As you’ve heard by now, Ontario will head to the polls on February 27. This blog is part of our series outlining what we see as some of the key environmental issues voters should keep in mind as they talk to candidates and when they cast their ballots.
Ontario is Going the Wrong Way on Climate Action
In recent years, Ontario has had an abysmal record on climate change. The province has cancelled hundreds of renewable power projects, depriving us from affordable and reliable energy. Meanwhile, Ontario has been increasing our reliance on fossil fuels by building new gas plants, which is reversing the progress this province made in phasing out coal. A decision from the independent Ontario Energy Board was overturned at the request of Enbridge, a gas company, in order to ensure that more homes are dependent on gas for heating for decades to come. This move benefits Enbridge at the expense of everyone else, whether they are existing gas customers or new home buyers.
The federal government gets a lot of attention when it comes to climate change—and for good reason. But, there are a lot of areas related to climate change that are in provincial hands.
What to Look for in a Future Ontario Government
We need to elect a government that takes climate change seriously. Here’s what to look for.
A party that is serious about climate change needs to present a clear plan to ensure that Ontario does its part to reduce emissions. The plan should:
Detail how it will decarbonize the electricity system, phasing out gas plants while building more wind and solar. Wind and solar are not only greener, they are also cheaper energy sources than gas and nuclear.
Detail how it will help get Ontarians’ homes off of gas and give people the opportunity to get highly efficient heat pumps that reduce heating and cooling bills.
Ensure that Ontarians can buy the electric cars that we’ll soon be making here by improving the affordability of EVs (with a rebate) and introducing a ZEV standard, like those in BC and Quebec.
Support affordable, reliable public transportation options and safe commutes for cyclists and pedestrians.
Address industrial carbon emissions though a cap-and-trade program or other mechanism to ensure that big polluters are held responsible for their emissions.
Create energy-efficiency programs for the industrial, commercial and residential sectors.
A Greener Ontario is Within Reach
Our previous provincial leaders have turned their backs on climate change and bent over backwards to pander to fossil fuel interests. Ontario has built new gas plants, expanded the gas pipeline network to force gas onto new communities and provided special treatment to Enbridge to ensure more homes are hooked on gas. This will saddle Ontarians with higher electricity bills, increased health risks and greater damages from extreme weather events caused by climate change.
We need better. We need to tell all party leaders and candidates to protect Ontario’s clean energy future!
In her confirmation hearing Wednesday, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Pam Bondi, refused to answer Democrats’ questions about maintaining the Department of Justice’s independence from the president and pursuing his personal vendettas. Bondi also avoided directly answering questions about Trump’s vow to pardon January 6 defendants and refused to say Trump definitively lost the 2020 election. “Bondi clearly has a comfort level with basing her prosecutorial discretion on whether someone has power and influence, and whether they’re willing to give her a taste of that,” says The American Prospect’s David Dayen, who explains how such abuse of power could dangerously expand the ability of the president to go after political enemies.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has committed an additional $3 billion to “finish” the NBN and improve internet speeds at remaining fibre-to-the node (FTTN) premises should Labor win this year’s federal election. The equity investment, coupled with a $800 million commitment from the NBN Co, extends the federal government’s existing initiative to upgrade copper-based connections to…
Remember when the exuberant yelling of Gov. Howard Dean was enough for corporate media to declare him unfit for the presidency (Extra!, 3–4/04)?
Remember January 2004, when Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean yelled in a pep talk to supporters after the Iowa caucus, and elite media declared that his “growling and defiant” “emotional outburst” was patent evidence of unacceptability? Having already declared Dean too excitable—“Yelling and hollering is not an endearing quality in the leader of the free world,” said the Washington Post (8/2/03)—media found verification in the “Dean scream,” which was played on TV news some 700 times, enough to finish off his candidacy (Extra!, 3–4/04). As Pat Buchanan on the McLaughlin Group (1/23/04) scoffed: “Is this the guy who ought to be in control of our nuclear arsenal?”
Fast forward to the present day, when Donald Trump states, “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”
And today’s journalistic response looks like a CBS News explainer (1/8/25), headed “Why Would Trump Want Greenland and the Panama Canal? Here’s What’s Behind US interest.” It’s simple, you see, and not at all weird. “Greenland has oil, natural gas and highly sought after mineral resources.” And you know what? “Western powers have already voiced concern about Russia and China using it to boost their presence in the North Atlantic.”
In an effort to make Trump’s proposal seem rational, CBS (1/8/25) offered a map that made Greenland look like a chokepoint on the all-important Dalian/Rotterdam sea route. In fact, Greenland is more than 1,500 miles from Eurasia—greater than the distance between Boston and New Orleans.
CBS tells us Trump is “falsely alleging” that the Panama Canal is being “operated by China,” but then adds in their own, awkward, words, “China has also denied trying to claim any control over the canal.” Takeaway: who knows, really? Believe what you want. PS—you’re Americun, right?
The New York Times (1/2/25) assured us that,” Trump’s Falsehoods Aside, China’s Influence Over Global Ports Raises Concerns.” The story made it obvious that Chinese companies in charge of shipping ports is inherently scary—what might they do?—in a way that the US having 750 military bases around the world never is.
The message isn’t that no one country should have that much power; it’s that no country except the US should have that much power. That assumption suffuses corporate news reporting; and China threatens it. So whatever China does or doesn’t do, look for that lens to color any news you get.
Gender bias attacks escalate online for female journalists
São Paulo, December 12, 2024—Female journalists experienced the majority of online and offline attacks against the press during the 2024 Brazilian municipal elections, found a report published today by the Coalition in Defense of Journalism (CDJor), a coalition of civil society organizations working to protect press freedom and freedom of expression in Brazil, which the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is a member.
The report found criticism of female journalists was often followed by misogynistic attacks and comments on their physical appearance. Female journalists received 50.8% of the attacks while only representing 45.9% of the total number of professionals monitored.
Online attacks against female journalists were significant, underscoring a concerning trend of journalists harassed online in an attempt to intimidate or force them into silence. On Instagram, female journalists were the target of 68.3% of the total attacks and on X they experienced 53% of attacks. Vera Magalhães, host of Roda Viva, a popular interview show on TV Cultura, and political analyst for CNN Brasil, received 32.3% of the attacks on Instagram, demonstrating the targeted nature of online abuse.
Black journalists were also subject to targeting amid the 2024 Brazilian municipal elections. Pedro Borges, co-founder of the news portal Alma Preta Jornalismo, was the victim of racist attacks on social media following an interview with right-wing candidate Pablo Marçal (PRTB) on TV Cultura’s Roda Viva program.
The Coalition in Defense of Journalism proposes a series of recommendations to address the challenges faced by journalists in Brazil during elections. These include strengthening public policies to protect journalists and holding aggressors accountable both online and offline.
Additionally, the coalition suggested the review of abusive judicial practices and development of more effective mechanisms by digital platforms to curb online attacks. Media organizations are also urged to adopt security and support policies that provide institutional and psychological assistance to media professionals.
The monitoring was done in partnership with the Internet and Data Science Lab (Labic) of the Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES) and the digital research center ITS Rio, and covers the period between August 15 and October 27, 2024.
###
About the Committee to Protect Journalists
The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.
The Coalition in Defense of Journalism (CDJor) is comprised of Abraji (Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism), Ajor (Digital Journalism Association), Article 19, Fenaj (National Union of Journalists), Committee to Protect Journalists, Instituto Palavra Aberta, Instituto Vladimir Herzog, Instituto Tornavoz, Intervozes, Jeduca (Education Journalists Association) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
A claim has been circulated in Chinese-language social media that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office dropped the case against President-elect Donald Trump in which he was convicted of 34 felony counts involving falsifying business records, following his presidential election victory.
But the claim is false. Documents released by the court on Nov. 19 show that the prosecution intends to proceed with post-trial sentencing and denies Trump’s impending presidency is sufficient grounds to dismiss the case.
“Donald Trump’s sentencing for 34 criminal charges in the state of New York abruptly adjourned by Judge Merchan without explanation. All charges have been dropped,” the claim reads.
Chinese influencers claim that 34 felony counts against Trump have been or soon will be dropped.
Former President Trump secured a second, non-consecutive term by defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5.
In March 2023, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
The indictment accused Trump of orchestrating hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to suppress information about a sexual encounter that she says they had aiming to influence the 2016 presidential election. Trump denies any sexual encounter with Daniels.
The payments were purportedly disguised in business records as legal expenses to conceal their true purpose.
The claim that the felony accounts against Trump were dropped following the election is incorrect.
Charge vs account
Chinese social media users appear to have confused the terms “charges” and “counts.”
A “charge” refers to a specific crime someone is accused of committing, while a “count” indicates the number of times the person is accused of committing that crime.
In Trump’s case, he was accused of one crime – falsifying business records – but was charged with committing it 34 separate times.
To be proceeded
The Manhattan district attorney offices’ charge against Trump has not been dropped.
Documents released by the court on November 19 show that the prosecution intends to proceed with post-trial sentencing and denies Trump’s impending presidency is sufficient grounds to dismiss the felony counts against him.
However, the prosecution noted that it will consider a stay of proceedings, which would pause sentencing until after Trump leaves office after his second term ends in four years.
It stated this would allow the court “to balance competing constitutional interests.”
Uncertainties
On Nov. 22, the presiding judge Juan Merchan postponed sentencing to receive more arguments from both sides.
Trump’s lawyers were ordered to file their arguments for dismissal by Dec. 2, while the prosecutors were given until Dec. 9 to submit their arguments for proceeding with the conviction.
Given the unique situation of a president-elect awaiting criminal sentencing, the exact outcome of the case is still unclear.
While the prosecution has signaled its plans to continue forward with sentencing at some point in the future, Trump’s lawyers are still attempting to have the case dismissed.
U.S. constitutional law expert Robert Mcwhirter said in an interview with the American broadcaster CBS that any sentencing against Trump would likely be enforced after leaving his second term in office.
However, Mcwhirter noted there is “a slim chance” that he could impose a short prison sentence on Trump before his inauguration in January 2025 or probationary measures during his time in office.
Other cases
In addition to the Manhattan court case, one other state-level criminal case in Georgia and two federal criminal cases have been brought against Trump.
Following Trump’s election victory, the Department of Justice dismissed the two federal cases against him on Nov. 25.
The case in Georgia is stalled in pretrial procedures and its progress is unclear.
A Supreme Court decision from July 2024 ruled that Trump was ineligible to be prosecuted for acts that fall under the president’s “core constitutional powers.”
The president’s “unofficial acts” share no such immunity.
Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Shen Ke and Taejun Kang.
Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alan Lu for Asia Fact Check Lab.
In the week before the 2024 election, attorneys representing Donald Trump pursued legal action against multiple news outlets they alleged were biased against the Republican nominee and had defamed him or attempted to sway the election in favor of his opponent.
An attorney in Palm Beach, Florida, sent a letter to The New York Times and Penguin Random House in late October, according to the Columbia Journalism Review, demanding $10 billion in damages for “false and defamatory statements” about Trump by multiple Times journalists.
The letter, reviewed by CJR, pointed to articles by Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner.
“There was a time, long ago, when the New York Times was considered the ‘newspaper of record,’” the letter reportedly said. “Those halcyon days have passed.” CJR added that the letter accused the Times of being “a full-throated mouthpiece of the Democratic Party” that employs “industrial-scale libel against political opponents.”
The Times responded to the letter Oct. 31, according to CJR, directing Trump’s attorney to Penguin Random House for claims concerning the book coauthored by Buettner and Craig, and stating that it stands by the reporting of its staff. A spokesperson for the Times declined to comment when reached by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
That same day, attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on Trump’s behalf against CBS Broadcasting, alleging that the network was attempting to influence the election by favorably editing an interview with Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.
In the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Trump charges CBS “doctored” a Harris exchange over U.S. relations with Israel as part of an effort to “confuse, deceive, and mislead the public” about her alleged weaknesses as a candidate.
Trump had repeatedly disparaged the network since the interview aired Oct. 7, threatening legal action, demanding it release unedited tapes and transcripts and calling for CBS to be taken off the air.
In an emailed statement to the Tracker, a spokesperson for CBS said: “Former President Trump’s repeated claims against 60 Minutes are false. The Interview was not doctored; and ‘60 Minutes’ did not hide any part of the Vice President’s answer to the question at issue. ‘60 Minutes’ fairly presented the Interview to inform the viewing audience, and not to mislead it.”
The spokesperson added, “The lawsuit Trump has brought today against CBS is completely without merit and we will vigorously defend against it.”
The suit — in which Trump also sought $10 billion in damages — bases its claims on CBS’ alleged violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, normally meant to protect consumers from being misled by advertisers.
But several legal observers dismissed the claim as frivolous. First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams told CNN the First Amendment was drafted to protect the press from such lawsuits, and scholar Geoffrey Stone called it a “misapplication” of the law.
“That statute is about sales — a salesperson can be held liable for stating that a product has certain positive effects when he knows it doesn’t,” Stone told CBS News. “But CBS is not engaged in advertising here.”
On Nov. 5, Trump’s campaign co-chief Chris LaCivita also issued a letter to The Daily Beast, demanding that it correct articles stating that LaCivita raised $22 million for Trump’s reelection, CJR reported.
In response, the outlet added editor’s notes stating: “Based on a further review of FEC records, the correct total is $19.2m. The Beast regrets the error. The article has also been updated to make clear that payments were to LaCivita’s LLC not to LaCivita personally.”
Trump’s campaign found the note insufficient and, according to CJR, said in a follow-up legal letter that it “does not remedy the overall messaging of the story—which depicts Mr. LaCivita as deceptively pocketing campaign money for his own personal gain and that he was and is on the verge of being ‘fired’ because of it.”
The Beast did not respond to a request for comment as of press time.
Trump has sustained his hostile comments toward the press in the wake of the election: During his Nov. 6 victory speech, for instance, he referred to the media as “the enemy camp,” and he has continued his tiradesagainstjournalists on social media.
Civil litigation in Georgia revealed that operatives hired by allies of Donald Trump illegally accessed and copied critical election software following the 2020 election. This wasn’t just an isolated incident but a multi-state effort that spread to places like Pennsylvania, Colorado, and beyond. The stolen software, which is responsible for recording and counting votes, was shared across states, compromising election systems in key swing states.
Despite the severity of these actions, which posed significant threats to the integrity of future elections, federal authorities—specifically the DOJ and FBI—failed to act. Even after being alerted about these breaches for years, both agencies took no meaningful steps to investigate or halt the illicit activity. This inaction mirrors their failure to prevent the events of January 6, 2021, raising serious concerns about their commitment to protecting the electoral process and our very democracy.
Election security experts, including Susan Greenhalgh from Free Speech for People, have been sounding the alarm for years, urging the government to take action. They argue that this breach, coupled with the failure of federal authorities to intervene, poses a real threat to the future of U.S. democracy. Without accountability and a thorough investigation into the stolen software, it’s impossible to ensure the integrity of upcoming elections. The lack of response from federal agencies raises questions about their willingness to protect election systems from both internal and external threats.
This breach should not be ignored. It’s time for a full investigation and immediate action to safeguard our elections. Greenhalgh joins Gaslit Nation in this urgent interview, before a live-audience of listeners, to discuss a skeptic’s guide to why Vice President Kamala Harris must call for a recount in key states in the 2024 election, before it’s too late.
To amplify this urgent call-to-action:
SHARE THIS SOCIAL MEDIA POST: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview w/Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned Congress, FBI, DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of the Big Lie. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts
CONTACT YOUR REPS IN CONGRESS AND ALSO AOC, BECAUSE SHE IS A FIGHTER: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview with Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned members of Congress, the FBI, and the DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of their Big Lie efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Given the confirmed facts, many documented in court cases, that they stole and distributed election data used to count our votes, our elections are vulnerable and may easily be compromised by threats foreign and domestic. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount and publicly call for investigations by the FBI and DOJ: https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts
SHARE THIS INTERVIEW ON SOCIAL MEDIA WITH JOURNALISTS YOU TRUST: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview w/Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned Congress, FBI, DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of the Big Lie. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts
MAGA Openly Tries to Steal Georgia https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/brian-kemp-is-a-klansman
Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!
This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.
Civil litigation in Georgia revealed that operatives hired by allies of Donald Trump illegally accessed and copied critical election software following the 2020 election. This wasn’t just an isolated incident but a multi-state effort that spread to places like Pennsylvania, Colorado, and beyond. The stolen software, which is responsible for recording and counting votes, was shared across states, compromising election systems in key swing states.
Despite the severity of these actions, which posed significant threats to the integrity of future elections, federal authorities—specifically the DOJ and FBI—failed to act. Even after being alerted about these breaches for years, both agencies took no meaningful steps to investigate or halt the illicit activity. This inaction mirrors their failure to prevent the events of January 6, 2021, raising serious concerns about their commitment to protecting the electoral process and our very democracy.
Election security experts, including Susan Greenhalgh from Free Speech for People, have been sounding the alarm for years, urging the government to take action. They argue that this breach, coupled with the failure of federal authorities to intervene, poses a real threat to the future of U.S. democracy. Without accountability and a thorough investigation into the stolen software, it’s impossible to ensure the integrity of upcoming elections. The lack of response from federal agencies raises questions about their willingness to protect election systems from both internal and external threats.
This breach should not be ignored. It’s time for a full investigation and immediate action to safeguard our elections. Greenhalgh joins Gaslit Nation in this urgent interview, before a live-audience of listeners, to discuss a skeptic’s guide to why Vice President Kamala Harris must call for a recount in key states in the 2024 election, before it’s too late.
To amplify this urgent call-to-action:
SHARE THIS SOCIAL MEDIA POST: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview w/Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned Congress, FBI, DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of the Big Lie. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts
CONTACT YOUR REPS IN CONGRESS AND ALSO AOC, BECAUSE SHE IS A FIGHTER: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview with Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned members of Congress, the FBI, and the DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of their Big Lie efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Given the confirmed facts, many documented in court cases, that they stole and distributed election data used to count our votes, our elections are vulnerable and may easily be compromised by threats foreign and domestic. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount and publicly call for investigations by the FBI and DOJ: https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts
SHARE THIS INTERVIEW ON SOCIAL MEDIA WITH JOURNALISTS YOU TRUST: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview w/Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned Congress, FBI, DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of the Big Lie. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts
MAGA Openly Tries to Steal Georgia https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/brian-kemp-is-a-klansman
Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!
This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.
Civil litigation in Georgia revealed that operatives hired by allies of Donald Trump illegally accessed and copied critical election software following the 2020 election. This wasn’t just an isolated incident but a multi-state effort that spread to places like Pennsylvania, Colorado, and beyond. The stolen software, which is responsible for recording and counting votes, was shared across states, compromising election systems in key swing states.
Despite the severity of these actions, which posed significant threats to the integrity of future elections, federal authorities—specifically the DOJ and FBI—failed to act. Even after being alerted about these breaches for years, both agencies took no meaningful steps to investigate or halt the illicit activity. This inaction mirrors their failure to prevent the events of January 6, 2021, raising serious concerns about their commitment to protecting the electoral process and our very democracy.
Election security experts, including Susan Greenhalgh from Free Speech for People, have been sounding the alarm for years, urging the government to take action. They argue that this breach, coupled with the failure of federal authorities to intervene, poses a real threat to the future of U.S. democracy. Without accountability and a thorough investigation into the stolen software, it’s impossible to ensure the integrity of upcoming elections. The lack of response from federal agencies raises questions about their willingness to protect election systems from both internal and external threats.
This breach should not be ignored. It’s time for a full investigation and immediate action to safeguard our elections. Greenhalgh joins Gaslit Nation in this urgent interview, before a live-audience of listeners, to discuss a skeptic’s guide to why Vice President Kamala Harris must call for a recount in key states in the 2024 election, before it’s too late.
To amplify this urgent call-to-action:
SHARE THIS SOCIAL MEDIA POST: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview w/Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned Congress, FBI, DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of the Big Lie. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts
CONTACT YOUR REPS IN CONGRESS AND ALSO AOC, BECAUSE SHE IS A FIGHTER: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview with Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned members of Congress, the FBI, and the DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of their Big Lie efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Given the confirmed facts, many documented in court cases, that they stole and distributed election data used to count our votes, our elections are vulnerable and may easily be compromised by threats foreign and domestic. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount and publicly call for investigations by the FBI and DOJ: https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts
SHARE THIS INTERVIEW ON SOCIAL MEDIA WITH JOURNALISTS YOU TRUST: Listen to @gaslitnation’s urgent interview w/Susan Greenhalgh of Free Speech for People. They warned Congress, FBI, DOJ for years about election system breaches by MAGA as part of the Big Lie. Join their call for Harris to demand a recount https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/election-security-experts-harris-must-call-for-recounts
MAGA Openly Tries to Steal Georgia https://gaslitnation.libsyn.com/brian-kemp-is-a-klansman
Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!
This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.
Georgian opposition parties have alleged fraud and are protesting the results of the October 26 parliamentary election, in which the ruling Georgian Dream party was declared winner.
“Georgian police officers’ detention of camera operator Sergi Baramidze and forceful obstruction of other journalists covering ongoing election protests is unacceptable and threatens the Georgian people’s access to information on important public events,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Authorities in Georgia should swiftly investigate all instances of police violence against members of the press and ensure that perpetrators are held to account.”
Police used force against these four journalists during the November 19 protest:
Sergi Baramidze, a camera operator for pro-opposition broadcaster Mtavari Arkhi, shows his injuries from police after he filmed a protest contesting the results of Georgia’s parliamentary election in Tbilisi on November 19, 2024. (Photo: Facebook/Mtavari Arkhi)
Five or six officers grabbed Sergi Baramidze, a camera operator for pro-opposition broadcaster Mtavari Arkhi, while he filmed police dragging a protester, according to news reports and footage of the incident posted by his employer. The officers pulled Baramidze, held him by the neck, and briefly detained him at a police station.
Tamta Muradashvili, director of Mtavari Arkhi, told CPJ the journalist was released after signing a document agreeing to appear if summoned, adding that it is unclear if he’ll be charged.
Muradashvili told CPJ that Baramidze sustained injuries to his eye and lip.
Three officers repeatedly shoved Mindia Gabadze, a reporter for independent news website Publika, while he filmed police dispersing. Gabadze told CPJ he identified himself to police as a journalist and described one of the shoves as “forceful,” leaving him in significant pain.
Officers briefly confiscated the phone of independent regional outlet OC Media chief editor Mariam Nikuradze, obstructing her work.
Officers pushedGivi Avaliani, a reporter with independent news website Netgazeti, preventing him from filming police.
Georgia’s Special Investigation Service, a government body responsible for investigating crimes against journalists, opened investigations into incidents of obstruction of journalistic activities during the protests. CPJ’s message to the service on its Facebook page for comment did not immediately receive a reply.
During the elections, media rights groups recorded dozens of incidents of obstruction and intimidation of journalists, many of them reporting on alleged election fraud. Local journalists and advocates previously told CPJ they feared the ruling party’s victory could diminish press freedom in the country.
Deceptive deepfake videos and voice clones will be banned during elections and referendums under Albanese government truth in political advertising laws introduced on Monday to try stem the flow of misinformation. But the new bans won’t be in force for the next federal election, with only a mandatory disclosure that material was substantially modified by…
As Donald Trump prepares to enter the White House for a second term, the reasons people voted him into office are becoming more clear.
For Micki Witthoeft, it’s cause for celebration. Her daughter, Ashli Babitt, was shot and killed by a police officer after storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Today, Witthoeft is confident Trump will stand by his word and pardon everyone involved.
“He said his administration’s going to be one on ‘promises made and promises kept,’ ” she said. “I felt like he was talking right to me.”
But it’s not the same sentiment for all voters. This week on Reveal, we look at the many contradictions behind Trump’s victory, with stories from hosts Hanna Rosin and Lauren Ober of the new podcast from The Atlantic, We Live Here Now; Mother Jones reporter Tim Murphy; and Reveal producer Najib Aminy. We delve into January 6ers seeking pardons, “messy middle” voters who split their ballots, and members of the Uncommitted movement who wouldn’t vote for Kamala Harris despite being opposed to Trump.
The FBI is investigating a spate of racist text messages targeting Black Americans in the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory last week. The texts were reported in states including Alabama, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia, addressing recipients as young as 13 by name and telling them they were “selected to pick cotton at the nearest plantation” and other messages referencing slavery. For more, we speak with Robert Greene II, a history professor at Claflin University, South Carolina’s first and oldest historically Black university in Orangeburg, where many students were targeted. “Initially when I heard about the texts, I thought it was a bit of a hoax, but … it quickly became clear that this wasn’t just a Claflin problem, it was a national issue, as well,” says Greene. We also speak with Wisdom Cole, senior national director of advocacy for the NAACP, who says “this is only the beginning,” with a second Trump administration expected to attack civil rights and embolden hate groups.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
As the dust settles from the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Eugene and Amy address what the results could mean for U.S. foreign policy in each of RFA’s broadcast regions.
Off Beat
RFA English’s state department correspondent Alex Willemyns joins Eugene and Amy in the studio to share his opinions on how President-elect Donald Trump may change or maintain U.S. foreign policy in Asia under his second term. While there’s much to discuss regarding ramifications for U.S.-China relations, tune in to hear Alex’s thoughts on how the new administration will approach Taiwan, North Korea, Cambodia, Myanmar and more.
Podcast Free Asia
Eugene and Amy read comments from listeners responding to China-centric stories, including one that argues that Halloween festivities were in full swing in Shanghai despite authorities’ attempts to tamp down the holiday. And this was true! Revelers still donned costumes and celebrated this year; what Shanghai district authorities hoped to quash in their heavy-handed measures was costuming as a form of protest against the state, rather than the holiday itself.
The Rundown
Amy opens The Rundown with a report on how a critical movie review landed a man in police custody. In late October, 33-year-old Shine Htet Aung, an Indian-Burmese activist living in Myanmar, called an upcoming Burmese rom-com out on Facebook for its racist undertones. The movie’s title, “Jar Kit Sar Pu Thee,” is a line that is jokingly said to Hindus in Myanmar because of its similarity to a Hindi greeting. Shine Htet Aung also noted that the clothing worn by the actors in the promotional poster was overly stereotypical of Hindu culture.
Burmese-Indian activist Her Sal Yon.
His review struck a nerve – thousands liked and shared his Facebook post, while pro-military junta channels on Telegram called for his arrest for instigating division in the majority Buddhist country. Days later, the activist’s Facebook account was deactivated, and he was declared to be in police custody, where he remains under investigation for “inciting propaganda through social media to undermine national stability.”
Turning to the seas, Eugene tackles the world of territorial disputes. Satellite imagery analyzed by RFA reveals Vietnam’s development of a new airstrip on the Barque Canada reef in the disputed Spratly archipelago in the South China Sea. But why pour so much resources converting a submerged reef in middle of the ocean into an artificial island, and then enlarging the island to accommodate such a huge project? Under the international law of the sea, a country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extends 200 nautical miles from its furthest shoreline.
Satellite imagery taken on Oct. 11, 2024 shows a new runway on Barque Canada reef.
When two countries’ EEZs overlap due to proximity, then the area between the two countries is divided down the middle. Thus, the governments of Malaysia, China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Brunei have all scrambled to gain more territory (and thus, economic power) by claiming various islands belonging to the Spratly archipelago, with Vietnam’s likely serving to strengthen Vietnam’s claim.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House may cause trade to slow down in Southeast Asia and raise regional tensions amid an expected worsening of Washington-Beijing ties, analysts said.
The Philippines stands to lose the most, potentially, if the United States, under the president-elect’s expected inward turn, reduces or questions the current deep bilateral ties as increasingly dangerous Manila-Beijing standoffs play out in the South China Sea, security experts noted.
Southeast Asian countries that claim not to take sides in the superpower rivalry would now need to perform a diplomatic dance to exhibit their neutrality, especially because three of them recently joined BRICS, the economic grouping spearheaded by Washington rivals Beijing and Moscow.
Unlike the current Democratic administration’s more measured approach to mitigating China’s oversized influence in Southeast Asia, a Republican government under Trump may not fancy such a strategy if it sees itself as being slighted, analysts said.
Then-U.S. President Donald Trump (back row, 2nd from R) attends a photo session with Russian President Vladimir Putin (back row, 2nd from L), Chinese President Xi Jinping (front row, L), and other Asian leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Danang, Vietnam, Nov. 11, 2017.
Still, the biggest impact of a second Trump administration on Southeast Asia will be trade-related because the election-winner has made no secret of his economic nationalism, said Ahmad Mohsein Azman, an analyst at the Malaysia office of BowerGroup Asia, a political risk consultancy.
Ahmad forecast “a general slowdown in trade with the U.S.,” with Trump’s return as president.
“A recurring theme from Trump’s political campaign is the emphasis on localizing the U.S. economy through the ‘America First’ platform,” Ahmad told BenarNews.
“This includes the enactment of industry and trade policies to encourage the return of key industries and job opportunities to American soil. New import tariffs would also be introduced.”
‘Tariff Man’
Trump said during his campaign to return to the White House that he planned to tax all imports by 10-20%, except goods from China that would get a special 60% tariff — all in an effort to spur U.S. manufacturing.
Over the past months he has called tariffs the “the greatest thing ever invented,” “the most beautiful word in the dictionary,” and his “favorite word.” And he has called himself “Tariff Man.”
U.S. import tariffs will accelerate the shift to a more contested and chaotic world, said Ben Bland, director Asia-Pacific at Chatham House, a London-based international affairs think tank.
“We know that, in foreign policy, Trump likes trade wars, is not keen on real wars, and has a zero-sum worldview,” Bland said in a short analysis on X (formerly Twitter).
“[T]rump’s deep protectionist instincts, and the possible turbulence in U.S.-China relations, could make life difficult for many states in Asia.”
An ‘inward-looking approach’
With Southeast Asia being the site of one of the world’s top geopolitical theaters due to the contested South China Sea, a potentially heated U.S. trade war with China could also be a regional security risk, analysts said.
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris tours a Philippine Coast Guard ship docked in Puerto Princesa, the Philippines , Nov. 22, 2022.
Syed Hamid Albar, a former Malaysian foreign minister, said the incoming American president would likely “adopt an inward-looking approach,” focused on Washington’s interests to the exclusion of all else.
“Any actions by other countries that he perceives as against U.S. national interests would likely prompt retaliation,” Albar told BenarNews.
An Indonesian international affairs expert, Poltak Partogi Nainggolan, concurred, adding that Washington’s traditionally multilateral approach would weaken under Trump, likely destabilizing key regions.
“In the Asia-Pacific, particularly in the South China Sea, tensions would likely rise due to Trump’s inward-focused policies,” the expert from Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) told BenarNews.
This isolationist approach is what may be of concern to the Philippines, according to Susannah Patton, director of the Southeast Asia Program at The Lowy Institute, an Australian think tank.
“The Philippines, which has staked the most on the U.S. alliance under the [current Joe] Biden administration, has the most to lose,” Patton said.
“A failure to back up Manila if it is tested further by Beijing in the South China Sea would put great pressure on the alliance,” she said as part of a collection of opinions from the institute’s experts published online.
Beijing claims most of the South China Sea, but its claims overlap those of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, all members of ASEAN, as well as Taiwan.
The countries with overlapping claims often allege Chinese incursions in their exclusive economic zones in the waterway.
Manila ‘nervous’
But of all the claimants, it is Philippine waters and vessels that the Chinese ships allegedly threaten the most.
The United States under Trump would continue to back the Philippines to counter China, said Derek Grossman, a senior defense analyst at Rand Corp., an American think tank.
Protesters wave Palestinian and Indonesian flags during a rally to condemn then-US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, at Monas, the national monument, in Jakarta, Dec. 17, 2017.
If Vice President Kamala Harris had defeated Trump in the polls, then the alliance would have further expanded and deepened to counter China in the South China Sea, Grossman wrote on X.
“If Trump, then probably the same, though more questioning around [the] utility of the alliance, especially continued spending on it. That will make Manila nervous,” he added.
Trump’s ‘unpredictability’
Southeast Asian nations may also need to reassess their foreign policy strategy with a new Trump administration, diplomacy experts said.
Albar, the former Malaysian foreign minister, said he believed Trump would be easily offended so it was important to proceed with care.
“Malaysia must exercise caution in its foreign policy approach, especially regarding Israel and Palestine,” he said.
“Trump is not warm or refined.”
Additionally, Malaysia’s involvement with BRICS “will require Anwar to carefully maneuver diplomatically, which could further complicate the country’s position,” Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani, a partner at a strategic advisory firm ADA Southeast Asia, told BenarNews.
Indonesian analyst Muradi believes that Jakarta should advocate for a “forum of medium-power nations” to address what he said would be rising tensions under another Trump presidency.
“Without such an initiative, we risk being drawn into the U.S.-China rivalry. Our recent entry into BRICS already places us between these superpowers,” he said.
A study of Trump’s personality would help a great deal and Thailand should do that, said Dulyapak Preecharush, a Southeast Asia expert from Thammasat University in Bangkok.
“[T]he team must understand [his] analytical principles and his psychology towards various stances,” Dulyapak told BenarNews.
“Trump’s special characteristic is his unpredictability.”
Muzliza Mustafa, Minderjeet Kaur and Iman Muttaqin Yusof in Kuala Lumpur; Pizaro Gozali Idris in Jakarta; and Nontarat Phaicharoen and Ruj Chuenban in Bangkok contributed to this article.
BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Shailaja Neelakantan for BenarNews.
In the wake of the reelection of Donald Trump, some of the richest people in the world saw their net worths soar as stock prices rapidly shot up. “What was different about this election was how central billionaires were in the entire political discourse,” says The Lever's David Sirota, who joins Democracy Now! to discuss the outsized role of the super-rich in U.S politics, pointing out that both Trump and Kamala Harris campaigned heavily with billionaires, including Elon Musk and Mark Cuban. “These people are not giving money simply out of the goodness of their hearts. They want things. They have policy demands,” Sirota says. “The investors, the donors, like billionaires, are looking for a return on their investment.” Sirota, who previously worked as a communications adviser and speechwriter for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, also explains how Elon Musk's influence on Trump’s campaign is a preview of the power he could wield if he ends up appointed to the Trump administration.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: As we continue to look at Donald Trump’s return to the White House, we turn now to look at what it means for the world, from Israel’s war on Gaza to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. During his victory speech, Trump vowed that he was going to “stop wars”.
But what will Trump’s foreign policy actually look like?
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Fatima Bhutto, award-winning author of several works of fiction and nonfiction, including The Runaways, New Kings of the World. She is co-editing a book along with Sonia Faleiro titled Gaza: The Story of a Genocide, due out next year. She writes a monthly column for Zeteo.
Start off by just responding to Trump’s runaway victory across the United States, Fatima.
Fatima Bhutto on the Kamala Harris “support for genocide”. Video: Democracy Now!
FATIMA BHUTTO: Well, Amy, I don’t think it’s an aberration that he won. I think it’s an aberration that he lost in 2020. And I think anyone looking at the American elections for the last year, even longer, could see very clearly that the Democrats were speaking to — I’m not sure who, to a hall of mirrors.
They ran an incredibly weak and actually macabre campaign, to see Kamala Harris describe her politics as one of joy as she promised the most lethal military in the world, talking about women’s rights in America, essentially focusing those rights on the right to termination, while the rest of the world has watched women slaughtered in Gaza for 13 months straight.
You know, it’s very curious to think that they thought a winning strategy was Beyoncé and that Taylor Swift was somehow a political winning strategy that was going to defeat — who? — Trump, who was speaking to people, who was speaking against wars. You know, whether we believe him or not, it was a marked difference from what Kamala Harris was saying and was not saying.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Fatima, you wrote a piece for Zeteo earlier this year titled “Gaza Has Exposed the Shameful Hypocrisy of Western Feminism.” So, you just mentioned the irony of Kamala Harris as, you know, the second presidential candidate who is a woman, where so much of the campaign was about women, and the fact that — you know, of what’s been unfolding on women, against women and children in Gaza for the last year. If you could elaborate?
FATIMA BHUTTO: Yeah, we’ve seen, Nermeen, over the last year, you know, 70 percent of those slaughtered in Gaza by Israel and, let’s also be clear, by America, because it’s American bombs and American diplomatic cover that allows this slaughter to continue unabated — 70 percent of those victims are women and children.
We have watched children with their heads blown off. We have watched children with no surviving family members find themselves in hospital with limbs missing. Gaza has the largest cohort of child amputees in the world. And we have seen newborns left to die as Israel switches off electricity and fuel of hospitals.
So, for Kamala Harris to come out and talk repeatedly about abortion, and I say this as someone who is pro-choice, who has always been pro-choice, was not just macabre, but it’s obscene. It’s an absolute betrayal of feminism, because feminism is about liberation. It’s not about termination.
And it’s about protecting women at their most vulnerable and at their most frightened. And there was no sign of that. You know, we also saw Kamala Harris bring out celebrities. I mean, the utter vacuousness of bringing out Jennifer Lopez, Beyoncé and others to talk about being a mother, while mothers are being widowed, are being orphaned in Gaza, it was not just tone deaf, it seemed to have a certain hostility, a certain contempt for the suffering that the rest of us have been watching.
I’d also like to add a point about toxic masculinity. There was so much toxicity in Kamala Harris’s campaign. You know, I watched her laugh with Oprah as she spoke about shooting someone who might enter her house with a gun, and giggling and saying her PR team may not like that, but she would kill them.
You don’t need to be a man to practice toxic masculinity, and you don’t need to be white to practice white supremacy, as we’ve seen very clearly from this election cycle.
AMY GOODMAN: And yet, Fatima Bhutto, if you look at what Trump represented, and certainly the Muslim American community, the Arab American community, Jewish progressives, young people, African-Americans certainly understood what Trump’s policy was when he was president.
And it’s rare, you know, a president comes back to serve again after a term away. It’s only happened once before in history.
But you have, for example, Trump moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. You have an illegal settlement named after Trump in the West Bank. The whole question of Netanyahu and his right-wing allies in Israel pushing for annexation of the West Bank, where Trump would stand on this.
And, of course, you have the Abraham Accords, which many Palestinians felt left them out completely. If you can talk about this? These were put forward by Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who, when the massive Gaza destruction was at its height, talked about Gaza as waterfront real estate.
FATIMA BHUTTO: Absolutely. There’s no question that Trump has been a malign force, not just when it concerns Palestinians, but, frankly, out in the world. But I would argue there’s not very much difference between what these two administrations or parties do. The difference is that Trump doesn’t have the gloss and the charisma of an Obama or — I mean, I can’t even say that Biden has charisma, but certainly the gloss.
Trump says it. They do it. The difference — I can’t really tell the difference anymore.
We saw the Biden administration send over 500 shipments of arms to Israel, betraying America’s own laws, the fact that they are not allowed to export weapons of war to a country committing gross violations of human rights. We saw Bill Clinton trotted out in Michigan to tell Muslims that, actually, they should stop killing Israelis and that Jews were there before them.
I mean, it was an utterly contemptuous speech. So, what is the difference exactly?
We saw Bernie Sanders, who was mentioned earlier, write an op-ed in The Guardian in the days before the election, warning people that if they were not to vote for Kamala Harris, if Donald Trump was to get in, think about the climate crisis. Well, we have watched Israel’s emissions in the first five months of their deadly attack on Gaza release more planet-warming gases into the atmosphere than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations release in a year.
So, I don’t quite see that there’s a difference between what Democrats allow and what Trump brags about. I think it’s just a question of crudeness and decorum and politeness. One has it, and one doesn’t. In a sense, Trump is much clearer for the rest of the world, because he says what he’s going to do, and, you know, you take him at his word, whereas we have been gaslit and lied to by Antony Blinken on a daily basis now since October 7th.
Every time that AOC or Kamala Harris spoke about fighting desperately for a ceasefire, we saw more carnage, more massacres and Israel committing crimes with total impunity. You know, it wasn’t under Trump that Israel has killed more journalists than have ever been killed in any recorded conflict. It’s under Biden that Israel has killed more UN workers than have ever been killed in the UN’s history. So, I’m not sure there’s a difference.
And, you know, we’ll have to wait to see in the months ahead. But I don’t think anyone is bracing for an upturn. Certainly, people didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. I’m not sure they voted for Trump. We know that she lost 14 million votes from Biden’s win in 2020. And we know that those votes just didn’t come out for the Democrats. Some may have migrated to Trump. Some may have gone to third parties. But 14 million just didn’t go anywhere.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Fatima, if you could, you know, tell us what do you think the reasons are for that? I mean, the kind of — as you said, because it is really horrifying, what has unfolded in Gaza in the last 13 months. You’ve written about this. You now have an edited anthology that you’re editing, co-editing. You know, what do you think accounts for this, the sheer disregard for the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza?
FATIMA BHUTTO: It’s a total racism on the part not just of America, but I’m speaking of the West here. This has been betrayed over the last year, the fact that Ukraine is spoken about with an admiration, you know, Zelensky is spoken about with a sort of hero worship, Ukrainian resisters to Russia’s invasion are valorised.
You know, Nancy Pelosi wore a bracelet of bullets used by the Ukrainian resistance against Trump [sic]. But Palestinians are painted as terrorists, are dehumanised to such an extent. You know, we saw that dehumanisation from the mouths of Bill Clinton no less, from the mouths of Kamala Harris, who interrupted somebody speaking out against the genocide, and saying, “I am speaking.”
What is more toxically masculine than that?
We’ve also seen a concerted crackdown in universities across the United States on college students. I’m speaking also here of my own alma mater of Columbia University, of Barnard College, that called the NYPD, who fired live ammunition at the students. You know, this didn’t happen — this extreme response didn’t happen in protests against apartheid. It didn’t happen in protests against Vietnam in quite the same way.
And all I can think is, America and the West, who have been fighting Muslim countries for the last 25, 30 years, see that as acceptable to do so. Our deaths are acceptable to them, and genocide is not a red line.
And, you know, to go back to what what was mentioned earlier about the working class, that is absolutely ignored in America — and I would make the argument across the West, too — they have watched administration after, you know, president and congressmen give billions and billions of dollars to Ukraine, while they have no relief at home.
They have no relief from debt. They have no relief from student debt. They have no medical care, no coverage. They’re struggling to survive. And this is across the board. And after Ukraine, they saw billions go to Israel in the same way, while they get, frankly, nothing.
AMY GOODMAN: Fatima Bhutto, we want to thank you so much for being with us, award-winning author of a number of works of fiction and nonfiction, including The Runaways and New Kings of the World, co-editing a book called Gaza: The Story of a Genocide, due out next year, writes a monthly column for Zeteo.
Coming up, we look at Trump’s vow to deport as many as 20 million immigrants and JD Vance saying, yes, US children born of immigrant parents could also be deported.
An international legal judgment on governments’ obligations to prevent human-driven climate change has become more crucial after Donald Trump’s election victory raised the prospect of the U.S. again withdrawing from the landmark Paris agreement, a lawyer in the case said.
The U.N.’s International Court of Justice, or ICJ, is set to begin hearings on Dec. 2 that will culminate in it issuing an opinion on states’ responsibilities and the legal consequences for countries that fail to act. More than 130 nations – but not top polluters China and the U.S. – supported a push by Pacific island nation Vanuatu at the U.N. General Assembly in 2023 for the ICJ opinion.
“All the core norms at stake in the proceedings are norms of customary international law. So, that means that these obligations apply to all states. That is particularly relevant in a volatile political climate,” said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, legal counsel for Vanuatu at the ICJ hearings.
Climate protesters interrupt former US president and Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump as he speaks at a “commit to caucus rally” in Indianola, Iowa, on Jan. 14, 2024.
During Trump’s first presidency, the U.S. in late 2019 announced its withdrawal from the Paris agreement that obligates countries to make far-reaching changes to limit the increase in average global temperature to well below 2.0 degrees Celsius.
At the time, the State Department cited the “unfair economic burden” imposed on American workers and businesses by U.S. pledges to reduce reliance on fossil fuels under the 2015 agreement. The withdrawal, only briefly in effect because it required a year’s notice, was reversed under President Joe Biden, whose administration began in early 2021.
“There are real threats of, for example, a new U.S. administration again pulling out of the Paris agreement and potentially even pulling out of the climate change convention,” Wewerinke-Singh told a briefing on Thursday. The convention is the foundational 1992 international agreement for preventing climate change.
“So that makes it even more relevant to have a good understanding of what these obligations are, that are universally applicable,” she said.
Vanuatu’s spearheading of the ICJ case has amplified the voices of small island nations whose national interests and even existence are often overlooked as more powerful nations jostle on the international stage.
Collectively, Pacific island nations have made a minute contribution to greenhouse gas emissions but warn they could suffer the brunt of consequences from higher global temperatures.
Tropical cyclones, for example, could become more intense and destructive. Sea-level rise could outpace the natural growth of low-lying coral atoll nations, making them prone to inundation by even normal tides.
Pacific island leaders have said the ICJ case is necessary because of lack of action to implement the Paris agreement. The 29th U.N. climate summit, known as COP, takes place in Baku, Azerbaijan next week.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu climate change minister, speaks during a plenary session at the COP28 U.N. Climate Summit, Saturday, Dec. 9, 2023, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Vanuatu’s special envoy Ralph Regenvanu said the new U.K. government’s decision to implement an ICJ opinion from 2019 that it should return the Chagos Archipelago to former British colony Mauritius shows the role of political will in international law.
“We hope for the right timing as well. We hope for political situations to get to the stage where countries may actually [act],” he told the briefing.
“I’m sure many countries will abide by the advisory opinion, but there will be changes in circumstances also where we get new governments who are more willing to abide than previous governments,” he said.
The U.N. court based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, has received 91 written statements from governments and international organizations on the climate change case – the highest number of written statements ever filed in an advisory proceeding before the court.
The court also received dozens of written responses to the initial submissions. It extended the deadline for written submissions several times.
China and the U.S. both made written submissions, as have organizations such as OPEC and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Regenvanu said in a statement Hurricane Milton last month showed the U.S., like Pacific island nations, increasingly faces extreme weather.
“This is a shared problem that will not solve itself without international cooperation, and we will continue to make that case to the incoming president of one of the world’s largest polluters,” he said.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Stephen Wright for RFA.
