between sabotaging China’s relationship with Russia and angering Europe, (Lu) chose the latter.”

    Source link

  • Former US fighter pilot arrested in Australia over China training allegations ‘singled out,’ lawyer says | CNN

    Former US fighter pilot arrested in Australia over China training allegations ‘singled out,’ lawyer says | CNN

    The lawyer for former US Marine Corps pilot Daniel Duggan said he was “singled out” for extradition to the United States to face charges of training Chinese military fliers, even though other Australians provided military services to foreign states.

    Australia’s attorney-general last month accepted an extradition request from Washington for Duggan, who was arrested in rural Australia in October. He remains in custody in Sydney, and his next court date is on Feb. 13.

    Duggan is accused of training Chinese pilots to land on aircraft carriers, and faces charges of money laundering and breaking US arms control laws in the United States, according to a 2017 indictment unsealed in December.

    He was arrested the same week that Britain announced a crackdown on former military pilots training Chinese fliers.

    Duggan’s lawyer Dennis Miralis said outside a Sydney court on Tuesday that Duggan “contests and denies” the US allegations, and intended to contest the extradition request.

    “He has clearly, in our view, been singled out in circumstances where the Department of Defense has admitted that it has known of many Australian citizens who have performed foreign services in other jurisdictions with foreign states of a military nature,” he told reporters.

    The defense minister’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Australia launched a review into the obligations former Defence Force personnel have to protect state secrets, after reports Australians were among Western military pilots who had been approached to help train the Chinese military.

    Duggan was arrested in rural Australia in October after returning from China, where he had lived since 2014.

    He became an Australian citizen after serving in the Marines for 12 years, and later renounced his US citizenship.

    The final decision to surrender Duggan would be made by the attorney-general after the court decides whether he is eligible to be extradited, Miralis said.

    Source link

  • Idaho killings suspect waives extradition from Pennsylvania | CNN

    Idaho killings suspect waives extradition from Pennsylvania | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    The suspect in the November slaying of four University of Idaho students waived extradition from his home state of Pennsylvania to face murder charges in the state of Idaho.

    Bryan Kohberger arrived at Pennsylvania’s Monroe County Courthouse Tuesday by prison transport van, cuffed and in a prison jumpsuit, and was escorted to the back of the courthouse by armed law enforcement.

    Kohberger answered “no” when the judge asked if he had any mental health issues that would impede his ability to waive his extradition, and Kohberger’s father, also in the courtroom, shook his head “no.” The defendant signed the waiver at the defense table with shackles still around his wrist.

    Judge Worthington ordered Kohberger must be handed over to the custody of Latah County District Attorney’s Office within 10 days.

    Kohberger has invoked his right to be silent going forward, his state-appointed extradition attorney, Jason LaBar, said.

    Tuesday’s move was expected after the attorney earlier indicated his client planned to waive extradition from his home state and called the hearing a “formality proceeding.”

    All the commonwealth needed to prove is that his client resembles or is the person on the arrest warrant and that he was in the area at the time of the crimes, Monroe County Chief Public Defender LaBar told CNN’s Jean Casarez.

    Kohberger did not answer reporters’ questions as he was escorted in. He made eye contact with and nodded to his family seated in the first row of the courtroom behind the defense table as officers brought him in.

    Kohberger’s mother and father sat on either side of his sisters, accompanied by a representative from the public defender’s office, and when the judge told Kohberger he faces charges of murder when he returns to Idaho, his mother collapsed into his sister’s arms, both sobbing openly.

    Arrangements are currently being made to transfer Kohberger to Idaho, according to state police, but no timeline has been announced.

    “My heart goes out to the families of the victims, their friends, the community of Moscow and the University of Idaho,” Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Robert Evanchick said at a news conference. “No words can heal the pain associated with the loss of a child. Their young lives were ended far too soon.”

    The Monroe County Correctional Facility warden informed officials that Kohberger has been a “model prisoner” who has not caused any problems during his time in detention, according to a source familiar with Kohberger’s status at the facility.

    Kohberger, considered a maximum status prisoner, is being held in a cell monitored by an officer at all times. 

    He has been “quiet” and “followed directions,” according to the source. 

    Kohberger was arrested Friday in Pennsylvania, almost seven weeks after Kaylee Goncalves, 21; Madison Mogen, 21; Xana Kernodle, 20; and Ethan Chapin, 20, were found dead November 13 in an off-campus home in Moscow, Idaho.

    Kohberger was “shocked a little bit,” LaBar told CNN a day after his client was arrested. Kohberger is presumed innocent until proven guilty, LaBar added in a statement. He “believes he’s going to be exonerated.” LaBar said in an interview on NBC’s “Today” show Tuesday.

    Kohberger has been “very easy to talk to,” is “in a calm demeanor” and understands the proceedings, including what to expect concerning his transport to Idaho and what to expect when he gets there, LaBar said.

    Vehicles belonging to the University of Idaho victims were towed away on November 29, 2022, in Moscow, Idaho.

    The 28-year-old suspect last month finished his first semester as a PhD student in the criminal justice program at Washington State University’s campus in Pullman, about a 15-minute drive west of Moscow.

    He drove home to Pennsylvania for the holidays, accompanied by his father, LaBar told CNN on Saturday. The two arrived in the commonwealth around December 17.

    A white Hyundai Elantra authorities had been looking for in connection with the killings was found at Kohberger’s parents’ house, LaBar confirmed.

    Investigators focused on Kohberger as a suspect after tracing ownership of the Elantra, which had been seen in the area of the killings, to him, according to two law enforcement sources briefed on the investigation. Also, his DNA was matched to genetic material recovered at the home where the students were slain, the two sources said.

    An FBI surveillance team tracked Kohberger for four days before his arrest while law enforcement worked with prosecutors to develop enough probable cause to get a warrant, the two law enforcement sources said.

    Other than the DNA and the car, details such as whether Kohberger knew the victims – or a possible motive in the slayings – are not publicly known. The probable-cause affidavit, which would contain information to justify the suspect’s arrest, remains sealed until he appears in an Idaho court.

    With those details still unknown, much public interest has focused on Kohberger’s criminal justice studies.

    He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in 2020 and this year completed his Master of Arts in criminal justice at DeSales University in Pennsylvania, according to a spokesperson for the university.

    In a post removed from Reddit after his arrest was announced, a student investigator associated with a DeSales University study named Bryan Kohberger sought participants for a research project “to understand how emotions and psychological traits influence decision-making when committing a crime.”

    “In particular, this study seeks to understand the story behind your most recent criminal offense, with an emphasis on your thoughts and feelings throughout your experience,” the post read.

    Moscow Police Department Chief James Fry said after the arrest that the investigation of the complex, extensive case was not over.

    Investigators are still searching for pieces of evidence, Fry said, including the weapon used, believed to be a fixed-blade knife.

    “We developed a clear picture over time,” he said, “(but) be assured that the work is not done. This is just started.”

    Kohberger is being held without bail in Pennsylvania, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson said Friday. Once Kohberger is in Idaho, he is expected to make an initial appearance before a magistrate, and further hearings will be scheduled.

    Source link

  • After a day of courtroom bickering and confusion, SBF is coming home | CNN Business

    After a day of courtroom bickering and confusion, SBF is coming home | CNN Business

    Editor’s Note: A version of this story appeared in CNN Business’ Nightcap newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free, here.


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried has agreed to be extradited to the United States, where he faces eight federal counts of fraud and conspiracy that could land him behind bars for life.

    Jerone Roberts, the attorney representing Bankman-Fried in the Bahamas, confirmed that SBF’s next court appearance will be to complete the extradition process and is expected to happen this week — likely Tuesday.

    Here’s the deal: All signs pointed to a swift extradition to the US after people familiar with SBF’s plans said he intended to abandon his fight against returning to the US.

    But at Monday’s hearing in Nassau, the mood was pure chaos.

    The tl;dr version: It seems that SBF’s US lawyers worked out an agreement with Bahamian prosecutors to drop the extradition fight, which would have taken months, if not years, to play out.

    But SBF’s local defense lawyer, Roberts, said he wasn’t included in that plan, and claimed prosecutors wouldn’t share the US indictment with him. Prosecutor Franklyn Williams dismissed Roberts’ accusation, saying that it was “not to be believed.”

    A representative for SBF’s American lawyers told me it was “tough to give specifics while relying on the Bahamian courts.

    At the end of the hearing, the understandably frustrated magistrate judge cleared the courtroom so that Bankman-Fried could call his US attorneys with his Bahamian attorney present.

    KEY CONTEXT

    SBF had initially planned to fight efforts to return him to the United States. He has repeatedly denied knowingly defrauding customers, while admitting to managerial mistakes at FTX, his crypto exchange, and Alameda, its sister trading house (both of which are now bankrupt).

    But then he was denied bail in the Bahamas, meaning he wouldn’t be able to fight extradition from the comfort of his luxury home. Instead, he’d have to stay in the country’s notorious Fox Hill prison — a place the US State Department has described as overcrowded, dirty and lacking medical care. Its crowded cells often lack mattresses and are “infested with rats, maggots, and insects,” according to a recent report. Toilet access is, at times, nonexistent.

    After a week of that, SBF is ready to face the music on US soil.

    To be sure, the federal detention facility in Brooklyn where SBF could end up while awaiting trial isn’t exactly the Ritz. Inmates, lawyers and human rights advocates say the conditions inside that facility are also inhumane, citing overcrowding, frequent loss of heating and poor sanitary conditions overall. But he could also make another attempt at bail before a US court… It seems either of those options are preferable to an interminable stay at Fox Hill.  

    Epic Games, maker of the hit video game “Fortnite,” will pay a record $520 million to settle US government allegations that it tricked millions of players, including children and teens, into making unintended purchases and that it violated a children’s privacy law.

    It is the largest fine the Federal Trade Commission has ever imposed, the agency said Monday.

    Well, the votes are in: Twitter users think Elon Musk should step down as CEO of the platform, according to a (highly unscientific) survey of Musk’s followers.

    57.5% of respondents said yes, Musk should step down, while, 42.5% voted no. Musk did say he would abide by the results, though as of this typing he hadn’t said whether he was stepping down or indicated who might replace him.

    For those keeping track at home: It’s now been two chaotic months of Musk-era Twitter. In that time, Musk has:

    • Laid off about half of Twitter’s staff.
    • Given an ultimatum to the remaining staff that they need to do “extremely hardcore” work or leave.
    • Fired employees who disagreed with him and publicly shamed former employees who were engaged in difficult moderation discussions as part of the “Twitter Files.”
    • Started, stopped and then restarted a revised user-verification system that costs $8 a month for a blue check.
    • Frequently changed Twitter’s rules by executive fiat and with no notice, banning people who violate the new rules — including several tech journalists and an account that tracked his jet.
    • Spread a conspiracy theory about the violent attack on Paul Pelosi.
    • Welcomed back some of the platform’s permanently banned accounts, including former President Donald Trump and at least one prominent neo-Nazi.
    • Rolled out and then promptly retreated on a policy that would prevent users from sharing links to other social media on Twitter.

    In summary: Musk appears to be making it up as he goes along.

    That’s not very reassuring for advertisers, which make up the vast majority of Twitter’s revenue. The company is on pace to lose $4 billion a year thanks to an advertiser exodus, estimates Dan Ives, analyst at Wedbush Securities.

    A successor won’t be easy to find. One of Musk’s first orders of business as CEO was to gut Twitter’s C-suite — the executive ranks who would, in normal times, be natural candidates for the top job.

    “No one wants the job who can actually keep Twitter alive. There is no successor,” Musk tweeted. “The question is not finding a CEO, the question is finding a CEO who can keep Twitter alive.”

    And even if he recruits externally, you’d need an iron stomach to take the helm of the financially and reputationally damaged social media platform, which Musk bought for $44 billion. Any new CEO will still have to answer to Musk, the sole board director.

    RELATED: Elon Musk’s management of Twitter has “severely damaged” market sentiment around Tesla, and risks sparking a backlash from advertisers and consumers, a Wall Street analyst warned.

    Enjoying Nightcap? Sign up and you’ll get all of this, plus some other funny stuff we liked on the internet, in your inbox every night. (OK, most nights — we believe in a four-day work week around here.)

    Source link

  • Sam Bankman-Fried to appear in court Monday to drop extradition fight | CNN Business

    Sam Bankman-Fried to appear in court Monday to drop extradition fight | CNN Business



    CNN
     — 

    Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried is expected to appear in a Bahamas court on Monday to reverse his decision to contest extradition to the US, a person familiar with the matter told CNN.

    The New York Times also reported that Bankman-Fried is expected to agree to extradition to the US, citing a person briefed on the matter.

    CNN has reached out to Bankman-Fried’s lawyers, and the Bahamas Attorney General.

    The Bahamas police PIO Superintendent Chrislyn Skippings told CNN on Sunday, “If he does go to court tomorrow it would be at Nassau street court complex,located on Nassau street and South streets.”

    Last Tuesday, federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York charged Bankman-Fried with eight counts of fraud and conspiracy. Bankman-Fried could face up to 115 years in prison if convicted on all eight counts against him, though he likely wouldn’t get the maximum sentence.

    On top of that, US market regulators filed civil lawsuits accusing Bankman-Fried of defrauding investors and customers, saying he “built a house of cards on a foundation of deception while telling investors that it was one of the safest buildings in crypto.”

    Bankman-Fried remains in the Bahamas, where FTX was based, and was arrested last Monday night. He was arraigned Tuesday, and a Bahamian judge denied his request for bail, saying that he posed a flight risk. His extradition to the United States could take weeks.

    – Allison Morrow contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Mexico issues arrest warrant for US citizen accused of killing her friend while on vacation in San Jose del Cabo | CNN

    Mexico issues arrest warrant for US citizen accused of killing her friend while on vacation in San Jose del Cabo | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    An arrest warrant has been issued in Mexico for a woman suspected of fatally assaulting a friend from North Carolina while on vacation last month in San Jose del Cabo, a prosecutor says.

    Shanquella Robinson, 25, was traveling with college friends from Winston-Salem State University when she died while staying in a vacation rental property, said her father, Bernard Robinson.

    Robinson, with six friends, arrived October 28 in Mexico, according to a Thursday statement by Mexican prosecutors working on extradition proceedings with their country’s attorney general and Foreign Affairs Ministry.

    Evidence shows the death resulted from “a direct attack, not an accident,” and involved a female friend of the victim, the prosecutors said.

    Mexican authorities have said the death occurred in San Jose del Cabo. The FBI said it occurred in nearby Cabo San Lucas, and the agency has not answered CNN’s request for comment.

    Mexican officials have not named the suspect but confirmed she is a US citizen who is believed to be in the United States. No one has been charged in the case, and authorities have not released the names of Robinson’s friends.

    CNN has reached out to the US State Department, FBI and US Justice Department for comment.

    Lawyer explains two ways Shanquella Robinson investigation can go


    02:08

    – Source:
    CNN

    The extradition process was underway for the suspect, the attorney general for Mexico’s Baja California Sur, Daniel de la Rosa, told local media Wednesday.

    “There is already an arrest warrant issued for the crime of femicide to the detriment of the victim and against an alleged, responsible for these acts, a friend of hers,” de la Rosa said Wednesday.

    The death did not result from a “quarrel” but from “a direct aggression that this person made,” de la Rosa said.

    “We are already carrying out all the relevant procedures, both the Interpol file and the extradition request,” he said.

    The arrest warrant is valid in Mexico, prosecutors said, adding they are in consultation with federal government officials in both countries about the extradition request.

    Mexico and the US have a longstanding extradition treaty and a history of cooperation on such matters, CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson said Friday.

    “On the one hand, you could see Mexico engage in the prosecution,” Jackson said. “On the other, we certainly have a statute in the United States that would provide for our government to be involved. … In the event that you go overseas and an American citizen is ultimately killed by another American citizen, there’s a statute that could provide for the prosecution to take place in this country.”

    Robinson last spoke to her mother, Salamondra, on the phone on the morning of October 28, her father told CNN last week. The next day, Shanquella Robinson was found dead at her vacation rental, US and Mexican authorities said.

    The cause of death was “severe spinal cord injury and atlas luxation,” which is instability or excessive movement in the uppermost neck vertebrae, states a copy of her death certificate obtained by CNN affiliate WBTV. She was found unconscious in the living room of the rental residence on October 29, the document states.

    The death certificate classified Robinson’s death as “accidental or violent,” noting the approximate time between injury and death was 15 minutes.

    Video posted online appears to show a physical altercation inside a room between Robinson and another person. It’s not clear when the video was taken or if it depicts the moment she suffered the fatal injury.

    It is Robinson seen in the video being thrown to the floor and beaten on the head, Bernard Robinson confirmed to CNN.

    It’s unclear what led to the altercation or how many people were in the room at the time. It’s also unclear if anyone tried to intervene.

    The FBI Charlotte Field Office has opened an investigation into Shanquella Robinson’s death, it has confirmed.

    Her family had been waiting for more information from her friends and Mexican authorities, her father said a week ago.

    “You took my only jewel from me,” he told CNN by phone. “You put a big hole in my heart. The only thing I can do is fight for her; I cannot let her die in vain.”

    Source link

  • US VP Harris flying to Philippine island near disputed sea

    US VP Harris flying to Philippine island near disputed sea

    PUERTO PRINCESA, Philippines — U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris is flying to a western Philippines island province at the edge of the South China Sea on Tuesday to amplify America’s support to its treaty ally and underline U.S. interest in freedom of navigation in the disputed waters, where it has repeatedly chastised China for belligerent actions.

    A new confrontation erupted in the contested waterway ahead of her visit when the Philippine navy alleged a Chinese coast guard vessel had forcibly seized Chinese rocket debris as Filipino sailors were towing it to their island.

    The long-seething territorial conflicts involving China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have long been regarded as an Asian flashpoint and a delicate fault line in the U.S.-China rivalry in the region.

    In talks with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in Manila on Monday, Harris reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to defend the Philippines under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, which obligates the allies to help defend any side which comes under attack.

    “An armed attack on the Philippines armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the South China Sea would invoke U.S. Mutual Defense commitments,” Harris told Marcos Jr. “And that is an unwavering commitment that we have to the Philippines.”

    Marcos Jr. thanked Harris, saying that with the upheavals in the region and beyond, “this partnership becomes even more important.”

    In Palawan’s main city of Puerto Princesa, Harris would visit a small fishing community called Tagburos and discuss with impoverished villagers the impact of illegal fishing on their livelihood and promote responsible fishing.

    The Philippine coast guard said it would welcome Harris on board one of its biggest patrol ships, the BRP Teresa Magbanua, at a seaport in Puerto Princesa, where she is scheduled to deliver a speech to underscore the importance of international law, freedom of navigation and unimpeded commerce in the South China Sea.

    She would announce an additional aid of $7.5 million to Philippine maritime law enforcement agencies to boost their capacity to counter illegal fishing, carry out sea surveillance and help in search and rescue efforts, including in the South China Sea, according to a statement issued by the vice president’s office.

    The Philippine coast guard would also get additional U.S. help to upgrade its vessel traffic management system for better safety at sea. The Philippines is also now receiving real-time surveillance data to be able to detect and counter illicit activities at sea in a project by the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, an informal strategic bloc that involves the U.S., India, Japan and Australia, according to Harris’s office said.

    While the U.S. lays no claims to the strategic waterway, where an estimated $5 trillion in global trade transits each year, it has said that freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea is in America’s national interest.

    In March, U.S. Indo-Pacific commander Adm. John C. Aquilino told The Associated Press that China has fully militarized at least three of several islands it built in the disputed South China Sea, arming them with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile systems, laser and jamming equipment in an increasingly aggressive move that threatens all nations operating nearby.

    Aquilino spoke with AP onboard a U.S. Navy reconnaissance aircraft that flew near Chinese-held island bases in the South China Sea. During the patrol, the P-8A Poseidon plane was repeatedly warned by Chinese radio callers that it illegally entered what they said was China’s territory and ordered the plane to move away.

    In Sunday’s incident in the Spratlys, the most hotly contested area of the South China Sea, Vice Adm. Alberto Carlos, commander of the Philippine military’s Western Command, said a Chinese coast guard ship twice blocked a civilian boat manned by Philippine navy personnel before seizing the debris it was towing off Thitu island.

    China denied there was a forcible seizure and said the debris, which it confirmed was from a recent Chinese rocket launch, was handed over by Philippine forces after a “friendly consultation.”

    Chinese coast guard ships have blocked Philippine supply boats delivering supplies to Filipino forces in the disputed waters in the past but seizing objects in the possession of another nation’s military constitutes a more brazen act.

    China has warned Washington not to meddle in what it calls a purely Asian dispute and has said that U.S. Navy and Air Force patrols and combat exercises in the disputed waters were militarizing the South China Sea.

    In July, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called on China to comply with a 2016 arbitration ruling that invalidated Beijing’s vast territorial claims on historical grounds in the South China Sea.

    China has rejected the 2016 decision by an arbitration tribunal set up in The Hague under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea after the Philippine government complained about China’s increasingly aggressive actions in the disputed waters. Beijing did not participate in the arbitration, rejected its ruling as a sham and continues to defy it.

    Source link

  • VP Harris to visit, support Philippine island amid sea feud

    VP Harris to visit, support Philippine island amid sea feud

    MANILA, Philippines — Vice President Kamala Harris would underscore America’s commitment to defending treaty ally the Philippines with a visit that starts Sunday and involves flying to an island province facing the disputed South China Sea, where Washington has accused China of bullying smaller claimant nations.

    After attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Thailand, Harris will fly to Manila Sunday night to meet President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. the next day for talks aimed at reinforcing Washington’s oldest treaty alliance in Asia and strengthening economic ties, a senior U.S. administration official said in an online briefing ahead of the visit.

    On Tuesday she’ll fly to Palawan province, which lies along the South China Sea, to meet local fishermen, villagers, officials and the coast guard. She is the highest-ranking U.S. leader so far to visit the frontier island at the forefront of the long-seething territorial disputes involving China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.

    The Philippine coast guard is expected to welcome Harris onboard one of its biggest patrol ships, the BRP Teresa Magbanua, in Palawan, where she would deliver a speech before coast guard, police, military and government officials, according to coast guard spokesperson Commodore Armand Balilo.

    Harris will underscore “the importance of international law, unimpeded commerce and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea,” the U.S. official said and added, in response to a question, that Washington was not concerned how Beijing would perceive the visit.

    “China can take the message it wants,” the U.S. official said. “The message to the region is that the United States is a member of the Indo-Pacific, we are engaged, we’re committed to the security of our allies in the region.”

    Philippine Ambassador to Washington Jose Manuel Romualdez said Harris’s trip to Palawan shows the level of America’s support to an ally and concern over China’s actions in the disputed sea.

    “That’s as obvious as you can get, that the message they’re trying to impart to the Chinese is that ‘we support our allies like the Philippines on these disputed islands,’” Romualdez told The Associated Press. “This visit is a significant step in showing how serious the United States views this situation now.”

    Washington and Beijing have long been on a collision course in the contested waters. While the U.S. lays no claims to the strategic waterway, where an estimated $5 trillion in global trade transits each year, it has said that freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea is in America’s national interest.

    China opposes U.S. Navy and Air Force patrols in the busy waterway, which Beijing claims virtually in its entirety. It has warned Washington not to meddle in what it says is a purely Asian territorial conflict — which has become a delicate frontline in the U.S.-China rivalry in the region and has long been feared as a potential Asian flashpoint.

    In July, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called on China to comply with a 2016 arbitration ruling that invalidated Beijing’s vast territorial claims in the South China Sea and warned that Washington is obligated to defend treaty ally Philippines if its forces, vessels or aircraft come under attack in the disputed waters.

    China has rejected the 2016 decision by an arbitration tribunal set up in The Hague under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea after the Philippine government complained in 2013 about China’s increasingly aggressive actions in the disputed waters. Beijing did not participate in the arbitration, rejected its ruling as a sham and continues to defy it.

    Harris’ visit is the latest sign of the growing rapport between Washington and Manila under Marcos Jr., who took office in June after a landslide electoral victory.

    America’s relations with the Philippines entered a difficult period under Marcos’ predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, who threatened to sever ties with Washington and expel visiting American forces, and once attempted to abrogate a major defense pact with the U.S. while nurturing cozy ties with China and Russia.

    When President Joe Biden met Marcos Jr. for the first time in September in New York on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, he stressed the depth by which the U.S. regards its relations with the Philippines despite some headwinds.

    “We’ve had some rocky times, but the fact is it’s a critical, critical relationship, from our perspective. I hope you feel the same way,” Biden said.

    “We continue to look to the United States for that continuing partnership and the maintenance of peace in our region,” Marcos Jr. told Biden. “We are your partners. We are your allies. We are your friends.”

    The rapprochement came at a crucial time when the U.S. needed to build a deterrent presence amid growing security threats in the region, Romualdez said.

    Philippine military chief of staff Lt. Gen. Bartolome Bacarro said last week that the U.S. wanted to construct military facilities in five more areas in the northern Philippines under a 2014 defense cooperation pact, which allows American forces to build warehouses and temporary living quarters within Philippine military camps. The Philippines Constitution prohibits foreign military bases but at least two defense pacts allow temporary visits by American forces with their aircraft and Navy ships for joint military exercises and training.

    The northern Philippines is strategically located across a strait from Taiwan and could serve as a crucial outpost in case tensions worsen between China and the self-governed island.

    While aiming to deepen ties, the Biden administration has to contend with concerns by human rights groups over Marcos Jr. The Philippine leader has steadfastly defended the legacy of his father, a dictator who was ousted in a 1986 pro-democracy uprising amid human rights atrocities and plunder.

    Harris also plans to meet Vice President Sara Duterte, daughter of Marcos’ predecessor, who oversaw a deadly anti-drugs crackdown that left thousands of mostly poor suspects dead and sparked an International Criminal Court investigation as a possible crime against humanity. The vice president has defended her father’s presidency.

    Given the Biden administration’s high-profile advocacy for democracy and human rights, its officials have said human rights were at the top of the agenda in each of their engagements with Marcos Jr. and his officials.

    After her meeting Monday with Marcos Jr., Harris plans to meet civil society activists to demonstrate “our commitment and continued support for human rights and democratic resilience,” the U.S. official said.

    Source link