This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
By Bryan Manabat in Saipan
Advocacy groups in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) disrupted the US Department of Defense’s public meeting this week, which tackled proposed military training plans on Tinian, voicing strong opposition to further militarisation in the Marianas.
Members of the Marianas for Palestine, Prutehi Guahan and Commonwealth670 burst into the public hearing at the Crowne Plaza hotel in Garapan, chanting, “No build-up! No war!” and “Free, free, Palestine!”
As the chanting echoed throughout the venue on Wednesday, the DOD continued the proceedings to gather public input on its CNMI Joint Military Training proposal.
The US plan includes live-fire ranges, a base camp, communications infrastructure, and a biosecurity facility. Officials said feedback from Tinian, Saipan and Rota communities would help shape the final environmental impact statement.
Salam Castro Younis, of Chamorro-Palestinian descent, linked the military expansion to global conflicts in Gaza and Iran.
“More militarisation isn’t the answer,” Younis said. “We don’t need to lose more land. Diplomacy and peace are the way forward – not more bombs.”
Saipan-born Chamorro activist Anufat Pangelinan echoed Younis’s sentiment, citing research connecting climate change and environmental degradation to global militarisation.
‘No part of a war’
“We don’t want to be part of a war we don’t support,” he said. “The Marianas shouldn’t be a tip of the spear – we should be a bridge for peace.”
The groups argue that CJMT could make Tinian a target, increasing regional hostility.
“We want to sustain ourselves without the looming threat of war,” Pangelinan added.
In response to public concerns from the 2015 draft EIS, the DOD scaled back its plans, reducing live-fire ranges from 14 to 2 and eliminating artillery, rocket and mortar exercises.
Mark Hashimoto, executive director of the US Marine Corps Forces Pacific, emphasised the importance of community input.
“The proposal includes live-fire ranges, a base camp, communications infrastructure and a biosecurity facility,” he said.
Hashimoto noted that military lease lands on Tinian could support quarterly exercises involving up to 1000 personnel.
Economic impact concerns
Tinian residents expressed concerns about economic impacts, job opportunities, noise, environmental effects and further strain on local infrastructure.
The DOD is expected to issue a Record of Decision by spring 2026, balancing public feedback with national security and environmental considerations.
In a joint statement earlier this week, the activist groups said the people of Guam and the CNMI were “burdened by processes not meant to serve their home’s interests”.
The groups were referring to public input requirements for military plans involving the use of Guam and CNMI lands and waters for war training and testing.
“As colonies of the United States, the Mariana Islands continue to be forced into conflicts not of our people’s making,” the statement read.
“ After decades of displacement and political disenfranchisement, our communities are now in subservient positions that force an obligation to extend our lands, airspace, and waters for use in America’s never-ending cycle of war.”
They also lamented the “intense environmental degradation” and “growing housing and food insecurity” resulting from military expansion.
“Like other Pacific Islanders, we are also overrepresented disproportionately in the military and in combat,” they said.
“Meanwhile, prices on imported food, fuel, and essential goods will continue to rise with inflation and war.”
Republished from Pacific Island Times.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
ANALYSIS: By Eugene Doyle
Setting aside any thoughts I may have about theocratic rulers (whether they be in Tel Aviv or Tehran), I am personally glad that Iran was able to hold out against the US-Israeli attacks this month.
The ceasefire, however, will only be a pause in the long-running campaign to destabilise, weaken and isolate Iran. Regime change or pariah status are both acceptable outcomes for the US-Israeli dyad.
The good news for my region is that Iran’s resilience pushes back what could be a looming calamity: the US pivot to Asia and a heightened risk of a war on China.
There are three major pillars to the Eurasian order that is going through a slow, painful and violent birth. Iran is the weakest. If Iran falls, war in our region — intended or unintended – becomes vastly more likely.
Mainstream New Zealanders and Australians suffer from an understandable complacency: war is what happens to other, mainly darker people or Slavs.
“Tomorrow”, people in this part of the world naively think, “will always be like yesterday”.
That could change, particularly for the Australians, in the kind of unfamiliar flash-boom Israelis experienced this month following their attack on Iran. And here’s why.
US chooses war to re-shape Middle East
Back in 2001, as many will recall, retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, was visiting buddies in the Pentagon. He learnt something he wasn’t supposed to: the Bush administration had made plans in the febrile post 9/11 environment to attack seven Muslim countries.
In the firing line were: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Gaddafi’s Libya, Somalia, Sudan and the biggest prize of all — the Islamic Republic of Iran.
One would have to say that the project, pursued by successive presidents, both Democrat and Republican, has been a great success — if you discount the fact that a couple of million human beings, most of them civilians, many of them women and children, nearly all of them innocents, were slaughtered, starved to death or otherwise disposed of.
With the exception of Iran, those countries have endured chaos and civil strife for long painful years. A triumph of American bomb-based statecraft.
Now — with Muammar Gaddafi raped and murdered (“We came, we saw, he died”, Hillary Clinton chuckled on camera the same day), Saddam Hussein hanged, Hezbollah decapitated, Assad in Moscow, the genocide in full swing in Palestine — the US and Israel were finally able to turn their guns — or, rather, bombs — on the great prize: Iran.
Iran’s missiles have checked US-Israel for time being
Things did not go to plan. Former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman pointed out this week that for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours.
Iran’s missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve and, perhaps momentarily, has achieved deterrence. If Iran falls, the US will be able to do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden only salivated over — a serious pivot to Asia.
Could great power rivalry turn Asia-Pacific into powderkeg?
For us in Asia-Pacific a major US pivot to Asia will mean soaring defence budgets to support militarisation, aggressive containment of China, provocative naval deployments, more sanctions, muscling smaller states, increased numbers of bases, new missile systems, info wars, threats and the ratcheting up rhetoric — all of which will bring us ever-closer to the powderkeg.
Sounds utterly mad? Sounds devoid of rationality? Lacking commonsense? Welcome to our world — bellum Americanum — as we gormlessly march flame in hand towards the tinderbox. War is not written in the stars, we can change tack and rediscover diplomacy, restraint, and peaceful coexistence. Or is that too much to ask?
Back in the days of George W Bush, radical American thinkers like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld created the Project for a New American Century and developed the policy, adopted by succeeding presidents, that promotes “the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of US military forces”.
It reconfirmed the neoconservative American dogma that no power should be allowed to rise in any region to become a regional hegemon; anything and everything necessary should be done to ensure continued American primacy, including the resort to war.
What has changed since those days are two crucial, epoch-making events: the re-emergence of Russia as a great power, albeit the weakest of the three, and the emergence of China as a genuine peer competitor to the USA. Professor John Mearsheimer’s insights are well worth studying on this topic.
The three pillars of multipolarity
A new world order really is being born. As geopolitical thinkers like Professor Glenn Diesen point out, it will, if it is not killed in the cradle, replace the US unipolar world order that has existed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Many countries are involved in its birthing, including major players like India and Brazil and all the countries that are part of BRICS. Three countries, however, are central to the project: Iran, Russia and, most importantly, China. All three are in the crosshairs of the Western empire.
If Iran, Russia and China survive as independent entities, they will partially fulfill Halford MacKinder’s early 20th century heartland theory that whoever dominates Eurasia will rule the world. I don’t think MacKinder, however, foresaw cooperative multipolarity on the Eurasian landmass — which is one of the goals of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) – as an option.
That, increasingly, appears to be the most likely trajectory with multiple powerful states that will not accept domination, be that from China or the US. That alone should give us cause for hope.
Drunk on power since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has launched war after war and brought us to the current abandonment of economic sanity (the sanctions-and-tariff global pandemic) and diplomatic normalcy (kill any peace negotiators you see) — and an anything-goes foreign policy (including massive crimes against humanity).
We have also reached — thanks in large part to these same policies — what a former US national security advisor warned must be avoided at all costs. Back in the 1990s, Zbigniew Brzezinski said, “The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran.”
Belligerent and devoid of sound strategy, the Biden and Trump administrations have achieved just that.
Can Asia-Pacific avoid being dragged into an American war on China?
Turning to our region, New Zealand and Australia’s governments cleave to yesterday: a white-dominated world led by the USA. We have shown ourselves indifferent to massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of aggression launched by our team.
To avoid war — or a permanent fear of looming war — in our own backyards, we need to encourage sanity and diplomacy; we need to stay close to the US but step away from the military alliances they are forming, such as AUKUS which is aimed squarely at China.
Above all, our defence and foreign affairs elites need to grow new neural pathways and start to think with vision and not place ourselves on the losing side of history. Independent foreign policy settings based around peace, defence not aggression, diplomacy not militarisation, would take us in the right direction.
Personally I look forward to the day the US and its increasingly belligerent vassals are pushed back into the ranks of ordinary humanity. I fear the US far more than I do China.
Despite the reflexive adherence to the US that our leaders are stuck on, we should not, if we value our lives and our cultures, allow ourselves to be part of this mad, doomed project.
The US empire is heading into a blood-drenched sunset; their project will fail and the 500-year empire of the White West will end — starting and finishing with genocide.
Every day I atheistically pray that leaders or a movement will emerge to guide our antipodean countries out of the clutches of a violent and increasingly incoherent USA.
America is not our friend. China is not our enemy. Tomorrow gives birth to a world that we should look forward to and do the little we can to help shape.
Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
The leaders of Bougainville and Papua New Guinea have signed a deal that may bring the autonomous region’s quest for independence closer.
Called “Melanesian Agreement”, the deal was developed earlier this month in 10 days of discussion at the New Zealand army base at Burnham, near Christchurch.
Both governments have agreed that the national Parliament in PNG has a key role in the decision over the push for independence.
They recognise that the Bougainville desire for independence is legitimate, as expressed in a 2019 independence referendum result, and that this is a unique situation in PNG.
That is the agreement’s attempt to overcome pressure from other parts of PNG that are also talking about autonomy.
The parties say they are committed to maintaining a close, peaceful and enduring relationship between PNG and Bougainville.
Both sides said that to bring referendum results to the national Parliament both governments would develop a sessional order, which was a the temporary adjustment of Parliament’s rules.
Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee
They said that a Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee on Bougainville, which would provide information to MPs and the general public about the Bougainville conflict and resolution, is a vital body.
The parties said they would explore the joint creation of a Melanesian framework with agreed timelines, for a pathway forwards, that may form part of the Joint Consultations Report presented to the 11th National Parliament.
Once the Bipartisan Committee completes its work, the results of the referendum and the Joint Consultation Report would be taken to the Parliament.
The parties said they would accept the decision of the national Parliament, in the first instance, regarding the referendum results, and then commit to further consultations if needed, and this would be in an agreed timeline.
In the meantime, institutional strengthening and institutional building within Bougainville would continue.
To ensure progress is made and political commitment is sustained, the monitoring of this Melanesian Agreement could include an international component, a Parliamentary component, and the Bipartisan Parliamentary Committee, all with UN support.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
At a recent event with Jeremy Corbyn, former Unite general secretary Len McCluskey insisted that:
In a very short period of time, what will be created will be a credible, left, radical alternative.
He was speaking at a rally of independent socialists in Liverpool, which brought people together in support of a left-wing challenge to Keir Starmer’s government of austerity and war.
He spoke about his expulsion from the Labour Party, after 54 years as a member, because of his support for Jeremy Corbyn’s 2024 electoral campaign in Islington North. Corbyn, he said, is:
the living embodiment of everything that is good and decent in the political arena today.
And he insisted that, while socialists have often suffered marginalisation within Labour, the party’s right-wing establishment has now opted for their outright expulsion instead. That’s why, he said:
it’s time for the resistance!
Looking at Corbyn, meanwhile, he stressed:
I know who the leader of that party should be
McCluskey said there are “millions of decent people in this nation”. He explained:
Starmer has just won a ‘landslide’ election and got less votes than Jeremy Corbyn did in 2019.
Forget 2017! Because that’s what the establishment would like you to do: forget 2017, as though it didn’t really happen. More people voted in England for Jeremy Corbyn than ever voted for Tony Blair. This man destroyed the myth that British people are not interested in radical policies. He destroyed the myth that young people are not interested in politics.
2017 was a shock to the elites and “their friends across the sea” (in the US). The latter are the “real establishment”, he insisted.
Reacting to this shock, establishment forces did what they could to “destroy Jeremy Corbyn, destroy Corbynism, and destroy anybody close to them”. Then:
They came up with a puppet in Starmer in order to destroy Corbynism, but much much more – to turn the Labour Party into a mirror image of the Democrat Party in the United States.
Now, the Labour Party which once aimed “to challenge the establishment and speak for working people”, he asserted, “don’t speak for us anymore”. Starmer in particular, he insisted, should ‘hang his head in shame’ as “a stain on our movement”.
But speaking about the hope emerging in the resistance, he said:
There are negotiations and discussions taking place, and have been taking place for a long time — in terms of bringing a united front.
And he stressed that:
people power matters!
With the promise of “a credible, left, radical alternative” emerging “in a very short period of time”, he called on people to
Believe in your values — because your values are the values of millions of decent people in this nation.
And together — we will attain justice and decency.
A poll just this week showed the hunger that exists for a hypothetical left-wing party with Corbyn as its leader. Such a party, it suggested, would instantly become one of the main political parties in Britain. And with the poll claiming it would be the most popular party among 18-to-24-year-olds, it could easily become a key contender for power in the future:
NEW POLLING:
Before it has even launched, a @jeremycorbyn-led party of the left would gain 10% of UK votes.The poll, by @Moreincommon_ , shows that a new left party would finish first among 18- to 24-year-old voters, with 32% share.
Rarely has there been a time and the… pic.twitter.com/c3rqr3Y37T
— Collective (@wearecollectiv_) June 25, 2025
More details from the @Moreincommon_ poll yesterday.
A new @jeremycorbyn led party would take significant support away from Labour and the Greens and to a lesser extent, the Lib Dems.
Are we entering an era of six party politics?@wearecollectiv_ pic.twitter.com/k8XidaOgqh
— Khalid Sadur – Independent (@KHALID4EWH) June 26, 2025
Jeremy Corbyn himself has previously spoken about a new political party, saying:
This whole cause is coming together so that by next year’s local elections – long before that I hope – we’re going to have something in place that is very clear and everyone will want to be part of and support.
And as the Canary has been documenting, he has been travelling around the country supporting efforts to build the resistance via community empowerment.
At the same event McCluskey spoke at, Corbyn insisted:
I am determined there will be, in a short time, a strong, alternative, democratic, socialist, left-wing voice that brings people together
.@jeremycorbyn at today's Merseyside Community Independents rally:
"I am determined there will be, in short time, a strong, alternative, democratic, socialist, left wing voice that brings people together"
"We are one! And we want to be one!"
Would you join such a movement? pic.twitter.com/t2wLH6oKIW
— Khalid Sadur – Independent (@KHALID4EWH) June 14, 2025
Featured image via the Canary
By Ed Sykes
This post was originally published on Canary.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Democrat Pramila Jayapal is holding a series of “shadow hearings” in Congress on Trump’s immigration actions. Jayapal, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security and Enforcement, explains how Trump’s immigration crackdown has created a “Catch-22” for asylum seekers, who are being targeted for “expedited removal” at their own immigration hearings. “If you show up, you could get detained and deported. … If you don’t show up, then you are now in violation of the immigration regulations, and you’re deemed as an absconder.” Jayapal also comments on Trump’s “big, beautiful budget bill,” which she calls the “big, bad, betrayal bill” for its cuts to Medicaid and other social services.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Over 100 days have passed since the Trump administration’s unprecedented removal of more than 230 immigrants to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison CECOT. They were removed without any due process in the United States. Democracy Now! spoke with the loved ones of Andry Hernández Romero, a 33-year-old gay makeup artist and asylum seeker who was told he would be sent home to Venezuela, according to his mother. But instead, he was sent to CECOT, where reports of torture and abuse are rampant. His mother Alexis Romero and his best friend Reina Cardenas have not seen or heard from him in three months. He has been identified in photos taken at CECOT by a photojournalist. Hernández Romero “was detained from the moment he showed up for his asylum appointment,” says Cardenas. “He never had due process.” Adds Margaret Cargioli, a lawyer for the family, “He sought asylum because he was persecuted due to his political opinion and because he’s LGBTQ. … It is quite astonishing that in the United States, people are being disappeared in this manner.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
The Supreme Court has sided with South Carolina’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. Lower court rulings allowed Medicaid patients to sue over the state’s restrictions on Medicaid funding for their healthcare clinics, which the Supreme Court overturned in a 6-3 decision on Thursday. Rebecca Grant, who writes about reproductive rights, says South Carolina’s restrictions will likely be taken up by other states and could result in the closure of potentially hundreds of reproductive healthcare clinics. Grant outlines the alternative healthcare methods that many are forced to turn to in the face of dangerous and — since the fall of Roe v. Wade — increasingly draconian abortion restrictions. “We know throughout history that making abortion illegal or trying to ban it does not make it go away,” she says. This underground network of abortion access in the United States is the subject of Grant’s new book, Access: Inside the Abortion Underground and the Sixty-Year Battle for Reproductive Freedom.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Democracy Now! Friday, June 27, 2025
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! Audio and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! Audio and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! Audio and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4 and was authored by Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
President Donald Trump has returned to Washington after a NATO summit where leaders agreed to increase their military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, more than doubling the current target of 2%. The increase comes after years of pressure from Trump, who accuses other countries in the military alliance of not spending enough. “What he is interested in is catering to the military-industrial complex of the United States,” says Gilbert Achcar, emeritus professor of development studies and international relations at SOAS, University of London. “When he asks these NATO countries to increase their military expenditure, he means 'buy more U.S. weapons.' That’s what he is doing. He’s a salesperson for the military-industrial complex.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
The Trump administration is intensifying its campaign against vaccinations, with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdrawing U.S. funding for the world’s preeminent international vaccine organization. The group — known as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance — is the world’s largest funder of life-saving vaccinations and says it has helped vaccinate more than 1.1 billion children in 78 lower-income countries, preventing nearly 19 million future deaths. Kennedy also recently stacked an important vaccine advisory panel with unqualified appointees, many of them holding anti-vaccine views.
“Anti-vaccine activists have been shouting from the sidelines for decades. Now they’re making policy,” says Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
We speak with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich about the victory of Zohran Mamdani in the New York Democratic primary for New York mayor, the rise of Donald Trump, and the role of big money in politics. “This is the one thing that I agree with Donald Trump about: The economy is rigged — but it’s rigged against working-class people. And I think Mamdani understood that. He understood that people have got to want a change, but also they want affordability. They want an economy that is working for them.”
We also speak with him about his decades-long career as a teacher and The Last Class, a new documentary that follows Reich over his last semester at the University of California, Berkeley. The class, and much of Reich’s career, has focused on rising inequality and its impact on society. “Most Americans feel powerless,” says Reich. “This is a crisis right now.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Democracy Now! Thursday, June 26, 2025
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! Audio and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.