radiofree.asia

Category: China

  • Hong Kong activists granted asylum in U.K., Australia

    Two Hong Kong pro-democracy advocates have announced that they have been granted asylum: former lawmaker Ted Hui in Australia and activist Tony Chung in the U.K.

    Both men were convicted of violating Hong Kong’s restrictive national security law, which has quashed dissent after being imposed by Beijing in 2020 in the wake of massive pro-democracy protests. They are among dozens of activists who have fled Hong Kong authorities.

    Hui, a former member of the Legislative Council who left Hong Kong while he was out on bail in 2020, was tried in absentia and given a nearly four-year jail term in 2022. He told RFA at the time that his trial was “a political trial, which was entirely predictable and unsurprising. The real culprits are the tyrannical regime, not those who protest against it.”

    Since Hui’s conviction, Hong Kong officials have questioned his relatives, placed a HK$1 million ($128,211 USD) bounty on his capture, and, earlier this year, seized his assets.

    In this May 28, 2020, file photo Pro-democracy lawmaker Ted Hui, center, struggles with security personnel at the main chamber of the Legislative Council during the second day of debate on a bill that would criminalize insulting or abusing the Chinese anthem in Hong Kong.
    In this May 28, 2020, file photo Pro-democracy lawmaker Ted Hui, center, struggles with security personnel at the main chamber of the Legislative Council during the second day of debate on a bill that would criminalize insulting or abusing the Chinese anthem in Hong Kong.
    (AP)

    Chung, who as a teenage secondary school student convened a group that advocated for Hong Kong’s independence from China, was also sentenced to a nearly four-year term. He was released early for good behavior.

    In an interview with RFA after he fled to Britain in 2023, Chung said that after his release, national security police tried to hire him as an informant, and would seek him out for a meeting every two to four weeks, driving him in an SUV with drawn curtains to be interrogated in an unknown location.

    “They wanted me to confess, and prove to them that I had nothing to hide and that I wasn’t engaging in any further secessionist activities,” he said.

    Chung has also been put on a wanted list, and anonymous letters touting the HK$1 million reward for his capture were sent to his U.K. neighbors earlier this year.

    Hong Kong activist Tony Chung takes part in a protest, against Hong Kong's new national security law, the Basic Law Article 23, recently approved by Hong Kong lawmakers, in London, March 23, 2024.
    Hong Kong activist Tony Chung takes part in a protest, against Hong Kong’s new national security law, the Basic Law Article 23, recently approved by Hong Kong lawmakers, in London, March 23, 2024.
    (Kin Cheung/AP)

    Hong Kong’s government did not comment directly on the cases, but a spokesperson said Saturday that “any country that harbors Hong Kong criminals in any form shows contempt for the rule of law, grossly disrespects Hong Kong’s legal systems and barbarically interferes in the affairs of Hong Kong.”

    Includes reporting from Agence France-Presse.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Warmongering Astrologers: Sky News and The War Cabinet

    Twenty-four-hour news networks have demonstrated that surfeit kills discretion. The search for fillers, distractions, and items that will titillate, enrage, or simply sedate is an ongoing process. Gone are the days when discerning choices were made about what constituted worthy news, an admittedly difficult problem that would always lead to priorities, rankings, and judgments that might well be challenged. At the very least, news could be kept to specific time slots during the day, meaning that audiences could be given some form of rationing. Such an approach culminated in that most famous of occasions on April 18, 1933, when the BBC’s news announcer declared with a minimum of fuss that “There is no news.” This was followed by piano music playing out the rest of the segment.

    On the pretext of coming across as informed and enlightened, such networks have also bought into astrology masquerading as sound comment. The commentators are intended to lend an air of respectability to something that either has not happened or something they have little idea about. Their credentials, however, are advertised like glitzy baubles, intended to arrest the intelligence of the viewing audience long enough to realise they have been had.

    Sky News Australia is one such cringing example. The premise of The War Cabinet, which aired on August 11, was clear: those attending it were simply dying for greater militarism and war preparedness on the part of the Australian government, while those preferring diplomacy would be treated like verminous denialists yearning for some sand to bury their heads in. The point was less a matter of news than prediction and speculation, an exercise of mass bloviation. To lend a wartime flavour to proceedings, the event was staged in the Cabinet Room of Old Parliament House, which host Chris Uhlmann celebrated as the place Australia’s Prime Minister, John Curtin, and his ministers steered the nation through World War II.” Former ministers, defence leaders, and national security experts were gathered “around the Cabinet table to answer a single question: is Australia ready for war?”

    The stale view from Alexander Downer, Australia’s longest and, in many ways, most inconspicuous foreign minister, did little to rustle or stir. Liberal democracy, to be preserved in sacred glory, needed Australia to be linked to a “strong global alliance led by the United States”. That such an alliance might itself be the catalyst for war, notably given expectations from Washington about what Australia would do in a conflict with China, was ignored with an almost studious ignorance. Instead, Downer saw quite the opposite. “If this alliance holds, if it’s properly cemented, if it is well-led by the Americans… and if we, as members of the alliance, are serious about making a practical contribution to defence through our spending and our equipment, then we will maintain a balance of power in the world.”

    His assessment of the current Albanese government was somewhat dotty. “I think the government here in Australia has made a major mistake by playing, if you like, politics with this issue of the dangers of the region and losing the balance of power because they don’t want to be seen as too close to President Trump.” Any press briefing from Defence Minister Richard Marles regarding the anti-China AUKUS pact would ease any anxiety on Downer’s part. Under the Albanese government, sovereignty has been surrendered to Washington in a way so remarkable it could be regarded as treasonous. While the Royal Australian Navy may never see a single US nuclear-powered submarine, let alone a jointly constructed one, US naval shipyards are rolling in the cash of the Australian taxpayer.

    Former Labor Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, lamented that Australia’s strategic outlook in the Indo-Pacific was “deteriorating rather markedly,” a formulation utterly vague and a mere parroting of just about every other hawkish analyst that sees deterioration everywhere. Thankfully, we had Strategic Forum CEO Ross Babbage to give some shape to it, which turned out to be that ragged motif of the Yellow Horde to the North, readying to strike southwards. The Oriental Barbarians, with a tinge of Communist Red, were the primary reasons for a worsening strategic environment, aided by their generous military expenditure. With almost a note of admiration, Babbage felt that China was readying for war by adjusting its economy and readying its people “for tough times that may come”.

    The venal, ever-noisy former Home Affairs Department Secretary Mike Pezzullo, who has an unhealthy appetite for warring matters, drew upon figures he could not possibly know, along with everybody else who has tried to read the inscrutable entrails of international relations. Chances of conflict in the Indo-Pacific by 2027, for instance, were a “10 to 20 per cent” likelihood. Sky News, living down to its subterranean standards, failed to mention that Pezzullo had misused his position as one of Canberra’s most powerful bureaucrats to opine on ministerial appointments via hundreds of private text messages to Liberal Party powerbroker Scott Briggs. The Australian Public Service Commission found that Pezzullo had, among other things, used his “duty, power, status or authority to seek to gain a benefit or advantage for himself” and “failed to maintain confidentiality of sensitive government information” and “failed to act apolitically in his employment”. His employment was subsequently terminated, and his Order of Australia stripped in September last year—fine credentials for balanced commentary on the strategic outlook of a state.

    Other talking heads were keen to push spine-tingling prospects of wicked regimes forming alliances and making mischief. Oleksandra Molloy, billed as an aviation expert, thought the “emerging axis” between Russia, North Korea, and Iran was “quite concerning”. Former naval officer and defence pundit Jennifer Parker urged the fattening of the defence budget to “develop a degree of autonomy”.

    Retired Australian Army major general Mick Ryan was most unimpressed by the “zero risk” mentality that seemed to pervade “pretty much every bit of Australian society”. The Department of Defence needed to take greater risks in terms of procurement, innovation, and reducing “the amount of time it takes to develop capability”. His fantasy was positively Spartan in its military totalitarianism: an Australian state nurturing “a spirit of innovation that connects military, industry and society”. The cry for conscription must be just around the corner.

    Chief war monger and think tanker Peter Jennings aired his all too familiar views on China, which have become pathological. “It is utterly false for our government to say that somehow they have stabilised the relationship with China. Things may have improved on the trade front, but that is at the expense of ignoring the strategic developments which all of our colleagues around the table have spoken about, which is that China is positioning for war.” And there you had it: an hour of furious fretting and wailing anxiety with all figures in furious agreement, with a resounding boo to diplomacy and a hurrah for astrology.

    The post Warmongering Astrologers: Sky News and The War Cabinet first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Palau president calls exclusion of PIF partners a ‘missed opportunity’

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr says it is “a missed opportunity” not to include partners at next mont’s Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders’ summit.

    However, Whipps said he respects the position of the Solomon Islands, as hosts, to exclude more than 20 countries that are not members the regional organisation.

    The Solomon Islands is blocking all external partners from attending the PIF leaders’ week in Honiara from September 8-12.

    The decision means that nations such as the United States and China (dialogue partners), and Taiwan (a development partner), will be shut out of the regional gathering.

    Whipps Jr told RNZ Pacific that although he has accepted the decision, he was not happy about it.

    “These are Forum events; they need to be treated as Forum events. They are not Solomon Islands events, [nor] are Palau events,” Whipps said.

    “It is so important for any Pacific [Islands] Forum meeting that we have all our partners there. It is a missed opportunity not to have our partners attending the meeting in the Solomon Islands, but they are the host.”

    Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele (right) at the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Nuku'alofa, Tonga. August 2024
    Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele with PIF Secretary-General Baron Waqa (left) at the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Nuku’alofa, Tonga, last year. Image: Lydia Lewis/RNZ Pacific

    ‘Space’ for leaders
    Last week, Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele said the decision gave leaders space to focus on a review of how the PIF engaged with diplomatic partners, through reforms under PIF’s Partnership and Engagement Mechanism.

    Solomon Islands opposition MP Peter Kenilorea Jr said that the move was about disguising the fact that the Manele administration was planning on blocking Taiwan from entering the country.

    “The way I see it is definitely, 100 percent, to do with China and Taiwan,” he said.

    Kenilorea said he was concerned there would still be bilateral meetings on the margins, which would be easy for countries with diplomatic missions in Solomon Islands, like China and the US, but not for Taiwan.

    “There might be delegations coming through that might have bilaterials that make a big deal out of it, the optics and the narratives that will be coming out of those, if they do happen [they] are out of the control of the Pacific Islands Forum architecture, which is another hit to regionalism.”

    Palau, Tuvalu and Marshall Islands are the remaining Pacific countries that have ties with Taiwan.

    The Guardian reported that Tuvalu was now considering not attending the leaders’ summit.

    Tuvalu disappointed
    Tuvalu Prime Minister Feleti Teo said he would wait to see how other Pacific leaders responded before deciding whether to attend. He was disappointed at the exclusion.

    New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he was concerned.

    “We have advocated very strongly for the status quo. That actually the Pacific Islands Forum family countries come together, and then the dialogue partners, who are from all over the world can be present as well.”

    President Whipps said all would be welcome, including China, at the Pacific Islands Forum next year hosted in Palau.

    He said it was important for Pacific nations to work together despite differences.

    “Everybody has their own sovereignty, they have their own partners and they have their reasons for what they do. We respect that,” he said.

    “What’s most important is we find ways to come together.”

    Know the reason
    Kenilorea said other Solomon Islands MPs knew the deferral was about China and Taiwan but he was the only one willing to mention it.

    Solomon Islands switched diplomatic ties from Taiwan to China in 2019. In 2022 the island nation signed a security pact with China.

    “If [the deferral] had happened earlier in our [China and Solomon Islands] relationship, I would have thought you would have heard more leaders saying how it is.

    “But we are now six years down the track of our switch and leaders are not as vocal as they used to be anymore.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Tibetan youth protest China minister visit to India | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Hong Kong court hears closing arguments in Jimmy Lai trial

    Closing arguments began Monday in the trial of Jimmy Lai, the pro-democracy media chief who founded the now-shuttered Apple Daily newspaper in Hong Kong.

    The 77-year-old Lai is charged with illegal foreign collusion and conspiring with others to issue seditious publications under Hong Kong’s restrictive National Security Law, which was imposed by Beijing in 2020. He could face life in prison if convicted. Lai has denied the charges.

    Members of the Police Counter Terrorism Response Unit stand guard as they escort a prison van believed to be carrying Jimmy Lai to the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts building in Hong Kong, Aug. 18, 2025.
    Members of the Police Counter Terrorism Response Unit stand guard as they escort a prison van believed to be carrying Jimmy Lai to the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts building in Hong Kong, Aug. 18, 2025.
    (Tyrone Siu/Reuters)

    Prosecutors on Monday said that Lai had “unwavering intent to solicit sanctions, blockades, or other hostile activities” against Hong Kong and China from foreign governments, a violation of the National Security Law. Prosecutor Anthony Chau referenced Lai’s travel to the United States around the time of the Hong Kong protests in 2019, including a trip in July of that year when he met with Mike Pence, then the U.S. vice president.

    In testimony last year, Lai denied asking anything specific of Pence. He said he also met with then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, asking Pompeo for the U.S. “not to do something, but to say something. To voice out its support for Hong Kong.”

    He also said he would not have encouraged foreign sanctions after the law was enacted on June 30, 2020.

    The U.S. government has called for Lai’s release as recently as February. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said the U.S. remarks were “openly supporting anti-China and Hong Kong-disrupting element Jimmy Lai.”

    Closing arguments in the trial were postponed twice last week, on Thursday for bad weather and on Friday to address concerns about Lai’s health. Lai had reported experiencing heart “palpitations” and feeling like he might collapse, his lawyer said.

    Lai’s health has been a longstanding concern for his family and supporters. In February, his son Sebastien said that more than four years in prison, much of the time in solitary confinement, had worsened his father’s medical issues. “His body is breaking down … It’s akin to torture,” Sebastien Lai told Reuters.

    Prosecutors on Monday said that Lai had been prescribed medication and was wearing a heart rate monitoring device during court proceedings. The prosecution’s opening statement is expected to wrap up Tuesday.

    Includes reporting from Agence France-Presse and the Associated Press.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Hong Kong court hears closing arguments in Jimmy Lai trial

    Closing arguments began Monday in the trial of Jimmy Lai, the pro-democracy media chief who founded the now-shuttered Apple Daily newspaper in Hong Kong.

    The 77-year-old Lai is charged with illegal foreign collusion and conspiring with others to issue seditious publications under Hong Kong’s restrictive National Security Law, which was imposed by Beijing in 2020. He could face life in prison if convicted. Lai has denied the charges.

    Members of the Police Counter Terrorism Response Unit stand guard as they escort a prison van believed to be carrying Jimmy Lai to the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts building in Hong Kong, Aug. 18, 2025.
    Members of the Police Counter Terrorism Response Unit stand guard as they escort a prison van believed to be carrying Jimmy Lai to the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts building in Hong Kong, Aug. 18, 2025.
    (Tyrone Siu/Reuters)

    Prosecutors on Monday said that Lai had “unwavering intent to solicit sanctions, blockades, or other hostile activities” against Hong Kong and China from foreign governments, a violation of the National Security Law. Prosecutor Anthony Chau referenced Lai’s travel to the United States around the time of the Hong Kong protests in 2019, including a trip in July of that year when he met with Mike Pence, then the U.S. vice president.

    In testimony last year, Lai denied asking anything specific of Pence. He said he also met with then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, asking Pompeo for the U.S. “not to do something, but to say something. To voice out its support for Hong Kong.”

    He also said he would not have encouraged foreign sanctions after the law was enacted on June 30, 2020.

    The U.S. government has called for Lai’s release as recently as February. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said the U.S. remarks were “openly supporting anti-China and Hong Kong-disrupting element Jimmy Lai.”

    Closing arguments in the trial were postponed twice last week, on Thursday for bad weather and on Friday to address concerns about Lai’s health. Lai had reported experiencing heart “palpitations” and feeling like he might collapse, his lawyer said.

    Lai’s health has been a longstanding concern for his family and supporters. In February, his son Sebastien said that more than four years in prison, much of the time in solitary confinement, had worsened his father’s medical issues. “His body is breaking down … It’s akin to torture,” Sebastien Lai told Reuters.

    Prosecutors on Monday said that Lai had been prescribed medication and was wearing a heart rate monitoring device during court proceedings. The prosecution’s opening statement is expected to wrap up Tuesday.

    Includes reporting from Agence France-Presse and the Associated Press.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Hong Kong activist Tony Chung says he has been granted asylum in the UK

    Chung, one of youngest people to get jail sentence under security law, posts Home Office letter agreeing he has ‘well-founded fear of persecution’

    The Hong Kong independence activist Tony Chung says he has been granted asylum in the UK, two years after fleeing the Chinese region.

    Chung, 24, revealed the news on his Instagram page on Sunday, the day after the former Hong Kong legislator Ted Hui said he had been granted asylum in Australia. Both Chung and Hui are among dozens of pro-democracy activists targeted with arrest warrants and 1m Hong Kong dollar bounties by authorities.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Chinese vessels collide in “atrocious” South China Sea gaffe

    China is suppressing news at home that one of its destroyers and a coast guard corvette collided in the South China Sea, likely with loss of life, as they harassed and intimidated a Philippine law enforcement boat. The incident occurred 10nm from Scarborough Shoal on 11 August. The whole episode was caught on video by […]

    The post Chinese vessels collide in “atrocious” South China Sea gaffe appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Trump’s Tariffs Backfire: India Moves Closer To China

    US President Donald Trump is a very contradictory leader. He constantly implements policies that go against his stated goals.

    The perfect example of this is how Trump has treated BRICS, the Global South-led organization that now represents the majority of the planet.

    Trump sees BRICS as a major threat to US hegemony, and, in particular, the dominance of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

    The US president has openly threatened members of BRICS to try to stop them from seeking alternatives to the dollar.

    In a press conference at the White House on July 8, Trump complained (emphasis added):

    BRICS was set up to hurt us. BRICS was set up to degenerate our dollar, and take our dollar as the standard, take it off as the standard.

    The post Trump’s Tariffs Backfire: India Moves Closer To China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Why did teen bullying in China trigger a mass protest? | RFA Perspectives (Radio Free Asia)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Unusual Nvidia deal on China exports raises new security risks

    US President Donald Trump upended decades of US national security policy, creating an entirely new category of corporate risk, when he made a deal with Nvidia  to give the US government a cut of its sales in exchange for resuming exports of banned AI chips to China. Historically, the US government made decisions to control…

    The post Unusual Nvidia deal on China exports raises new security risks appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Photos: A look back at jailed Hong Kong pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai

    The founder of Hong Kong’s now shuttered Apple Daily newspaper, Lai, 77, who is also a British citizen, has been in jail since December 2020.

    Lai is currently standing trial for “collusion with foreign forces” under Hong Kong’s National Security Law.

    Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien has warned that “time is running out” for his father’s health, and called on Britain and the United States to push for his release.

    Human rights groups say Lai’s trial is a “sham” and part of a broad crackdown on dissent in Hong Kong.

    The hearings are scheduled to last eight days.

    Jimmy Lai walks through the Stanley prison in Hong Kong, on July 28, 2023.
    Jimmy Lai walks through the Stanley prison in Hong Kong, on July 28, 2023.
    (Louise Delmotte/AP)
    Jimmy Lai, owner of the Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, poses next to dry runs of a soon to be launched Taiwanese newspaper taped to his office wall, April 7, 2003, in Taipei.
    Jimmy Lai, owner of the Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, poses next to dry runs of a soon to be launched Taiwanese newspaper taped to his office wall, April 7, 2003, in Taipei.
    (Jerome Favre/AP)
    This photo taken on Feb. 7, 2011, shows Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai outside his company's headquarters in Hong Kong.
    This photo taken on Feb. 7, 2011, shows Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai outside his company’s headquarters in Hong Kong.
    (Mike Clarke/AFP)
    Media tycoon Jimmy Lai, attends a pro-democracy protesters march in Admiralty on Aug. 31, 2019 in Hong Kong.
    Media tycoon Jimmy Lai, attends a pro-democracy protesters march in Admiralty on Aug. 31, 2019 in Hong Kong.
    (Billy H.C. Kwok/Getty Images)
    Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai poses during an interview at the Next Digital offices in Hong Kong, June 16, 2020.
    Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai poses during an interview at the Next Digital offices in Hong Kong, June 16, 2020.
    (Anthony Wallace/AFP)
    Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai and a copy of Apple Daily's July 1, 2020, edition during an interview in Hong Kong, July 1, 2020.
    Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai and a copy of Apple Daily’s July 1, 2020, edition during an interview in Hong Kong, July 1, 2020.
    (Vincent Yu/AP)
    Hong Kong police officers block the entrance to Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.
    Hong Kong police officers block the entrance to Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.
    (Apple Daily via Getty Images)
    Hong Kong police officers search the office of Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.
    Hong Kong police officers search the office of Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.
    (Apple Daily via Getty Images)
    Hong Kong police officers search the office of Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.
    Hong Kong police officers search the office of Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.
    (Apple Daily via Getty Images)
    Jimmy Lai is escorted by Hong Kong police officers as they search the office of Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.
    Jimmy Lai is escorted by Hong Kong police officers as they search the office of Apple Daily newspaper on Aug. 10, 2020.
    (Apple Daily via Getty Images)
    Hong Kong media tycoon and Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai is escorted by the police for evidence collection on Aug. 11, 2020 in Hong Kong.
    Hong Kong media tycoon and Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai is escorted by the police for evidence collection on Aug. 11, 2020 in Hong Kong.
    (Anthony Kwan/Getty Images)
    Copies of the Apple Daily newspaper, with front pages featuring Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai, are displayed for sale at a newsstand in Hong Kong, Aug. 11, 2020.
    Copies of the Apple Daily newspaper, with front pages featuring Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai, are displayed for sale at a newsstand in Hong Kong, Aug. 11, 2020.
    (Kin Cheung/AP)
    Jimmy Lai, center, who founded the Apple Daily tabloid, is escorted by Correctional Services officers to get on a prison van before appearing in a court, in Hong Kong on Dec. 12, 2020.
    Jimmy Lai, center, who founded the Apple Daily tabloid, is escorted by Correctional Services officers to get on a prison van before appearing in a court, in Hong Kong on Dec. 12, 2020.
    (Kin Cheung/AP)
    Copies of the last issue of Apple Daily arrive at a newspaper booth in Hong Kong on June 24, 2021.
    Copies of the last issue of Apple Daily arrive at a newspaper booth in Hong Kong on June 24, 2021.
    (Vincent Yu/AP)
    In this image provided by The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong, an artist projection by Robin Bell protests China's crackdown on dissidents ahead of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics in Washington, Jan. 31, 2022.
    In this image provided by The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong, an artist projection by Robin Bell protests China’s crackdown on dissidents ahead of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics in Washington, Jan. 31, 2022.
    (Andre Chung/Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong via AP)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • NGOs urge Nandy to halt sale of Telegraph over China links

    Letter from rights groups says RedBird Capital’s proposed takeover threatens media pluralism and transparency

    A group of nine human rights and freedom of expression organisations have called on the culture secretary to halt RedBird Capital’s proposed £500m takeover of the Telegraph and investigate the US private equity company’s ties to China.

    The international non-governmental organisations, which include Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Borders and Article 19, have written to Lisa Nandy arguing that RedBird Capital’s links with China “threaten media pluralism, transparency and information integrity in the UK”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Corporate Landlords Are Taking Over Society, Making Life Unaffordable

    Landlords are taking over society. For many average working people, it has become impossible to buy a house. And the cost of renting housing has become prohibitively expensive. This problem is especially bad in the United States. But it’s not only a problem in the US; it’s a problem in many countries around the world — especially in Western countries in North America and Europe, whose economies have become financialized. In the United States, for instance, the largest landlord is not an individual; it’s a massive Wall Street investment firm: Blackstone, the private equity fund.

    Blackstone owned more than 300,000 rental housing units in the US as of 2023. The number has only increased since then.

    Blackstone and other Wall Street investment funds have been gobbling up residential housing. Then they ratchet up the cost of rent, which has fueled homelessness, as many people are being evicted from their homes.

    The post Corporate Landlords Are Taking Over Society, Making Life Unaffordable appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Pakistan inducts first Chinese-built Z-10ME attack helicopters

    Pakistan has formally introduced Chinese-manufactured Z-10ME attack helicopters into service. Field Marshal Asim Munir, the Chief of Army Staff, presided over an induction ceremony for the new attack helicopters at Multan Garrison on 2 August. Afterwards, Munir witnessed a firepower demonstration by new Z-10MEs at the Muzaffargarh Field Firing Ranges. As per an announcement from […]

    The post Pakistan inducts first Chinese-built Z-10ME attack helicopters appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • US to take cut of Nvidia, AMD chip sales to China

    Nvidia and AMD have agreed to give the US government 15 per cent of revenue from sales to China of advanced computer chips like Nvidia’s H20 that are used for artificial intelligence applications, a US official has confirmed. US President Donald Trump’s administration halted sales of H20 chips to China in April, but Nvidia last…

    The post US to take cut of Nvidia, AMD chip sales to China appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Video: China pressures Bangkok gallery to remove Uyghur, Tibetan, Hong Kong artwork

    A Bangkok gallery is pressured — at China’s request — to remove and redact artwork about Beijing’s treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans and Hong Kongers from an exhibit on authoritarian governments, according to a report by the Reuters news agency.

    Video: China pressures Bangkok gallery to remove Uyghur, Tibetan, Hong Kong artwork

    In what the artists called the latest attempt by Beijing to silence critics overseas, the Bangkok Arts and Cultural Center changed multiple works by artists in exile in the exhibit on authoritarian governments collaborating across borders.

    According to Reuters, works removed included a multimedia installation by a Tibetan artist, while other pieces had been altered, with the words “Hong Kong”, “Tibet” and “Uyghur” redacted, along with the names of the artists.

    Artists names are redacted following what the Bangkok Arts and Cultural Center (BACC) said in an email was 'pressure from the Chinese Embassy', at the exhibition titled 'Constellation of Complicity: Visualising the Global Machinery of Authoritarian Solidarity' in Bangkok, Aug. 7, 2025.
    Artists names are redacted following what the Bangkok Arts and Cultural Center (BACC) said in an email was ‘pressure from the Chinese Embassy’, at the exhibition titled ‘Constellation of Complicity: Visualising the Global Machinery of Authoritarian Solidarity’ in Bangkok, Aug. 7, 2025.
    (Athit Perawongmetha/Reuters)

    Sai, co-founder of Myanmar Peace Museum, the organization that put together the exhibition, said the removed pieces included Tibetan and Uyghur flags and postcards featuring Chinese President Xi Jinping, as well as a postcard depicting links between China and Israel.

    Earlier this year Thailand repatriated 40 Uyghurs to China. U.N. experts had warned they would be at risk of torture, ill-treatment and irreparable harm.

    Reporting by Reuters


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • China wants US to relax AI chip-export controls for trade deal

    China wants the United States to ease export controls on chips critical for artificial intelligence as part of a trade deal before a possible summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, the Financial Times reported on Sunday. Chinese officials have told experts in Washington that Beijing wants the Trump administration to relax export restrictions…

    The post China wants US to relax AI chip-export controls for trade deal appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Trump’s Tariffs against Latin America


    President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters after signing an executive order about the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games, in the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus, August 5, 2025

    Trump’s threat of imposing a crippling 50 per cent tariff on all Brazilian imports to the United States took everyone by surprise, especially, considering the US enjoys a trade surplus with the South American giant (surplus it has enjoyed since 2007). Lula made it clear that Brazil would reciprocate in kind.

    Trump tariffs against Brazil are in line with his overall policy of applying tariffs on all countries in the world. Under Trump US imperialism seeks to establish a global system that it suits itself such that it can impose or change any rule any time it wants and attack any country it dislikes.

    As with many other global institutions, Trump, following in the footsteps of previous US administrations, is prepared to run roughshod over World Trade Organisation rules that US imperialism itself was central in establishing in 1995.

    Thus, his attack on Mexico is not surprising either, country with which it has a substantial trade deficit caused by its southern neighbour’s incorporation into US supply chain arrangements ever since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

    The US has had a trade deficit with Mexico ever since 1995, exactly one year after Nafta.

    To Trump’s chagrin, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has vigorously defended her country’s sovereignty and has skilfully navigated US provocations.

    To the charge of Mexico being a drug-trafficking hub, she has pointed out to US negotiators that the “the US itself harbours cartels, is the largest narcotic consumer market, exports the majority of armaments used by drug barons and hosts money-laundering banks.” She has also resolutely refused the deployment of US troops on Mexican soil.

    Back in January 2025, Trump threatened Colombia with sanctions and 25 per cent tariffs on all its exports to the US. When Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro did not allow US planes carrying deported Colombians in, refusing to receive them in military aircraft and handcuffed, Trump threatened to make the tariffs “extendable to 50 per cent [plus] exhaustive inspections of Colombian citizens and merchandise, and visa sanctions for Colombian officials” plus “sanctions on banking and other areas.”

    In response, Petro announced he would impose 50 per cent tariffs on US products entering the Colombian market. Furthermore, Petro, condemning the war on Gaza, argued that Colombia should break from Nato to avoid alliances involving militaries that “drop bombs on children.”

    By the end of July Trump announced 50 per cent tariffs on imports of copper but when he realised it would substantially increase costs for US manufacturers — making its price nose-dive by 22 points with US traders facing heavy losses — he was forced to abandon it. He amended the tariff to apply only on semi-manufactured products such as wire and tube, excluding refined copper (until January 2027). In 2024, Chile, Canada and Peru accounted for more than 90 per cent of US refined copper imports.

    On July 7, in a tweet Trump declared that Jair Bolsonaro was being witch-hunted by the Brazilian authorities. Bolsonaro is being tried for insurrection, coup plotting and his involvement in staging a January 6 Capitol assault-style riot against parliament and the judiciary buildings in Brasilia. Trump claimed Bolsonaro “is not guilty of anything, except having fought for the people.” Trump’s message sought to depict Bolsonaro as a political leader being politically persecuted, but nothing could, of course, be further from the truth.

    Lula’s immediate response was that the US president’s statements were an interference in Brazil’s internal affairs and demanded respect for Brazilian sovereignty: “The defence of democracy in Brazil is a matter for Brazilians.” And in a sharp barb, Lula added: “We do not accept interference or tutelage from anyone. We have solid and independent institutions. No-one is above the law. Especially those who attack freedom and the rule of law.”

    Trump’s attacks against Latin America are part and parcel of US imperialism’s efforts to destabilise governments it doesn’t like.

    Adding to the comprehensively tight sanctions regime being applied to Cuba and Venezuela and to a lesser extent to Nicaragua, Trump is now targeting Cuban and especially Venezuelan migrants, falsely presenting them as members of criminal organisations.

    And, in a human-trafficking operation run with far-right El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, Trump is sending hundreds of them to CECOT, El Salvador’s concentration camp.

    Reversing decades of US encouragement of migration aimed at weakening their governments, Trump has terminated the Temporary Protection Status (TPS) of hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans, Cubans and Venezuelans, a key component of the ICE campaign of terror against Latinos.

    The Trump administration, following from his Democrat and Republican predecessors, is seeking to expand its military presence in Latin America as much and as quickly as possible. It has deployed troops on Mexico’s southern border; Ecuador’s President Daniel Noboa has succeeded in getting the constitution amended to allow the US to have military bases on the Galapagos islands; the US holds regular and massive joint military manoeuvres in Guyana (where it has at least one military base); and the US also has a number of military bases in Central America, Colombia, the Caribbean, Peru, and a new military base in Argentina.

    Though Trump’s tariffs on Latin America are chaotic and simplistic, they have a strategic objective: to slow down, reduce and if possible, eliminate altogether the drive to a multipolar world.

    In short, to stop China’s drive to foster a new geopolitics not determined by the weaponisation of the dollar, economic sanctions or military aggression. One in which relations are not dictated by coercive zero-sum games but by voluntary collaboration in mutually beneficial economic relationships.

    US imperialism (and the Trump government) find the ever-closer relationship and collaboration between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac) and China simply intolerable. US officials repeatedly argue that China’s trade relations and co-operation with Latin America represent an existential threat to the US.

    Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua have forged strong links with China and so has Brazil. Lula was presiding over the Brics summit in Rio de Janeiro when Trump launched the dig about fascist Bolsonaro.

    Claudia Sheinbaum attended as an observer and Mexico is rapidly developing links with China. In Peru China has built the port of Chancay (a Belt and Road initiative) — the largest deepwater port on the western coast of South America.

    Honduras has cut ties with Taiwan and recognised the People’s Republic of China and Colombia has joined the Brics.

    Furthermore, China is the main trading partner of South America and the second-largest trading partner of Central America. Trump has threatened all Brics countries with 100 per cent tariffs.

    The US Southern Command recognises that China’s trade with Latin America has gone “beyond raw materials and commodities to include traditional infrastructure (road, bridges, ports) and ‘new infrastructure’: electric vehicles, telecommunication, and renewable energy.”

    Benefits never offered by the US to countries in its “backyard.” This ever-closer relationship explains Trump’s aggression towards the countries mentioned, to browbeat them economically and politically into drawing away from China.

    A US success story is Panama, where President Jose Mulino’s capitulation to Trump’s threats to retake the Panama Canal by military means led him to accept Washington’s pressure to exit China’s Belt and Road Initiative, “one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever conceived.”

    These contradictions are as a matter of course presented as the outcome of US-China rivalry, inevitable between these superpowers.

    However, such a framework is deceptive since the nature of the contradictions stems from two conceptions of how to organise the global economy.

    The US considers itself the “indispensable nation” which has always engaged in zero-sum games whose outcome produces winners (the US and its economically developed accomplices) and losers (the vast majority of humanity who reside in the global South).

    Trump’s tariffs intend to keep it that way, while Latin America’s orientation towards Asia, China and the Brics is correctly pushing in the opposite direction: to a fairer, multipolar world.

    The post Trump’s Tariffs against Latin America first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • China pressures Bangkok gallery to remove Uyghur, Tibetan, Hong Kong artwork | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • China pressures Bangkok gallery to remove Uyghur, Tibetan, Hong Kong artwork | Radio Free Asia (RFA)


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Power of Future Thinking

    In conversation about the global future with with Professor Zhang WeiWei of Fudan University — one of the most respected, outspoken and productive Chinese social science scholars.

    It is of paramount attention that we focus on the future – on the world that can be and develop to benefit humankind, including how we can strengthen the most important global organisation and adherence to its Charter.

    Remember, the UN turns 80 on October 24, 2025.

    Professor Zhang’s superb qualities are emphasised by the fact that the New York Times has characterised Zhang as a “propagandist-academic.”

    The post The Power of Future Thinking first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Why Western Hegemony is Over

     The tariff truce between China and the United States is set to end in August. What do you forecast will happen after that? And what will happen to trade relations between China and the US for the rest of US President Donald Trump’s second term?

    The United States learned that it can’t impose its will on China. The rare earths threat by itself was enough to cause the US to reconsider. So, almost immediately after putting on the high tariffs, the US backed down. And both sides know that each has some chokeholds on the other. For that reason, we might expect the two sides to maintain certain limits on the trade frictions in the years ahead. There will be, therefore, some kind of agreement, but it won’t stick in the details, and frictions will continue to wax and wane, with neither side definitively imposing its will on the other. The basic reason is that both sides have a mutual gain from continued trade. I’m hopeful that a measure of rationality will therefore prevail.

    The biggest challenge, of course, is the behaviour of the US. The US started this trade war. This is not two sides fighting each other, but rather the US fighting China. We should remember that. The US needs to show some prudence at this point. I do suspect that there is a chastened view among many senior US officials. Trump himself is unpredictable. He has a very short attention span. Agreements with Trump don’t stick. So, I don’t foresee a quiet period, but I do foresee some limits to the competition because each side can do damage to the other and both sides have a strong reason to achieve some cooperation.

    Let me add one more point. From a long-term point of view, China certainly should not regard the US as a growth market for its exports. The US is going to restrict China’s exports to the US one way or another. The relationship will not be harmonious. The US will not be friendly to China, or trustworthy. China should just take care that it’s expanding its exports to other markets, and should not be overly focused on trying to break through to the US market, or even to Europe for that matter. The rapid growth of China’s exports will be with Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, west Asia, Central Asia, Latin America – not with the US and western Europe.

    What is your forecast for the US midterm elections, and will it be a tough battle for Trump? Can you comment on how divided the US is compared to before the election of Trump last year?

    I think that the Democrats will likely regain control of one or both houses of Congress, because in midterm elections that is generally the pattern.

    Even without getting deeply specific about the current context, the prevailing party that holds the White House almost always loses ground in the midterms, and the Republican majority in both houses of Congress is very small. Having said this, we should also understand that Trump is ruling mainly by executive decree, not by legislation. Even if the Democrats regain one or both houses of Congress, Trump will continue with his decrees.

    The US currently does not have a functioning constitutional system in my view. It is one-person rule by declarations of emergencies by Trump. The orders generally start with the statement: “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered”. This is a kind of soft dictatorship, not a constitutional system. The lower courts object, but the Supreme Court lets Trump have his way. The Congress is nearly moribund.

    Even if the Democrats regain some control of the House or the Senate, it won’t stop a lot of what Trump is doing. I should also add that while Americans are polarised, they generally dislike both political parties. Most Americans are unhappy about the direction of the country. They’re distrustful of the politicians. Our political institutions are not functioning properly and that’s why there’s a high level of distrust.

    Another point that I think is important to understand is that the swings between the Democrats and the Republicans do not change US foreign policy. [Former president Barack] Obama started the anti-China policies in his term. Then came Trump’s tariffs in his first term. Biden kept those Trump tariffs and had a hostile policy towards China. Now Trump is picking up where Biden left off. The deep state drives foreign policy, not public opinion or presidents.

    In sum, I don’t have much hope that some change in the midterm elections will change the direction of US politics very much. Even a change in the White House in four years is not likely to change US politics very much. Our problems are deep seated. Our institutional failings are deep. It’s going to take perhaps 20 years to work through this. This is not a Trump phenomenon by itself.

    What effect will the One Big Beautiful Bill have on the US economy?

    The One Big Beautiful Bill weakens the US in two ways. First, it adds to the already large budget deficits by making additional tax cuts that mainly benefit rich Americans and the corporate class. These tax cuts raise the budget deficit substantially and are partially offset by cuts in healthcare benefits for the poorest Americans. The bill, therefore, is dramatically unfair and unwise in its impacts on the deficit and inequality.

    Second, the legislation phases out some of the modest earlier US efforts towards low-carbon energy and modernisation of infrastructure. So, the legislation marks a US retreat from leadership on 21st-century technologies. Basically, the Trump administration is a gift to China, with Trump’s policies saying to China, “China should lead the way on climate safety, low-carbon energy, electric vehicles and all of the green and digital technologies that the world needs, while the US will ignore the future”.

    So, none of this is a big, beautiful bill. It is a mess that reflects the failures of the American political system.

    What are the implications of the fallout between billionaire Elon Musk and Trump?

    Trump doesn’t have long-term relations with any individual other than his immediate family. Trump falls out with everybody. Remember Steve Bannon? He was once Trump’s closest adviser. That came to an end quickly. Almost all Trump advisers get fired at one point or another. Trump is not a person with long-term loyalties to anybody.

    The individual feuds don’t mean very much. Breaking with Musk does not mean breaking with Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley put Trump back into the White House with enormous financial backing for Trump’s campaign. There are still tens of billions of dollars of government contracts going also to Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and other Big Tech operators.

    The basic relationship between Silicon Valley and Washington remains intact because the Pentagon believes that it needs AI and can’t pursue AI on its own. While Trump has cut support for EVs, including Tesla, the Pentagon will continue to rely on Musk’s SpaceX for many years to come. And the same is true of the Pentagon’s reliance on Big Tech’s AI capacities generally.

    You have mentioned in other interviews that Trump lacked a coherent strategy in foreign policy, including his handling of China. Why do you think this? And what do you see ahead for China-US relations?

    The most fundamental trend in the world economy is the rapid rise of the non-Western economies, led by China and including Russia, India, Southeast Asia and, in future decades, Africa. The US is flailing about trying to maintain its dominance in a world in which the emerging economies are rising rapidly. The US will not be able to prevent the emergence of multipolarity, but it will try. Trump will try one thing or another, but without success or coherence. Multipolarity has already arrived.

    The broad pattern of economic convergence – in which the emerging economies narrow or close the income gap with the high-income countries of the West – means that Western hegemony is over. This is leading to deep frustration, not only in the US political class but in Europe as well.

    China vastly outproduces the United States in advanced industrial goods, such as EVs, solar power, wind power, advanced nuclear power, batteries, low-cost 5G and many other key technologies. China incorporates AI into advanced manufacturing processes more than the US.

    Many European leaders feel that if they stick with the US against China and Russia, then maybe the Western hegemony will continue. This is delusional in my view, but nonetheless creates a lot of noise, friction and risks of conflict. None of it is a coherent strategy, however.

    The US has no strategy to stay ahead of China. In fact, the US can’t succeed in that. We hear a lot of US sabre-rattling against China, Russia and the BRICS countries. This is all dangerous. I think the heated rhetoric by itself can become a self-fulfilling prophecy of war. There are a lot of ignorant people in the US political leadership, and I worry very much about their naivety and delusions.

    This, in my view, is essentially the origin of the “trade war”. The US decided during 2010-2015 that China is now a threat to US primacy. The US has tried a lot of things to block China’s continued rise, including: a military build-up in East Asia; export restrictions on hi-tech goods, especially advanced chips; economic sanctions on key Chinese companies; investment restrictions by US companies, and ownership restrictions on Chinese companies in the US; high tariffs against China’s exports; and others. But none of this stops China’s rise. China’s development results from hard work, ingenuity, high rates of saving, high rates of investment, very effective long-term planning and a very skilled, very entrepreneurial generation of business leaders, especially young business leaders. Those fundamental strengths continue despite America’s anti-China policies.

    Trump’s policies are accelerating the move of top scientists to China. My overall view is that Trump is creating a lot of noise and some real dangers, but with no real strategy and no likelihood of success in holding back China’s rise. That’s a good thing. The rest of the world benefits from China’s economic success, including the US.

    In your last Open Questions interview, you talked about “the deep state”, a complex vested interest group in industry, the military and other spheres. Does the deep state want military conflict with China? And do foreign governments – such as China and Russia – believe in the existence of a deep state, which many dismiss as a conspiracy theory?

    The deep state means the permanent security system of the United States and its partners in Europe and in East Asia, including Japan, Korea and other places where the US has military bases and other security institutions. It includes the military, the CIA, the military contractors and the politicians who serve the military-industrial complex.

    Does such a deep state exist? Yes. The US has around 750 overseas military bases and many of them are in East Asia. The US has many major military contractors with hundreds of billions of dollars of annual business with the US government. The US fights overt and covert wars pretty much non-stop, some of which are proxy wars (in which the US arms and funds Ukraine to fight Russia), and sometimes open conflicts with heavy US involvement, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has the extensive global networks of the CIA and other intelligence and covert institutions. All of this constitutes the deep state. Presidents come and go but the underlying foreign policy is consistent and set largely out of view of the public, and without any reference to public opinion.

    When Obama replaced [US president George] Bush Jr, and Trump replaced Obama, and Biden replaced Trump, and Trump replaced Biden, on the PR level there was alleged to be change, but in fact very little policy change occurred. For example, how much foreign policy change was there when Obama succeeded Bush Jr? Very little. Obama launched many wars, just as Bush had done. Obama’s team actively participated in the coup in Ukraine in 2014 that set the path for the Ukraine war. Obama went to war against Libya. Obama gave the CIA the order to overthrow the Syrian government. All of this was a continuation of the policies of the Bush period.

    Trump continued most of the same policies. Trump continued to build up the Ukraine military. The Trump administration dismissed the Minsk 2 agreement that could have prevented the escalation of the Ukraine war. There was not any major change between Obama and Trump.

    When Biden came in, their claim again was that there would be a new foreign policy, but it didn’t happen. What did Biden do with China? He continued Trump’s tariffs. He continued Trump’s hardline rhetoric. Biden absurdly divided the world between the so-called democracies and autocracies, which was an incredibly naive approach, as I said from the beginning.

    Biden escalated the Ukraine war. He rejected all attempts at peace negotiations, including the Istanbul process that could have ended the Ukraine war in 2022. When it came to the Middle East, Biden was complicit in Israel’s ongoing genocide. So, Biden did very little different from Bush Jr, Obama and Trump before him.

    Now, Trump has returned. What’s the real difference? Trump is different in style, in his unpredictability, nastiness, self-dealing and endless flip-flops. Yet, in terms of basic foreign policy, Trump is not very different from his predecessors.

    This is the sense in which deep state means an ongoing consistency of the US security institutions that run American foreign policy. American foreign policy is not determined by public opinion, or Congress, or even the president in large part. Look instead to the CIA, the Pentagon and the other parts of the deep state.

    The deep state also determines the politics of US vassal states. Many observers consider Japan to be a US-occupied country, with Japan’s foreign policy basically subservient to the US. One can say the same about many other countries. Where the US has military bases, the host countries tend to act like occupied countries, bending their own foreign policy to that of the US.

    The US deep state is profoundly arrogant, thinking that it can have its way around the world. The US deep state thinks that it can dominate not only US allies, which is typically true, but also China, Russia, Iran, Brazil and others. When US arrogance becomes too strong, we face the danger of disaster. That’s what happened in Ukraine. The US thought that it could push Russia around to its will. It could not. The attempt to assert US power in Ukraine led to war.

    US arrogance deeply worries me. Trump certainly is not a strategist. There’s no long-term plan. The US is playing poker, but not very well or wisely. It often bluffs. The whole approach can lead to war.

    China is now drafting its economic policies for the next five years. You have advised many countries before. What is your advice to China in the face of this tension and the global tariff war?

    My main advice to China is look to the non-Western world for the strongest partnerships in trade, investment and diplomacy, at least for a while. The US-led alliance (US, Canada, Britain, EU, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand) is around 13 per cent of the world population. China is another 17 per cent. The remaining 70 per cent of the world – in Asia, Africa and Latin America – wants good and strong economic and diplomatic relations with China. That 70 per cent of the world population wants to modernise, and China provides the means for those countries to achieve rapid growth and modernisation. China is key to the global energy transition to zero-carbon energy, especially in the markets outside the US and Europe.

    The emerging and developing economies of Asia, Africa and Latin America will be the markets for China’s rapid export growth in the years ahead. China will play a vital global role in these economies in building advanced green and digital economies, using Chinese cutting-edge technologies.

    This will be a great win-win for the world because China will continue to grow rapidly while also empowering rapid growth throughout the emerging and developing nations. Sadly, in my view, the US will not play much of a role in that modernisation in the next generation. The US under Trump is withdrawing from green technologies, and from global responsibility.

    The US cannot compete with China for the global renewable energy market. The US can’t compete with China for the global digital connectivity market. The US can’t compete with China in fast rail or low-carbon ocean shipping. In all these sectors, Trump is handing world trade and leadership over to China.

    Regarding the US markets, China should certainly attempt to make a suitable trade deal with the US but China should not fret too much either way. The US is already a small part of China’s exports – perhaps around 10-12 per cent. That share of China’s exports will most likely decline further.

    I hope that I’m wrong and that the US regains some sense and rejoins the global effort for green transformation and re-establishes normal trade with China. Yet, I don’t think that’s going to happen for many years, and I don’t think that China can, or should, base its policies on a return to normal trade with the US.

    More specifically, I advocate expanding [China’s] Belt and Road Initiative. I advocate that China should deal with regional groups, including ASEAN, the African Union, the Arab League and the Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC). China’s relations with these regional groups can be very strategic, as the regional groups can, and should, spur the interconnectivity of infrastructure among all the members of the group. For China, it will be easier to interact with regional plans rather than one country at a time.

    In fact, no individual state in ASEAN, or the Middle East, or Latin America can modernise on its own without strong links with its neighbours through trade, finance and infrastructure. With ASEAN, for example, there really is the need for an ASEAN-wide energy system, not separate energy systems for Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. These countries need an interconnected power grid, and China will play a key role in achieving an ASEAN-wide grid. Therefore, China-ASEAN diplomacy is strongly win-win.

    I also believe that Hong Kong will have a huge and indeed unique leadership role in the global transformation. Hong Kong is vital for China’s growing links with ASEAN, the African Union, and beyond. The Greater Bay Area (GBA) combines Hong Kong’s world-class leadership in international finance, higher education and global management, with Shenzhen’s leadership in cutting-edge technologies, and the advanced manufacturing of Dongguan, Guangzhou and other GBA cities.

    Put these strengths together, and the GBA becomes the beating heart of the global green transformation, in zero-carbon energy, robotics, AI-based manufacturing, digital connectivity and much more. All of this will help to fuel China’s – and Hong Kong’s – rapid growth for the next generation.

    This year marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. How is the post-war world order changing and what will the new world order look like?

    There are three scenarios.

    One is that we create a truly multilateral world. For that, we need a United Nations 2.0. We need an upgraded international system in which all the major powers agree to invest in the international rule of law and peaceful resolution of conflicts. This will require an upgrade of the UN Security Council, and UN institutions more generally.

    I’d love to see a major UN campus in China, to help lead the green and digital transformation worldwide. I’d love to see China and India working together closely at the UN, including towards India’s seat in the UN Security Council. I’d like China to support the African Union to play a much larger role in global governance. I’d like to see China, Japan and Korea end the geopolitical divisions and form a strong alliance in northeast Asia. Most importantly in this scenario, the US and Europe accept the rising role of China, India and the rest of the non-Western world.

    A second scenario is that the Western world hunkers down. It goes protectionist and the US tries to divide the world into camps. This is perhaps the likely US strategy, but I think it is significantly worse for the US and the rest of the world than the first scenario. I think the US absolutely should abandon the idea of building competing camps.

    The third scenario is that we don’t have a global system at all, but rather increasing chaos from climate change, wars and geopolitical conflicts. This dire scenario is a real possibility.

    Any of these three trajectories is possible. We should be aiming for the first. The United States and Europe should take a deep breath, sigh and welcome the non-Western world into a shared global leadership. The major powers – the US, Europe, Russia, China, India – should agree to prevent confrontations.

    The US should stop NATO enlargement and should stop providing armaments to Taiwan. Such actions are provocative and lead to great-power conflicts that threaten the safety and security of the whole world.

    In short, the West should stop asking “Who is Number One?” and instead ask, “How can the whole world work together for the global common good?” In my experience, China, Russia and other nations would enthusiastically back such a global, cooperative effort that is based on mutual respect and mutual security.

    The post Why Western Hegemony is Over first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • FRSO Leader Sydney Loving Reflects On How China Is Building Socialism

    Fight Back! sat down with Sydney Loving, a participant in the 2025 Friends of Socialist China delegation, which recently returned from a ten-day visit across five cities in China. From revolutionary bases to high-tech cities and green development, the delegation witnessed firsthand the power of socialism to uplift the lives of the people. Loving is a member of the Central Committee of Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

    Fight Back!: How did you go to China? What was the purpose of the trip?

    Sydney Loving: The delegation was organized by Friends of Socialist China, a political project aiming to strengthen understanding and support for China on the basis of solidarity and truth.

    The post FRSO Leader Sydney Loving Reflects On How China Is Building Socialism appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Eighty years after the U.S. Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki Are We on the Verge of Another Nuclear War?

    Eighty years ago, the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are now nine nuclear-armed nations, many in military confrontation with one another. It is quite remarkable that there has not been another nuclear war. How can this be explained?

    Some say the absence of another nuclear war proves that nuclear “deterrence” is working, and to some extent, that is true. These nations are rightfully afraid of a nuclear conflagration that could obliterate their societies and even destroy all life on planet Earth.  With escalating military confrontations today – even the possibility of a World War – how long can “deterrence” work?

    “So Far, So Good…”

    “So far, so good” is probably the faintly hopeful refrain heard from many who feel helpless to undo the nuclear danger. This is reminiscent of the cartoon of the man falling from the top of a building. As he passes each descending floor, he proclaims, “So far, so good….”

    In reality, a fair amount of luck has helped humanity avert nuclear catastrophe until now. We came very close during the “Cuban Missile Crisis.” A political officer on a Russian submarine that was out of communication and uncertain if a nuclear war had already begun, called off a missile launch at the last minute. Another Russian military technician, suspicious of an errant radar reading that appeared to show incoming US missiles, called off another imminent nuclear strike. It could just as easily have gone the other way.

    Many experts worry that it will be an accidental nuclear launch that ends us. This is all the more concerning as Artificial Intelligence is applied to nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, decreasing the decision-making time to split seconds, and removing human oversight. What could go wrong?

    Never Again?

    2025 also marks eighty years from the end of World War II and the defeat of the German fascists by Russia, the United States, and the European Allies. Eighty years since Russian and US troops liberated thousands of skeletal prisoners from German concentration camps, much to the horror of the world, which reacted with calls of “Never Again!”

    But wait, don’t we have concentration camps now in the U.S.? Isn’t that why ICE now has a larger budget than any branch of the military, and larger than the entire current Federal prison system? They are building concentration camps for undocumented workers, whom they demonize as “murderers,” “rapists,” “gang members,” and “terrorists.” The vast majority of immigrants who have already been violently taken from their jobs and families, imprisoned and deported, have no criminal records whatsoever, and are productive, respected members of their communities.

    Authoritarianism with distinct overtones of white supremacy is on the rise once again, while craven European politicians clamor for war with Russia and more military spending. What could go wrong?

    Israel, purportedly a safe haven for the persecuted Jewish people – a “land without a people for a people without a land” – is escalating its blatant genocide in Gaza. The images of intentionally starved Palestinian men, women, and children conjure images of emaciated prisoners – mostly Jews – in World War II concentration camps.

    Israel Wages Genocide While Threatening Its Neighbors with Nuclear Weapons

    Israel is also a nuclear power, although it has long been considered impolite to say so. The United States helped Israel gain nuclear technology and has helped to shield Israel from any nuclear accountability. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its nuclear arsenal is not inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which the U.S. weaponized to support its rationale for war against Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The IAEA announced a resolution critical of Iran’s nuclear program on Thursday, June 12, the day before Israel’s attack on Iran. Coincidence? Probably not. Like so many other international bodies, the IAEA has been subverted to serve U.S. and Israeli war aims.

    Unlike Iran, Israel actually has nuclear weapons. Will they use them against Iran? The Israeli government of rightwing extremists has already shown us the depths of depravity they are willing to go. Furthermore, all their Arab neighbors know Israel is the only nuclear-armed nation in the Middle East.

    Daniel Ellsberg, author of The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, reminded us that “Nuclear weapons are used every day. They are like a gun you point at somebody’s head.”

    Aside from “luck,” it has been nuclear arms treaties that have held nuclear war in check. In recent years, however, the U.S. has shredded most of these treaties and missed many opportunities for peace:

    • Reagan rejected President Gorbachev’s offer for both countries to eliminate all their nuclear weapons if the U.S. would stop deployment of a “Star Wars” missile defense system in space.
    • President Clinton refused President Putin’s offer to cut our massive nuclear arsenals to 1,500 bombs and to call on all of the other nuclear-armed states to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons, in exchange for the US not placing missile sites in Romania.
    • President George W. Bush walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and put a missile base in Romania. President Trump placed another missile base in Poland.
    • President Bush in 2008 and President Obama in 2014 blocked any discussion of Russian and Chinese proposals for a space weapons ban in the consensus-bound UN Committee for Disarmament in Geneva.
    • President Obama rejected President Putin’s offer to negotiate a treaty to ban cyber war.
    • President Trump pulled the US out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
    • President Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal and placed sanctions on Iran.
    • From President Clinton through President Trump, the US has never ratified the 1992 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which Russia ratified.
      [Reference: Veterans For Peace Nuclear Posture Review.]

    Taken in their totality, these U.S. moves constitute an attempt to gain nuclear superiority, including the possibility of launching a first-strike nuclear attack. Pulling out of the ABM and INF treaties, in particular, indicates U.S. intentions to threaten Russia with nuclear war.

    Is it any wonder that Russia, faced with the prospect of the U.S./NATO troops and nuclear weapons systems stationed on its border with Ukraine, felt compelled to take military action? Now Russia is stuck in a bloody war that has been constantly escalated by the U.S., which has rejected multiple opportunities for peace talks since the war began. Russia asked for neutrality for Ukraine and respect for the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking populations. Over one million casualties later (both sides), the bloody trench-and-drone war drags on, not because of Russian intransigence, but because of the aggressive U.S. policy of “full-spectrum dominance” in every corner of the globe.

    Drone Attack on Russia’s Strategic Bombers Tempted Nuclear War

    On June 1 of this year, a U.S.-supported Ukrainian drone attack on nuclear bombers in Russia almost triggered a nuclear war. According to a Russian general who spoke with former CIA geopolitical analyst Larry Johnson, the world was even closer to nuclear war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Russian bombers were openly visible on the tarmac, in accordance with the New START Treaty, which is designed to prevent a nuclear-first strike by either Russia or the U.S. This last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia is due to expire this coming February. But it has already been drone-bombed.

    News Flash! President Trump just posted on his Truth Social account that he is sending two nuclear-armed submarines closer to Russia. Why? Because he didn’t like something that Russia’s Dmitri Medvedev said on social media. What? Trump is scoring pissing points by playing with nuclear weapons? A narcissistic psychopath has his hand on the nuclear button. This is all the more reason to push for an end to the president’s sole authority to launch a nuclear war.

    To round out this bleak report, we must at least mention that the U.S. is planning for war against China. The United States is openly planning to wage a war against China – some say as soon as 2027. Why? Because China’s remarkable revolution from extreme poverty to becoming a prosperous global powerhouse is something that the U.S. ruling class (or “deep state”) will not accept. So China will not be attacked because of its military aggression. Even as the U.S. wages perpetual war on multiple countries, China has not been at war with anybody in this century. U.S. complaints about Taiwan are nothing more than an excuse, a trigger for the war that U.S. leaders are determined to wage, at all costs.

    The Pentagon Is Planning a Nuclear First-Strike Against China

    The Pentagon has figured out that it cannot win a conventional war against China, however. It is planning to use nuclear weapons – an overwhelming first strike or possibly only “tactical nuclear weapons,” those cute little guys that are several times more powerful than what was dropped on Hiroshima.

    U.S. war planners recently asked Australia and Japan to declare what military resources they will bring to bear in a war against China. And get this… The U.S. held talks with Japan, of all nations, to discuss how they will coordinate their efforts after a nuclear strike on China. Among the issues they discussed were how to manage public opinion after a nuclear war.

    So if you think I am pointing the finger at the U.S. as the “bad guy” who is mostly responsible for the prospect of a civilization-ending nuclear war, then you are reading correctly. To put it bluntly, the problem is U.S. imperialism. The waning U.S. empire, desperate to maintain and expand its hegemony, is the elephant in the room. It is buttressed by a very large and powerful Military Industrial Complex (MIC), the one that President Eisenhower warned us about – now on steroids. Ray McGovern of Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a former CIA analyst himself, has expanded the MIC acronym to MICIMATT (Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academia Think-Tanks). Yes, they are all complicit, not just with genocide in Palestine, but with militarizing and destroying the world. We peace-loving people have our work cut out for us. We are up against a lot.

    There is a lot of money to be made from war and militarism. And Politicians learn the advantages of justifying war and funding the war machine. The ever-growing Pentagon budget has ballooned to over One Trillion Dollars under Trump, money that will be redirected from the social security net that is being systematically shredded. Spending on nuclear weapons “modernization” alone will cost $100 billion in just the next year (from the budgets of the Pentagon and the Department of Energy).

    “The End Is Near”

    For decades, peace activists, scientists, and others have been warning us about the “growing danger of nuclear war.” Those sounding the nuclear alarm have been treated like the proverbial fanatic with the sign, “The End Is Near,” or like Chicken Little – “the sky is falling.” It is mostly by dumb luck, however, that we have not all perished in a nuclear Armageddon already. The guard rails have been removed, with the U.S. abrogation of nuclear arms deals. There are very few “adults in the room,” certainly not in the U.S., where Neocons who love Israel but hate Iran and Russia have seized the helm. It will take a miracle and a lot of activism to avoid utter disaster in the relatively near future.

    Many people are already experiencing disaster, what with wars, genocide, extreme poverty, starvation, and the climate crisis – the fruits of corporate greed and militarism. Many people also suffer from the poison of the entire nuclear cycle. There are 15,000 abandoned uranium mines in the western U.S., many of them on First Nations lands. Radiation contaminates the water, the air, the land, and the people, who suffer from many cancers and radiation-related diseases.

    The U.S. Exploded 67 Nuclear Bombs in the Marshall Islands

    Then there are the “downwinders” who suffer from the radiation of nuclear bomb testing. Or worse. The Marshall Islands were devastated by nuclear bomb testing. From 1946 to 1958, the U.S. detonated 67 nuclear bombs on this island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  To add insult to injury, their islands are now “sinking” from global warming and rising seas. Many Marshallese, unable to grow food on radiated land and unable to eat the fish from radiated waters, have been allowed to live in the U.S., without citizenship or security, and denied healthcare by many states. There is no cancer treatment facility in the Marshall Islands, and no VA facility for its many veterans of the U.S. military.

    We will end this disturbing nuclear tour on a positive note. It has to do with the Marshall Islands. In 1958, four Quaker peace activists bought a sailboat and announced to the world their intention to sail from Los Angeles 4,000 miles into the nuclear test zone in the Marshall Islands to stop U.S. nuclear testing. They were led by Albert Bigelow, a World War II Navy Commander who resigned his commission in protest of the U.S. nuclear bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The Golden Rule Crew Tried to Stop U.S. Nuclear Testing

    Halfway through the voyage, when Bigelow and his intrepid crew pulled into Honolulu, they were arrested and thrown in jail, and the Coast Guard seized their boat, named Golden Rule. They never made it to the Marshall Islands. Still, they succeeded in bringing worldwide attention to the danger of radiation that was floating all over the globe, even getting into mothers’ milk. Opposition to nuclear testing led to the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1962, signed by President Kennedy and the leaders of Russia and the UK. The treaty banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, in the water, and in space. Only underground tests were permitted.  These days, most nuclear testing is done using computer simulations.

    The remarkable saga of the Golden Rule continued. The 34-foot ketch was sold and sailed as a pleasure boat by several families to the South Pacific and the Caribbean. Somehow, in 2010, it was found in Humboldt Bay in northern California – a derelict boat that had sunk in a gale and had a big hole in its side.  Some locals dragged the beat-up boat onto the beach and planned to make a bonfire of it. When someone discovered the boat’s legacy, however, local members of Veterans For Peace rescued it and decided to restore it to its original glory.

    In June of 2015, after five years of dedicated volunteer labor by veterans, Quakers, and boat lovers, the Golden Rule splashed back into the waters of Humboldt Bay and began sailing up and down the west coast from British Columbia to Mexico (Ensenada), then to Hawai’i and all around the Hawaiian islands. Back to California, trucked to Minneapolis, sailed down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, to Cuba, and up the East Coast to Toronto and back to Chicago, a 12-month voyage with a total of 102 port stops.  At every stop, the Golden Rule and its crew were welcomed excitedly by local peace and environmental activists as well as by state and local officials. Nobody wants a nuclear war!

    The Golden Rule Is Sailing Around San Francisco Bay

    The historic Golden Rule ­peace boat sailed last week from its homeport in Humboldt Bay to San Francisco Bay, where it will spend the month of August educating the public about the “growing danger of nuclear war,” and the importance of supporting the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The Treaty, supported by an overwhelming majority of countries, went into force in January 2021. It prohibits nations from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits them from assisting, encouraging, or inducing anyone to engage in any of these activities.

    Peace at Home, Peace Abroad!

    The Golden Rule is a national project of Veterans For Peace, a 40-year-old organization dedicated to exposing the true costs of war, restraining our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations, and ridding the world of nuclear weapons. At its recent national convention, veterans from U.S. wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and recent deployments made a united call for opposition to the U.S.-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza and for resistance to racist ICE attacks in our communities. While calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, the Golden Rule will be echoing these urgent cries for “Peace at Home, Peace Abroad.”

    The post Eighty years after the U.S. Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki Are We on the Verge of Another Nuclear War? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Are We On The Verge Of Another Nuclear War?

    Eighty years ago, the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are now nine nuclear-armed nations, many in military confrontation with one another. It is quite remarkable that there has not been another nuclear war. How can this be explained?

    Some say the absence of another nuclear war proves that nuclear “deterrence” is working, and to some extent that is true. These nations are rightfully afraid of a nuclear conflagration which could obliterate their societies, and even destroy all life on planet Earth.  With escalating military confrontations today – even the possibility of a World War – how long can “deterrence” work?

    The post Are We On The Verge Of Another Nuclear War? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Marshall Islands president warns of threat to Pacific Islands Forum unity

    By Giff Johnson, Marshall Islands Journal editor/RNZ Pacific correspondent

    Leaders of the three Pacific nations with diplomatic ties to Taiwan are united in a message to the Pacific Islands Forum that the premier regional body must not allow non-member countries to dictate Forum policies — a reference to the China-Taiwan geopolitical debate.

    Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine, in remarks to the opening of Parliament in Majuro yesterday, joined leaders from Tuvalu and Palau in strongly worded comments putting the region on notice that the future unity and stability of the Forum hangs in the balance of decisions that are made for next month’s Forum leaders’ meeting in the Solomon Islands.

    This is just three years since the organisation pulled back from the brink of splintering.

    Marshall Islands, Palau and Tuvalu are among the 12 countries globally that maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

    At issue is next month’s annual meeting of leaders being hosted by Solomon Islands, which is closely allied to China, and the concern that the Solomon Islands will choose to limit or prevent Taiwan’s engagement in the Forum, despite it being a major donor partner to the three island nations as well as a donor to the Forum Secretariat.

    President Surangel Whipps Jr
    President Surangel Whipps Jr . . . diplomatic ties to Taiwan. Image: Richard Brooks/RNZ Pacific

    China worked to marginalise Taiwan and its international relationships including getting the Forum to eliminate a reference to Taiwan in last year’s Forum leaders’ communique after leaders had agreed on the text.

    “I believe firmly that the Forum belongs to its members, not countries that are non-members,” said President Heine yesterday in Parliament’s opening ceremony. “And non-members should not be allowed to dictate how our premier regional organisation conducts its business.”

    Heine continued: “We witnessed at the Forum in Tonga how China, a world superpower, interfered to change the language of the Forum Communique, the communiqué of our Pacific Leaders . . . If the practice of interference in the affairs of the Forum becomes the norm, then I question our nation’s membership in the organisation.”

    She cited the position of the three Taiwan allies in the Pacific in support of Taiwan participation at next month’s Forum.

    Tuvalu's Prime Minister Feleti Teo
    Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Feleti Teo . . . also has diplomatic ties to Taiwan. Image: Ludovic Marin/RNZ Pacific:

    “There should not be any debate on the issue since Taiwan has been a Forum development partner since 1993,” Heine said.

    Heine also mentioned that there was an “ongoing review of the regional architecture of the Forum” and its many agencies “to ensure that their deliverables are on target, and inter-agency conflicts are minimised.”

    The President said during this review of the Forum and its agencies, “it is critical that the question of Taiwan’s participation in Forum meetings is settled once and for all to safeguard equity and sovereignty of member governments.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Marshall Islands president warns of threat to Pacific Islands Forum unity

    By Giff Johnson, Marshall Islands Journal editor/RNZ Pacific correspondent

    Leaders of the three Pacific nations with diplomatic ties to Taiwan are united in a message to the Pacific Islands Forum that the premier regional body must not allow non-member countries to dictate Forum policies — a reference to the China-Taiwan geopolitical debate.

    Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine, in remarks to the opening of Parliament in Majuro yesterday, joined leaders from Tuvalu and Palau in strongly worded comments putting the region on notice that the future unity and stability of the Forum hangs in the balance of decisions that are made for next month’s Forum leaders’ meeting in the Solomon Islands.

    This is just three years since the organisation pulled back from the brink of splintering.

    Marshall Islands, Palau and Tuvalu are among the 12 countries globally that maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

    At issue is next month’s annual meeting of leaders being hosted by Solomon Islands, which is closely allied to China, and the concern that the Solomon Islands will choose to limit or prevent Taiwan’s engagement in the Forum, despite it being a major donor partner to the three island nations as well as a donor to the Forum Secretariat.

    President Surangel Whipps Jr
    President Surangel Whipps Jr . . . diplomatic ties to Taiwan. Image: Richard Brooks/RNZ Pacific

    China worked to marginalise Taiwan and its international relationships including getting the Forum to eliminate a reference to Taiwan in last year’s Forum leaders’ communique after leaders had agreed on the text.

    “I believe firmly that the Forum belongs to its members, not countries that are non-members,” said President Heine yesterday in Parliament’s opening ceremony. “And non-members should not be allowed to dictate how our premier regional organisation conducts its business.”

    Heine continued: “We witnessed at the Forum in Tonga how China, a world superpower, interfered to change the language of the Forum Communique, the communiqué of our Pacific Leaders . . . If the practice of interference in the affairs of the Forum becomes the norm, then I question our nation’s membership in the organisation.”

    She cited the position of the three Taiwan allies in the Pacific in support of Taiwan participation at next month’s Forum.

    Tuvalu's Prime Minister Feleti Teo
    Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Feleti Teo . . . also has diplomatic ties to Taiwan. Image: Ludovic Marin/RNZ Pacific:

    “There should not be any debate on the issue since Taiwan has been a Forum development partner since 1993,” Heine said.

    Heine also mentioned that there was an “ongoing review of the regional architecture of the Forum” and its many agencies “to ensure that their deliverables are on target, and inter-agency conflicts are minimised.”

    The President said during this review of the Forum and its agencies, “it is critical that the question of Taiwan’s participation in Forum meetings is settled once and for all to safeguard equity and sovereignty of member governments.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Philippines, India conduct joint exercises in South China Sea

    Indian and Philippine naval crews sailed together for the first time in the South China Sea, officials said on Monday, one of several joint exercises the Philippine navy has held to counter China’s far-reaching maritime claims.

    The two-day joint sail included three Indian ships. It began on Sunday, a day before Philippine Prime Minister Ferdinand Marcos left for a five-day state visit to New Delhi that will include talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

    Before departing, Marcos lauded the two countries’ “shared values” and “steadfastness in upholding international maritime law.”

    China claims almost all of the South China Sea, a critical shipping route that’s also partially claimed by Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, despite an international arbitration court in 2016 ruling that its assertions had “no legal basis.” Beijing did not accept the ruling.

    A spokesperson for China’s military on Monday said that Chinese ships had conducted patrols in the South China Sea during the same period as the joint exercises. The spokesperson said those patrols were “routine,” but said that the joint exercises “disrupted regional peace and stability.”

    This image released by the Armed Forces of the Philippines on Aug. 4, 2025, shows the joint India-Philippines naval exercise in the South China Sea.
    This image released by the Armed Forces of the Philippines on Aug. 4, 2025, shows the joint India-Philippines naval exercise in the South China Sea.
    (Armed Forces of the Philippines via X)

    The Philippines has pressed its claims over the disputed waterway in recent months, enacting new laws, pushing for a maritime code of conduct, and considering new international lawsuits. Since 2023, it has conducted joint exercises with partners including the U.S., Japan, Australia, France and Canada.

    This year, Manila and Beijing have expressed their quarrel in the physical world — with each country’s coast guard unfurling a flag on a contested sandbank in April — and in cyberspace, jousting over a Google Maps update labeling part of the waterway the “West Philippine Sea.”

    Includes reporting from Agence France-Presse and Reuters.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • 59th Session of the Human Rights Council: what NGOs thought of the session

    At the 59th Human Rights Council session, civil society organisations share reflections on key outcomes and highlight gaps in addressing crucial issues and situations. Full written version below.

    We join others who have expressed grave concern about the UN’s financial situation throughout the session. We deplore that we are in this position primarily due to the failure of some States to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time. We regret that this crisis is currently affecting the Council’s ability to deliver its mandate. Today, UN Member States are sending a clear message that human rights and their implementation are optional and not inalienable. We call on all States to pay their dues to the UN in full and without delay, both now and in future years, and strengthen the human rights pillar of the UN by substantially increasing its regular budget. [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/united-nations/]

    We welcome the Council’s decision to renew, once more, the Mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, following a call from more than 1,259 organisations from 157 countries and territories.  While the mandate was supported by the overwhelming majority of Council members, we regret that a mandate focusing on core human rights issues such as freedom from violence and discrimination was once again put for a vote.

    We welcome the adoption of the resolution on civil society space. The resolution acknowledges important civil society initiatives such as Declaration +25 and addresses key and emerging trends such as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), the phenomenon of transnational repression, and foreign funding legislation, as well as other restrictive legislation including counter-terrorism legislation. We regret, however, that language on transnational repression has been weakened throughout the negotiations and does not take a step forward in terms of defining the phenomenon and its patterns. ..

    We welcome the adoption of the resolution on human rights and climate change in relation to climate finance. As acknowledged by the resolution, climate finance is a tool for addressing climate change and it is also important for the enjoyment of human rights when finance prioritises equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes. … We also regret that, notwithstanding the support expressed by numerous delegations, this resolution is blatantly silent in recognising the positive, important, legitimate and vital role that environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) play in the promotion and protection of human rights and the environment, particularly in the context of climate change. As recognised by the HRC resolution 40/11, EHRDs are one of the most exposed and at risk around the world. The Inter-American Court on Human Rights has recently ruled in its Advisory Opinion on “Climate Emergency and Human Rights” that EHRDs play a fundamental role due to the urgency, gravity and complexity to address the climate emergency. We will not have climate justice without consulting, listening and including EHRDs in climate actions and initiatives, including this annual resolution.

    We express our support for a new strong resolution on the safety of journalists, adopted by consensus and co-sponsored by over 70 countries from all world regions, signalling a renewed international commitment to prevent, protect and remedy all human rights violations against journalists. The resolution becomes the first across the UN to recommend a range of concrete, specific measures to

    It is concerning that the Council could not find consensus on the resolution on access to medicines, vaccines and other health products. States should acknowledge that intellectual property rights can be a barrier for access to health products, especially in public health emergencies and should act with a view to finding human-rights compliant solutions. States should further ensure that the benefits of scientific progress is available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality to all people, without discrimination. 

    We welcome the resolution on new and emerging digital technologies and human rights. The resolution reaffirms the need for human rights due diligence and impact assessments throughout the life cycle of new and emerging digital technologies, and crucially calls upon States to refrain from or cease the use of artificial intelligence applications that are impossible to operate in compliance with international human rights law. The resolution importantly mandates OHCHR to expand its work on UN system-wide promotion, coordination, and coherence on matters related to human rights in new and emerging digital technologies.

    We welcome the rejection by the Council of an unprecedented, harmful draft resolution (L.1/Rev.1) presented in bad faith by Eritrea to discontinue the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. The voting result (25 against, 4 in favour) is clear and will deter similar initiatives to terminate mandates. The Pandora’s Box remains closed for now. We welcome the adoption of resolution L.7, which extends the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and enables continued scrutiny of Eritrea‘s dire human rights situation.

    We welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolution on the situation of human rights of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar—a strong signal of the Council’s continued prioritization of their plight. As violence between the Myanmar military and Arakan Army escalates, Rohingya face renewed existential threats. We recognize the efforts made to align the resolution closer to the evolving situation on the ground, including its recognition of the role of Arakan Army along with the Myanmar military in perpetuating violence and targeting Rohingya. We also welcome the resolution’s acknowledgment of the worsening humanitarian crisis due to dwindling aid that is driving more Rohingya to risk dangerous journeys by sea. The call for protection of Rohingya across borders and respect for non-refoulement is vital. We support the resolution’s emphasis on accountability and reparations as prerequisites for safe, voluntary, and dignified return of Rohingya refugees. However, we regret its failure to call for an end to arms and jet fuel sale and transfers that continue to fuel ongoing violence.

    We emphasize the vital role of investigative mechanisms and, in the context of the UN’s liquidity crisis, we urge all those involved, including the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner, to allocate sufficient resources for these mechanisms to operate. All UN Member States must pay their dues in full and on time. As the conflict in Sudan, now in its third year, shows no sign of abating, resulting in the world’s largest displacement crisis and egregious atrocities against civilians, the work of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) should continue. At HRC60, extending its mandate will be a priority. 

    We continue to deplore this Council’s exceptionalism towards serious human rights violations in China, including crimes against humanity. In his global update to this Council session, High Commissioner Türk indicated he remains ‘concerned about lack of progress on much-needed legal reform to ensure compliance with international human rights law’ and ‘regret[s] that there has not yet been a resolution to the individual cases [the OHCHR has] raised]’. It is imperative that the Council take action commensurate with the gravity of UN findings, by establishing a monitoring and reporting mechanism on China as repeatedly urged by over 40 UN experts since 2020. We urge China to genuinely engage with the UN human rights system to enact meaningful reform, and ensure all individuals and peoples enjoy their human rights, on the basis of recommendations from the OHCHR Xinjiang report, UN Treaty Bodies, and UN Special Procedures.

    This Council’s continued silence on the human rights crisis in Egypt remains of major concern.  The human rights situation in Egypt is worse than at any point in its modern history and continues to deteriorate.  During its UPR process, Egypt rejected or dismissed as “already implemented” recommendations related to serious human rights violations 134 times.  In particular, Egypt either rejected or dismissed recommendations to release political prisoners and end arbitrary arrests 12 times, to stop attacks against independent civil society and journalists 19 times, and to end torture and ill-treatment 6 times. The goverment also refused to ensure accountability for those who have committed torture and other human rights violations 7 times, and rejected or dismissed recommendations to halt violance and discrimination against women, minorities and members of the LGBT+ community 25 times, including repeatedly rejecting calls to criminalize marital rape, as well as forced virginity and anal exams.  In this context, action by the HRC to address these violations is as important as ever. 

    Watch the video of the statement below: 

    Signatories:

    1. African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)
    2. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
    3. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
    4. CIVICUS
    5. Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR)
    6. Franciscans International 
    7. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
    8. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
    9. World Uyghur Congress (WUC)

    https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc59-civil-society-presents-key-takeaways-from-the-session/?mc_cid=561653a6d3&mc_eid=d1945ebb90

    https://www.fidh.org/en/international-advocacy/united-nations/human-rights-council/key-outcomes-of-the-59th-human-rights-council-session-progress-and

    https://www.civicus.org/index.php/fr/medias-ressources/112-news/7777-key-highlights-civicus-at-59th-session-of-the-un-human-rights-council

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.