Category: house

  • Comprehensive coverage of the day’s news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice.

     

    • House Committee holds politically charged hearing on Biden handling of classified documents.
    • First food aid shipment leaves Cyprus for Gaza.
    • Primaries held Tuesday in several states, Biden and Trump expected to clinch nominations.
    • Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry agrees to step down amid crisis.
    • Housing advocates call on state and local officials to support housing initiatives.
    • Bill to limit active shooter drills at California public schools introduced.

    The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – March 12, 2024 House Committee holds politically charged hearing on Biden handling of classified documents.  appeared first on KPFA.


    This content originally appeared on KPFA – The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Vietnamese police have temporarily detained three members of an independent Protestant house church in Dak Lak province in the country’s Central Highlands without providing information to their family, a relative of the detainees said.

    Pastor Y Khen Bdap told Radio Free Asia on Thursday that the detainees are members of his family – his younger brother Y Qui Bdap, his son Y Nam Bkrong and his nephew Y Kic Bkrong.

    All three detainees are from the Ede ethnic minority and permanently reside in Ea Khit village, Ea Bhok commune in the province’s Cu Kuin district. They have been working for KUKA Home Vietnam, an upholstered furniture manufacturer in Dong Xoai city, Binh Phuoc province, for many years and living in a rental unit near the company.

    Police from both Dak Lak and Binh Phuoc provinces visited their home on Sunday night to check their IDs and to search the place, the pastor said.

    The following day, the police went to their company while they were working and took them away, he said. 

    “The police arrested and detained them without any explanation or warrants,” he said.

    The Evangelical Church of Christ of the Central Highlands and the independent Protestant house church are two religious groups in Dak Lak province that the Vietnamese government hasn’t recognized, making it difficult for them to carry out their activities. Members are often subjected to harassment and arrest by authorities.

    Y Khen Bdap said his family went to the People’s Committee and the police’s headquarters in Ea Bhok commune on Thursday to ask about the detainees’ whereabouts, but staff there said they didn’t know. 

    As of midday on Friday, his family hadn’t received any information about the detained relatives, he said.

    “We don’t know where they are being detained and interrogated,” Y Khen Bdap said. “Our family is very anxious and worried as the police arrested them without notifying us.”

    When family and friends asked the company about the arrests, they were told that police escorted the men away and that they hadn’t yet returned, he said.

    Church established in 2017

    RFA was unable to reach the KUKA Home managers and workers for comment at the phone numbers provided by Y Khen Bdap.

    RFA also contacted Cu Kuin district police and Dak Lak provincial police to verify the arrests and detentions, but staffers told the reporter to go in person to their agencies’ headquarters in person for information.

    Y Khen Bdap said he believes the arrests are related to his family’s religious practice, because the three detainees and other adherents of the church often participate in annual human rights events, including the U.N.’s International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief on Aug. 22 and Human Rights Day on Dec. 10.

    His brother, Y Qui Bdap, who is also a preacher, met with officers from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi in 2020 to report on the local authorities’ repeated harassment of his independent house church.

    Pastor Y Khen Bdap, who was sentenced to four years in prison in 2004 for “disturbing public order” for his religious activities, said local authorities often had harassed him and other church leaders since the church was established in 2017.

    Local authorities have summoned him and the other leaders to ask  about their religious activities and to prevent the church’s adherents from holding events to celebrate Christmas.

    In late October 2023, Cu Mgar district police temporarily detained four independent Protestants for five days after they invited President Vo Van Thuong to observe one of their religious services.

    After interrogating them, district police demanded they stop practicing religion independently and suggested they join the Evangelical Church of Vietnam or other religious groups recognized by the Vietnamese government.

    The police also demanded they not study civil society, saying its aim was to oppose the government, nor participate in activities commemorating the U.N’s human rights days.  

    Translated by Anna Vu for RFA Vietnamese. Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Matt Reed.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says NATO allies are committed to doing more to ensure that Ukraine “prevails” in its battle to repel invading Russian forces, with the alliance having “significantly changed” its stance on providing more advanced weapons to Kyiv.

    Speaking in an interview with RFE/RL to mark the second anniversary of Russia launching its full-scale invasion of its neighbor, the NATO chief said solidarity with Ukraine was not only correct, it’s also “in our own security interests.”

    “We can expect that the NATO allies will do more to ensure that Ukraine prevails, because this has been so clearly stated by NATO allies,” Stoltenberg said.

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    “I always stress that this is not charity. This is an investment in our own security and and that our support makes a difference on the battlefield every day,” he added.

    Ukraine is in desperate need of financial and military assistance amid signs of political fatigue in the West as the war kicked off by Russia’s unprovoked invasion nears the two-year mark on February 24.

    In excerpts from the interview released earlier in the week, Stoltenberg said the death of Russian opposition leader Aleksei Navalny and the first Russian gains on the battlefield in months should help focus the attention of NATO and its allies on the urgent need to support Ukraine.

    The death of Navalny in an Arctic prison on February 16 under suspicious circumstances — authorities say it will be another two weeks before the body may be released to the family — adds to the need to ensure Russian President Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian rule does not go unchecked.

    “I strongly believe that the best way to honor the memory of Aleksei Navalny is to ensure that President Putin doesn’t win on the battlefield, but that Ukraine prevails,” Stoltenberg said.

    Stoltenberg said the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the city of Avdiyivka last week after months of intense fighting demonstrated the need for more military aid, “to ensure that Russia doesn’t make further gains.”

    “We don’t believe that the fact that the Ukrainian forces have withdrawn from Avdiyivka in in itself will significantly change the strategic situation,” he said.

    “But it reminds us of that Russia is willing to sacrifice a lot of soldiers. It also just makes minor territorial gains and also that Russia has received significant military support supplies from Iran, from North Korea and have been able to ramp up their own production.”

    Ukraine’s allies have been focused on a $61 billion U.S. military aid package, but while that remains stalled in the House of Representatives, other countries, including Sweden, Canada, and Japan, have stepped up their aid.

    “Of course, we are focused on the United States, but we also see how other allies are really stepping up and delivering significant support to Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said in the interview.

    On the question of when Ukraine will be able to deploy F-16 fighter jets, Stoltenberg said it was not possible to say. He reiterated that Ukraine’s allies all want them to be there as early as possible but said the effect of the F-16s will be stronger if pilots are well trained and maintenance crews and other support personnel are well-prepared.

    “So, I think we have to listen to the military experts exactly when we will be ready to or when allies will be ready to start sending and to delivering the F-16s,” he said. “The sooner the better.”

    Ukraine has actively sought U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to help it counter Russian air superiority. The United States in August approved sending F-16s to Ukraine from Denmark and the Netherlands as soon as pilot training is completed.

    It will be up to each ally to decide whether to deliver F-16s to Ukraine, and allies have different policies, Stoltenberg said. But at the same time the war in Ukraine is a war of aggression, and Ukraine has the right to self-defense, including striking legitimate Russian military targets outside Ukraine.

    Asked about the prospect of former President Donald Trump returning to the White House, Stoltenberg said that regardless of the outcome of the U.S. elections this year, the United States will remain a committed NATO ally because it is in the security interest of the United States.

    Trump, the current front-runner in the race to become the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, drew sharp rebukes from President Joe Biden, European leaders, and NATO after suggesting at a campaign rally on February 10 that the United States might not defend alliance members from a potential Russian invasion if they don’t pay enough toward their own defense.

    Stoltenberg said the United States was safer and stronger together with more than 30 allies — something that neither China nor Russia has.

    The criticism of NATO has been aimed at allies underspending on defense, he said.

    But Stoltenberg said new data shows that more and more NATO allies are meeting the target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, and this demonstrates that the alliance has come a long way since it pledged in 2014 to meet the target.

    At that time three members of NATO spent 2 percent of GDP on defense. Now it’s 18, he said.

    “If you add together what all European allies do and compare that to the GDP in total in Europe, it’s actually 2 percent today,” he said. “That’s good, but it’s not enough because we want [each NATO member] to spend 2 percent. And we also make sure that 2 percent is a minimum.”


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says NATO allies are committed to doing more to ensure that Ukraine “prevails” in its battle to repel invading Russian forces, with the alliance having “significantly changed” its stance on providing more advanced weapons to Kyiv.

    Speaking in an interview with RFE/RL to mark the second anniversary of Russia launching its full-scale invasion of its neighbor, the NATO chief said solidarity with Ukraine was not only correct, it’s also “in our own security interests.”

    “We can expect that the NATO allies will do more to ensure that Ukraine prevails, because this has been so clearly stated by NATO allies,” Stoltenberg said.

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    “I always stress that this is not charity. This is an investment in our own security and and that our support makes a difference on the battlefield every day,” he added.

    Ukraine is in desperate need of financial and military assistance amid signs of political fatigue in the West as the war kicked off by Russia’s unprovoked invasion nears the two-year mark on February 24.

    In excerpts from the interview released earlier in the week, Stoltenberg said the death of Russian opposition leader Aleksei Navalny and the first Russian gains on the battlefield in months should help focus the attention of NATO and its allies on the urgent need to support Ukraine.

    The death of Navalny in an Arctic prison on February 16 under suspicious circumstances — authorities say it will be another two weeks before the body may be released to the family — adds to the need to ensure Russian President Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian rule does not go unchecked.

    “I strongly believe that the best way to honor the memory of Aleksei Navalny is to ensure that President Putin doesn’t win on the battlefield, but that Ukraine prevails,” Stoltenberg said.

    Stoltenberg said the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the city of Avdiyivka last week after months of intense fighting demonstrated the need for more military aid, “to ensure that Russia doesn’t make further gains.”

    “We don’t believe that the fact that the Ukrainian forces have withdrawn from Avdiyivka in in itself will significantly change the strategic situation,” he said.

    “But it reminds us of that Russia is willing to sacrifice a lot of soldiers. It also just makes minor territorial gains and also that Russia has received significant military support supplies from Iran, from North Korea and have been able to ramp up their own production.”

    Ukraine’s allies have been focused on a $61 billion U.S. military aid package, but while that remains stalled in the House of Representatives, other countries, including Sweden, Canada, and Japan, have stepped up their aid.

    “Of course, we are focused on the United States, but we also see how other allies are really stepping up and delivering significant support to Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said in the interview.

    On the question of when Ukraine will be able to deploy F-16 fighter jets, Stoltenberg said it was not possible to say. He reiterated that Ukraine’s allies all want them to be there as early as possible but said the effect of the F-16s will be stronger if pilots are well trained and maintenance crews and other support personnel are well-prepared.

    “So, I think we have to listen to the military experts exactly when we will be ready to or when allies will be ready to start sending and to delivering the F-16s,” he said. “The sooner the better.”

    Ukraine has actively sought U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to help it counter Russian air superiority. The United States in August approved sending F-16s to Ukraine from Denmark and the Netherlands as soon as pilot training is completed.

    It will be up to each ally to decide whether to deliver F-16s to Ukraine, and allies have different policies, Stoltenberg said. But at the same time the war in Ukraine is a war of aggression, and Ukraine has the right to self-defense, including striking legitimate Russian military targets outside Ukraine.

    Asked about the prospect of former President Donald Trump returning to the White House, Stoltenberg said that regardless of the outcome of the U.S. elections this year, the United States will remain a committed NATO ally because it is in the security interest of the United States.

    Trump, the current front-runner in the race to become the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, drew sharp rebukes from President Joe Biden, European leaders, and NATO after suggesting at a campaign rally on February 10 that the United States might not defend alliance members from a potential Russian invasion if they don’t pay enough toward their own defense.

    Stoltenberg said the United States was safer and stronger together with more than 30 allies — something that neither China nor Russia has.

    The criticism of NATO has been aimed at allies underspending on defense, he said.

    But Stoltenberg said new data shows that more and more NATO allies are meeting the target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, and this demonstrates that the alliance has come a long way since it pledged in 2014 to meet the target.

    At that time three members of NATO spent 2 percent of GDP on defense. Now it’s 18, he said.

    “If you add together what all European allies do and compare that to the GDP in total in Europe, it’s actually 2 percent today,” he said. “That’s good, but it’s not enough because we want [each NATO member] to spend 2 percent. And we also make sure that 2 percent is a minimum.”


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Many Burmese consider it a symbol of the country’s democracy movement, where Aung San Suu Kyi lived under house arrest for almost 15 years. They recall her giving political speeches from behind its fence.

    Granted freedom in 2010, Suu Kyi received U.S. President Barack Obama, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the compound.

    In March, the historic lakeside home and its two acres of land in the heart of Yangon will be auctioned at a starting price of more than 300 billion kyats, or about US$90 million – a figure observers say no one will pay.

    Myanmar’s shadow National Unity Government, or NUG – former civilian leaders now in exile or hiding – has vowed to take legal action against anyone who might purchase the compound, saying it should be protected as a place of cultural heritage.

    The NUG accused the junta of selling the house as part of a vendetta against Suu Kyi, the head of the deposed National League for Democracy and the country’s former de facto leader whose government the military overthrew in a February 2021 coup.

    Under the law, Suu Kyi has the right to purchase the home at the reserve price before it goes to auction.

    ENG_BUR_ASSKHouse_02122024.2.jpg
    Aung San Suu Kyi’s residence in Yangon is seen Nov. 14, 2014. (Image from pool video via Reuters)

    But Suu Kyi, 78, is now in prison, sentenced by the junta to 33 years on 19 charges. That was later reduced to 27 years. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate was initially put in solitary confinement in Yangon’s Insein Prison, but it’s not clear where she is currently being held.

    Last month, her son Kim Aris, who lives in the United Kingdom, received a letter from her – the first public communication from her since late 2022. Aris didn’t have much to say about her health based on the letter, but she is believed to be suffering from medical and dental problems.

    A Yangon based lawyer who, like others interviewed for this report, declined to be named due to security concerns, told RFA that if Suu Kyi refuses to purchase the home and it goes to auction, the junta is unlikely to find a bidder.

    “The floor price for the auction is very high, but this is not a house owned by an ordinary citizen,” he said. “Since it is a part of the historical heritage of the country, it will be very difficult for anyone to buy this grand residence, so it has little chance for success at auction.”

    The lawyer said that if the reserve price is not met, the court will proceed with the sale of the property on the open market in accordance with the law.

    Family dispute

    The lakeside home was awarded to Suu Kyi’s mother, Khin Kyi, after her father, independence activist Gen. Aung San was assassinated in 1947. 

    But ownership of the historic property has long been disputed by Suu Kyi and her elder brother Aung San Oo.

    ENG_BUR_ASSKHouse_02122024.3.jpg
    Aung San Suu Kyi smiles as she talks to journalists during a press conference at her lakeside residence March 14, 2012, in Yangon. (Khin Maung Win/AP)

    On Aug. 22, 2022, the junta-controlled Union Supreme Court declared the house would be auctioned under Aung San Oo’s appeal. 

    In mid-January, a source close to the Kamayut District Court told RFA Burmese that an order had been issued allowing the junta to sell the property at an auction set for March 20. 

    In recent days, an auction order issued by the Kamayut court was posted at the residence at No. 54, University Avenue in Yangon’s Bahan township, confirming the date and reserve price. Similar notices later appeared at the court and revenue offices of regional and district levels.

    A real estate agent told RFA that the reserve price is “too high” compared to other properties on the township’s Inya Lake that offer similar scenic views.

    “One exception is that the house is situated in a good location,” he said. “However, no one will buy it because of the high price and the fact that it is a significant landmark.”

    ENG_BUR_ASSKHouse_02122024.4.jpg
    People row past Aung San Suu Kyi’s residence on Inya Lake in Yangon on May 7, 2009. (Khin Maung Win/AP)

    However the auction plays out, the NUG is adamant that the property shouldn’t be sold to a private owner.

    “This land and house belonged to national leader Bogyoke Aung San and his wife Khin Kyi. The property is related to the current State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi,” said NUG Prime Minister’s Office spokesperson Nay Phone Latt, using an honorific to refer to the independence leader.

    “The NUG has already declared it as an interim national heritage site, and has clearly stated that those who sell and buy the property, and those who are involved in trying to privatize it, will be prosecuted in accordance with the law.”

    Translated by Aung Naing. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Istanbul, February 16, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists urges Turkish authorities to cancel the house arrests under electronic tagging and judicial controls placed on five journalists and to stop equating journalism with terrorism. 

    On Tuesday, police raided the homes of five reporters and took them into custody in the western city of Izmir, according to news reports.

    On Friday, an Izmir court alleged that the journalists were members of a terrorist organization and ordered that Delal Akyüz and Tolga Güney of the pro-Kurdish Mezopotamya News Agency, and Melike Aydın of the pro-Kurdish news website JİNNEWS be released under house arrest, with electronic tagging to ensure they do not leave their homes, media reports said.

    In addition, Mezopotamya News Agency’s Semra Turan and Cihan Başakçıoğlu of the news website Gazete Duvar were placed under judicial control, those sources said. This involves the obligation to report to a police station twice a week and a ban on foreign travel.

    When the police brought the detainees to the courthouse, they were handcuffed from behind, which is against normal procedures in Turkey for nonviolent criminals. The handcuffs were moved to the front after their lawyers protested.

    “Once more, journalists in Turkey were picked up from their homes by the police before work hours in the morning, handcuffed from behind like violent criminals, and kept in custody for days, with no clue as to what accusations they are facing. This obvious pattern of media harassment has to end,” said Özgür Öğret, CPJ’s Turkey representative. “Turkish authorities should immediately cancel the judicial measures which deny the journalists’ freedom of movement and recognize the clear difference between journalism and terrorism. They must stop equating the two.”

    On Thursday, anti-terrorism police questioned the detainees about their work, including why they reported on certain topics, their social media activity, and travels, news reports said.

    None of the journalists were told why they were detained, nor they were allowed to see their lawyers for the first 24 hours in detention, those sources said.

    At the time of publication, neither the journalists nor their lawyers had been informed about the details of the investigation.

    Many journalists working for pro-Kurdish outlets have been systematically harassed by the Turkish authorities for years, CPJ research found

    CPJ emailed the Izmir chief prosecutor’s office and the Interior Ministry, which oversees the police, for comment but did not receive a reply.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a bill that urges China to resolve issues related to Tibet through dialogue with the Dalai Lama or Tibetan leaders and directs the State Department to actively counter disinformation about the history of the formerly independent country.

    The Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act, also known as the Resolve Tibet Act, passed by a vote of 392-28, with 11 abstentions. 

    To become law, it still needs to pass the Senate.

    It calls for a resumption in negotiations between Chinese officials and the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists, or his representatives. Since 2010, no formal dialogue has happened and Chinese officials continue to make unreasonable demands of the Dalai Lama as a condition for further dialogue. 

    The bipartisan bill was introduced by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, and Rep. Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts, along with Senators Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, and Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat. 

    The Dalai Lama fled Tibet into exile in India in the midst of a failed 1959 uprising against rule by China, which invaded the then independent Himalayan country in 1950.

    Since then, Beijing has sought to legitimize Chinese rule through the suppression of dissent and policies undermining Tibetan culture and language. 

    ‘Clear message’

    The legislation articulates that Tibet includes the Tibetan-populated regions of Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, in addition to the Tibet Autonomous Region, thereby challenging China’s claim that Tibet is restricted to that latter region alone.

    The bill’s passage “sends a clear message to China that Tibet has always been an independent nation and negates the Chinese government’s claim that Tibet has historically been a part of China,” said Namgyal Choedup, the representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration to North America.

    The bill states that “claims made by officials of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party that Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times are historically inaccurate.” 

    TIB-House.2.jpg
    Rep. Jim McGovern speaks during a hearing on the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on May 30, 2023. (Mandel Ngan/AFP)

    On Tuesday, McGovern, one of the lead sponsors of the bill, urged Congress to support the legislation, saying, “A vote for this bill is a vote to recognize the rights of the Tibetan people. And it is a vote to insist on resolving the dispute between Tibet and the People’s Republic of China peacefully, in accordance with international law, through dialogue, without preconditions. There is still an opportunity to do this. But time is running out.”

    Beijing believes that the Dalai Lama, who lives in Dharamsala, India, wants to split off the Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan-populated areas in China’s Sichuan and Qinghai provinces from the rest of the country. 

    Chinese authorities have urged Tibetan monks to denounce the Dalai Lama, and even possessing a photo of him is a crime.

    However, the Dalai Lama does not advocate for independence but rather a “Middle Way” that accepts Tibet’s status as a part of China and urges greater cultural and religious freedoms, including strengthened language rights that are guaranteed for ethnic minorities under China’s constitution.

    “Today’s vote shows that U.S. support for Tibet is only growing stronger even after 65 years of China’s control and occupation,” International Campaign for Tibet President Tencho Gyatso told RFA.

    “China has been playing a waiting game, hoping that the international community would eventually abandon Tibet. Clearly that is not the case,” he said. “The Chinese government should take the hint and restart the dialogue process with Tibetan leaders.”


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Tenzin Pema and Tashi Wangchuk for RFA Tibetan.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Russian troops in Ukraine increasingly have access to Starlink, the private satellite Internet network owned by Elon Musk that Ukraine’s military relies on heavily for battlefield communications.

    The findings from RFE/RL’s Russian Service corroborate earlier statements from Ukrainian military officials, underscoring how Kyiv’s ability to secure its command communications is potentially threatened.

    It comes as Ukrainian forces grapple with depleted weaponry and ammunition, and overall exhaustion, with Russian forces pressing localized offensives in several locations along the 1,200-kilometer front line. The industrial city of Avdiyivka, in particular, is under severe strain with Russian forces making steady advances, threatening to encircle Ukrainian defenses there.

    Ukraine has relied heavily on Starlink, a network for low-orbit satellites that provide high-speed Internet access. The network is owned by SpaceX, the private space company that is in turn owned by Musk, the American billionaire entrepreneur.

    They are used on the front line primarily for stable communications between units, medics, and commanders. Ukrainian troops have also experimented with installing Starlink antennas on large attack drones, which are an essential tool for Ukrainian troops but are frequently jammed by Russian electronic-warfare systems.

    However, a growing number of Ukrainian military sources and civilian activists have pointed to evidence that Russian troops are using the network, either for their own communications or to potentially monitor Ukraine’s.

    Live Briefing: Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine

    RFE/RL’s Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia’s full-scale invasion, Kyiv’s counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

    On February 11, Ukraine’s military intelligence service, known as HUR, said Russian forces were not only using Starlink terminals but also doing it in a “systemic” way. HUR also published an audio excerpt of what it said was an intercepted exchange between two Russian soldiers discussing how to set up the terminals.

    Units like Russia’s 83rd Air Assault Brigade, which is fighting in the partially occupied eastern region of Donetsk, are reportedly using the system, HUR spokesman Andriy Yusov was quoted as saying.

    Ukraine’s Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said on February 13 that Russia was acquiring Starlink terminals from unnamed Arab countries.

    Starlink has said that it does not do business with Russia’s government or its military, and Musk himself published a statement on his social-media company X, formerly Twitter, in response to the Ukrainian assertions.

    “A number of false news reports claim that SpaceX is selling Starlink terminals to Russia. This is categorically false. To the best of our knowledge, no Starlinks have been sold directly or indirectly to Russia,” Musk wrote on February 11.

    Russian troops may have acquired Starlink terminals from one of potentially dozens of companies within Russia that claim to sell them alongside household products, RFE/RL found.

    One Russian website, called Topmachines.ru, advertised a Starlink set for 220,000 rubles (about $2,200), and a $100 monthly subscription fee.

    Starlink appears to have lax oversight on the type of personal data used by new Starlink clients when they register for the first time, as well.

    One Moscow-based reseller told RFE/RL that new accounts were registered with random European first and last names and that there is no need to enter a valid European passport. The only important thing, the vendor said, is to have a valid bank card that uses one of the main international payment systems.

    Another vendor told RFE/RL that the terminals he sold were brought in from Europe, though he declined to specify which country. The vendor said a terminal costs 250,000 rubles (about $2,400), and the monthly fee was 14,000 rubles.

    Ukraine relies heavily on the Starlink network.
    Ukraine relies heavily on the Starlink network.

    Additionally, Starlink’s technology appears to be incapable of precisely restricting signal access; independent researchers say Starlink’s system only knows the approximate location of its terminals, meaning it would have to restrict access for Ukrainian frontline positions in order to limit Russian battlefield use.

    IStories, an independent Russian news outlet, also identified at least three vendors in Moscow who claim to sell Starlink terminals.

    Asked by reporters whether Russian troops might be using Starlink terminals, Peskov said: “This is not a certified system with us, therefore, it cannot be supplied and is not supplied officially. Accordingly, we cannot use it officially in any way.”


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The party of jailed former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, which according to still incomplete results has won most mandates in the February 8 elections, said it was ready to form a government amid warnings by the nuclear-armed country’s powerful military that politicians should put the people’s interests above their own.

    The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has so far announced the winners of 253 of the 265 contested parliamentary seats amid a slow counting process hampered by the interruption of mobile service.

    According to those results, independents backed by Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-e Insaf (PTI) won 92 seats, while former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) garnered 71, and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) obtained 54 mandates. The remainder are spread among other small parties and candidates.

    Both Khan and Sharif declared victory.

    As results appeared to point to a hung parliament, PTI’s acting Chairman Gohar Ali Khan on February 10 told a news conference in Islamabad that the party aimed at forming a government as candidates backed by it had won the most seats.

    Khan also announced that if complete results were not released by February 10 in the evening, the PTI intended to stage a peaceful protest on February 11.

    Third-placed PPP, led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a former foreign minister who is the son of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, could play kingmaker in case of talks to form a coalition government.

    Sharif said on February 9 that he was sending his younger brother and former Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as an envoy to approach the PPP and other political parties for coalition talks.

    The elections were held in a highly polarized environment as Khan, a former cricket superstar, and his party were kept out of the election. Khan is currently in prison after he was convicted of graft and leaking state secrets. He also saw his marriage annulled by a court.

    Earlier on February 10, the chief of Pakistan’s powerful military urged the country’s political class to set aside rivalries and work for the good of the people.

    “The nation needs stable hands and a healing touch to move on from the politics of anarchy and polarization, which does not suit a progressive country of 250 million people,” General Syed Asim Munir said in a statement.

    “Political leadership and their workers should rise above self-interests and synergize efforts in governing and serving the people, which is perhaps the only way to make democracy functional and purposeful,” Munir said.

    The military has run Pakistan for nearly half its history since partition from India in 1947 and it still wields huge power and influence.

    The February 8 vote took place amid rising political tensions and an upsurge of violence that prompted authorities to deploy more than 650,000 army, paramilitary, and police personnel across the country.

    Despite the beefed-up security presence, violence continued even after the election. On February 10, the leader of Pakistan’s National Democratic Movement, Mohsin Dawar, was shot and wounded in Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal district.

    Daward was shot and injured as he addressed supporters in front of a military camp in Miramsha in the country’s northwest.

    Mohsin Dawar's injuries were not believed to be life-threatening.
    Mohsin Dawar’s injuries were not believed to be life-threatening.

    Dawar, a well-known Pashtun politician, was shot in the thigh and rushed to a nearby hospital in stable condition. He was later transported to the capital, Islamabad, for further treatment. His injuries are not life threatening. Videos of a bloodied Dawar circulated on social media

    Three supporters were killed and 15 more injured in the incident, Rahim Dawar, a party member and eyewitness who is of no relation to the Pashtun politician, told RFE/RL.

    Dawar, who was running for the lower house of parliament, arrived at the headquarters of the regional election committee, located inside the military camp, to demand officials announce the result of the vote.

    Soldiers barred Dawar from entering and he was later shot as he addressed supporters outside the office. Dawar’s supporters accuse the police and security forces of firing at them.

    The security forces have yet to respond to the allegation. Local media, citing unidentified security sources, reported that some policemen were also killed in the incident, but RFE/RL could not confirm that.

    Dawar won a five-year term in 2018 and served in parliament until it was dissolved. Election officials later in the day said Dawar had lost the election.

    Crisis-hit Pakistan has been struggling with runaway inflation while Islamabad scrambles to repay more than $130 billion in foreign debt.

    Reported irregularities during the February 8 poll prompted the United States, Britain, and the European Union to voice concerns about the way the vote was conducted and to urge an investigation.

    Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry on February 10 rejected the criticism.

    PTI was banned from participating in the vote because the ECP said it had failed to properly register as a party. Its candidates then decided to run as independents after the Supreme Court and the ECP said they couldn’t use the party symbol — a cricket bat. Parties in the country use symbols to help illiterate voters find them on the ballots.

    Yet the PTI-backed independents have emerged as the largest block in the new parliament. Under Pakistani law, they must join a political party within 72 hours after their election victory is officially confirmed. They can join the PTI if it takes the required administrative steps to be cleared and approved as a party by the ECP.

    Khan, 71, was prime minister from 2018 to 2022. He still enjoys huge popularity, but his political future and return to the political limelight is unclear.

    With reporting by Reuters, AFP, and AP


    This content originally appeared on News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • UPDATED at 7:30 p.m. ET on 10-27-2023

    A White House official said Friday that preparations are underway for U.S. President Joe Biden to meet his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, in San Francisco next month.

    Speaking after Biden met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Washington, the senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment on the talks, said U.S. officials are “making preparations” for the Xi-Biden meeting next month.

    “We’re working together toward such a goal,” the official said, noting that “Chinese leaders often confirm publicly much closer to a trip.”

    Earlier, Biden vowed during his meeting with Wang to “work together” with Beijing, according to a readout from the White House, and said the world’s two powers “need to manage competition in the relationship responsibly and maintain open lines of communication.”

    John Kirby, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan also attended, and that Sullivan was hosting Wang at Blair House for further talks. Wang is scheduled to depart Saturday.

    The meeting between Biden and Xi would take place on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco from Nov. 12-18. Kirby that no concrete plans were made Friday. 

    The pair have met only once since Biden took office – last year in Bali, Indonesia – and Xi has not visited America since an April 2017 trip to then-President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

    But Kirby cautioned patience, saying both sides “acknowledge the importance of leader-level channels of communication” and that Biden had repeatedly said he wants to meet soon with Xi.

    “When there’s something to confirm, we’ll confirm it,” Kirby said.

    Talk it out

    Wang arrived in Washington on Thursday evening for his first trip to the United States since before the COVID-19 pandemic, with Blinken welcoming him for a “working dinner” at the State Department. 

    Wang told reporters before the dinner that it was important for U.S. and Chinese leaders to ignore “jarring voices” in their societies and strive for a “healthy” and “stable” relationship.

    “We have disagreements, we have differences. At the same time, we also share important common interests, and we face challenges that we need to respond to together,” the Chinese foreign minister said.

    ENG_CHN_WangYi_10272023.2.jpg
    U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken shakes hands with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi before meetings at the State Department in Washington, D.C., Thursday, Oct. 26, 2023. (Saul Loeb/AFP)

    Blinken, in even briefer remarks, said that he was looking forward to “constructive conversations over the next few days.”

    Before Wang’s meeting with Biden, the two top diplomats met again for a closed-door meeting on Friday morning, with a State Department readout saying that the pair discussed “a range of issues,” including both “areas of difference” and “areas of cooperation.”

    The readout again emphasized the need for “open lines of communication” with Beijing to “responsibly manage” tense ties, language that the White House has used since the start of the thaw in relations with China in June, when Blinken visited Beijing.

    Warmer ties, though, have been criticized by some in Congress.

    Republican leaders on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, for instance, have called on the White House to “not fall for false promises” from a government they said had proved “an unreliable partner.”

    On Friday, the bipartisan Congressional-Executive Commission on China also issued a statement saying that Biden administration officials who meet Wang “must raise the cases of Uyghurs, Hong Kongers, Tibetans and other political prisoners unjustly detained in China.”

    Asked whether Biden had raised any such concerns during his meeting with Wang, Kirby said that he could not offer any details. 

    ‘Unsafe intercepts’

    Wang’s trip also comes as the United States released more footage of a near accident between a Chinese fighter jet and a U.S. B-52 bomber over the South China Sea, which it said occurred on Tuesday and was the latest in more than 180 such incidents since 2021.

    A U.S. statement said that the Chinese fighter jet flew at an “uncontrolled excessive speed, flying below, in front of, and within 10 feet of the B-52, putting both aircraft in danger of a collision.”

    ENG_CHN_WangYi_10272023.3.jpg
    A Chinese J-11 jet is seen from a U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber over the South China Sea on Oct. 24, 2023. (U.S. Indo-Pacific Command via AP)

    Earlier this month, the Pentagon said it believed the goal of such behavior is “to pressure the United States and other nations to reduce or cease lawful operations near areas where Beijing claims territorial sovereignty,” such as in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

    Kirby said American officials routinely “raised our concerns about the unsafe intercepts in the South China Sea” in talks with Chinese officials.

    In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said that the close encounters were the fault of the U.S. military, which she argued had no business flying jets over the South China Sea.

    “The U.S. military planes traveled thousands of miles to China’s doorstep to flex muscle,” Mao said. “That is the source of maritime and air security risks, and is not conducive to regional peace and stability.”

    Updated to include the White House official’s comments about a Biden/Xi meeting.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Alex Willemyns for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Commemorative occasions are often draped in fatty platitudes.  Within such platitudes lie excuses and apologies.  People are celebrated after the fact, not for their faults but for their virtues.  It’s just the polite thing to do.  At the time of their achievement, they were ridiculed, condemned, and flayed.  Buildings are also remembered, not for the blemishes they caused or the arguments they ignited, but the fact that they were (the pun is irresistible) foundational.  After the fact, they stand as glorious fragments of culture.

    Much of this can be seen in the horrendously treacle-covered slurry about the Sydney Opera House, which was opened on October 20, 1973 by Queen Elizabeth II.  After 50 years, it is arguably the most internationally recognisable symbol of Australia, leaving aside its astonishing collection of natural wonders.

    The current tributes never deviate from admiration verging on wince worthy worship.  The ABC News Breakfast program diligently cobbled together a montage of events, performances and celebrations, with the edifice as star performer.  No mention of controversy; not mention of the efforts to kill it off.  For those versed in public relations, the following proved mandatory: The House functions as a multi-venue performing arts centre, hosting 1,500 performances each year receiving audiences of 1.2 million people.  The site around the building is visited by almost eight times that many people, with 350,000 taking guided tours around it.

    The administrative wonks have also made sure to court and flatter artists to add their ingredients to the commemorative cake.  Nuance is not the name of the game here.  “I adore the Opera House,” says Australian singer and composer Tim Minchin.  Minchin can be relied upon to give us the sacerdotal worship befitting a son of the sunburnt land: “playing in and around this beautiful building”; doing so being “one of the great honours of my creative life” and, naturally, feeling “hugely flattered” when asked to write a celebratory piece for the five decade anniversary.  He sees this edifice as a reminder to Australians “that our not-entirely-mythological ‘larrikin’ spirit is the same spirit that allows us to be bold and brave and not care too much what other people think.”

    This is sad nonsense.  It was brave to initially embark on the construction of a daring design, but there was little bravery in the construction phase of the Opera House, much of it marked by spite and exploitation.  And as for the larrikin spirit, Minchin is only right in so far as the decision to commence the project had much to do with a premier who felt that the city needed an Opera House as much as his party needed a change of image.  (The Australian Labor Party could be cultured too!)  The rest was up to a daring, immutably haughty Dane, and every imaginable obstacle put in his path.

    Architecturally, the building is seen as a modernist expressionist masterpiece, one that germinated in the mind of architect Jørn Utzon who worked, not without difficulty, alongside the engineering exploits of Ove Arup.  In what can only be seen as a feat of unintended inspiration, the building was the result of Utzon’s winning design in 1957. His controversial, baffling genius led to the creation of a singular roof structure inspired by the peeling of an orange.  In terms of construction, the sail, or wing-like structure, is constituted of precast concrete panels which are, in turn, bolstered by precast concrete ribs.

    But genius, notably when it comes to architecture, only functions in a narrow range, frail before global assault, rival designers and accountants.  It is viewed with abundant suspicion by the political and administrative mind, even more so by the budgetary minded.  Utzon proved no exception.  New South Wales Premier J.J. Cahill was bold enough to approve the project in 1958, but his death a year later, compounded by acrimony in the project itself, augured ill for the building.  The Liberal government of Robert Askin, which came into office after 24 years of Labor rule, proved hostile, and the Minister for Public Works David Hughes had little time for Utzon’s insistence on maintaining complete control over the project.

    Costs began mounting. Estimated at 3.5 million pounds in 1959, the budget had blown out to 13.7 million pounds by 1962.  The NSW government began meddling in the construction phase, stating its own views on seating in the main hall.  Philistine did battle with Renaissance Man.  In July 1964, the observation was made in the publication Tharunka that the press, with the support of “political intrigue”, had achieved some success “in destroying the public image of the Opera House.”

    Utzon would eventually throw in the towel with a heave of disgust, leaving the project, and country, after falling out with a plywood manufacturer who was retained to produce prototypes of the beams intended to support the ceilings and glass exterior walls.  The decision was also helped, in no small measure, by the tart response to Utzon from Hughes when they met at the latter’s office on February 28, 1966.  Seeking to be paid for outstanding fees regarding the stage machinery, Hughes cited a contrarian report from Arup.  “You are always threatening to quit,” Hughes said dismissively.  But quit, Utzon did.

    Rage filled protests followed.  In March 1966, a 1,000 strong protest, armed with a petition of 3,000 signatures backing Utzon’s reinstatement, took place.  A sculptor went on hunger strike.  All of it was in vain.  The gold laying goose had fled.  Hughes, left without the guide for the design (or so he claimed), could only tell the public that it was “the Government’s intention to complete the Opera House, ensuring that the spirit of the original conception is fulfilled.”

    The mangling, readjustments and cuts began, a point made by a despairing critic Laurie Thomas in September 1968.  Writing in The Australian, Thomas thought the small opera hall was passable, but the concert hall, “a disaster.  It has the air of an extraordinarily fussy Town Hall.  The ceiling is covered in knobs that can only be described as inverted teats.”  Hughes, ever the apologist, put much of this down to Utzon’s own defective approach, a state of affairs challenged with some severity by the 1994 exhibition The Unseen Utzon.  Even after almost three decades, the now knighted Davis would dismiss Utzon’s defenders such as architect Harry Seidler, his wife Penelope, along with Elias Duke-Cohen as partaking in an illusion.  “I wanted [Utzon] to produce something. I would have loved him to do it.”

    For just a taster of the spray that came during the construction, there is no better source than Keith Dunstan’s 1972 gem Knockers.  The compiled comments are a delightful, acid corrective to the worshipful, after the fact responses that would follow the opening of the Opera House.  Sir John Barbirolli remarked bitchily that it was, “A piece of Danish pastry.” Sydney architect Walter Bunning savaged the design, claiming it would “be a second-rate building when compared with the Lincoln Center Opera House being built in New York”. Tenor Giuseppe Di Stefano admitted to knowing little about Australia, but knew more than a thing or two about opera.  “I think they are crazy to think opera can succeed in Sydney.”

    When it comes to greatness in vision and pettiness in decision, the latter often wins out.  The appreciation, and the appreciative, can only come later.  Peter Hall duly stepped into Utzon’s shoes.  Costs soared further by some $102 million (or A$1 billion in today’s terms).  Only years later would the remarkable, though somewhat more wounded structure, assume the proportions of a fable.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted to advance the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act (FANFSA), legislation that would restrict law enforcement and intelligence agencies from purchasing data on people in the United States without a warrant.

    FANFSA, which was first introduced in 2021, is cosponsored by four Democrats and four Republicans and has overwhelming support from the American public. According to a 2020 Harris poll, 77 percent of people believe the government should get a warrant to buy the kind of detailed location information that is frequently purchased and sold by data brokers on the commercial marketplace.

    The House last week voted in support of an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that similarly prohibits warrantless purchases by defense agencies of U.S. residents’ location information, web browsing history, internet search history, or any other information protected by the Fourth Amendment. But FANSFA would apply to a broader suite of law enforcement agencies and is not contingent upon Senate passage of the defense bill.

    FANSFA would close a data-broker loophole that opens to warrantless government examination information from websites, social networks, gaming platforms and other online applications that are routinely used by people in the United States. The data includes geolocation information and other details that the government can use to determine Americans’ activities, associations, and even beliefs — with law enforcement and intelligence agencies disproportionately using this information to track and target people of color, immigrants, religious minorities, and dissidents.

    Free Press Action Vice President of Policy and General Counsel Matt Wood said:

    “The government should not be able to buy its way out of the Fourth Amendment. Requiring a warrant for any data not only protects our right to privacy, but our freedoms of association, religion and belief. This is a protection that must also extend to personal information scavenged by data brokers. The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act closes a legal loophole and ensures that law enforcement and intelligence agencies can’t do an end-run around the Constitution.

    “We’re grateful that the House Judiciary Committee moved so quickly this week to help enact these vital protections. The bill would prevent flagrant abuses of our privacy by government authorities in league with unscrupulous data merchants. Passing this legislation would be a decisive and long overdue action against government misuse of this clandestine business sector that trades away our essential rights for profit.

    “The privacy violations that flow from law- enforcement entities circumventing the Fourth Amendment undermine civil liberties, free expression, and our ability to control what happens to our data. These impacts affect all who use digital platforms and give up control of our personal information — often without realizing it — when we open a browser, go to social media and other websites, or even when we go to real-life events like demonstrations and other places with our phones in tow and revealing our locations.

    “Such warrantless data collection and sale is an outrageous violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and it demands this urgent action by Congress and the White House to make FANFSA the law.”


    This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A joint submission by the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Freedom House for the 44th Session of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group, November 2023.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • On May 28, 2023, five armed soldiers and three police chiefs on the Yemeni island of Socotra arrested freelance journalist Quentin Müller and Sylvain Mercadier, co-founder and director of the independent Iraqi news website The Red Line, at their apartment, according to tweets by Müller and Mercadier, who communicated with CPJ via email. The authorities also confiscated the journalists’ passports, two laptops, two cameras, and several books.

    The soldiers and police officers were affiliated with the Southern Transitional Council, a United Arab Emirates-backed secessionist group involved in Yemen’s civil war, which aims to establish an independent state in southern Yemen. The STC has been the de facto ruler of Socotra since April 2020

    At the central Socotra police station, officers insinuated that the request for their arrest came from “other Gulf states” and high-ranking officials who were not Yemeni, according to those tweets and Mercadier. The officers referenced the journalists’ reporting on Yemen, specifically Socotra, demanded the journalists disclose the names of their sources and reveal meeting places, and told the journalists that their reporting on Yemen did not sit well with those Gulf countries.

    French journalist Sylvain Mercadier was placed under house arrest in Socotra, Yemen between May 28 and June 1, 2023. (Photo Credit: Sylvain Mercadier)

    Officers questioned Müller about his August 2021 article regarding the UAE’s interference in Yemen and the brutality of its proxies, and an October 2021 Al Jazeera documentary about Socotra and the UAE’s attempts to gain control of the island, which features interviews with Müller, according to Mercadier. 

    The officers also said Müller’s photo had been circulating in WhatsApp groups involving individuals working in security coordination between the STC and those Gulf countries. Officers compelled the journalists to unlock their laptops and searched them and their cameras for interviews with political figures who were anti-UAE or anti-STC, Mercadier said.

    Müller has extensively reported on the political tensions in Socotra and the broader Middle East in media outlets, including the French monthly newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique, the U.K. newspaper The Independent, and the French website Orient XXI, which denounced the arrest of the two journalists.

    Mercadier has also reported on the region for outlets including the U.K. newspaper The Guardian, the London-based website Middle East Eye, and Orient XXI.

    The journalists were placed under house arrest and questioned several times about their reporting between May 28 and June 1, according to Mercadier. On June 1, authorities returned the journalists’ equipment after requiring them to sign a document saying they had written politically sensitive articles that jeopardized the stability of Socotra without prior authorization from authorities.

    On June 4, a national security officer affiliated with the STC pressured the journalists to leave the island, which they did, abandoning their reporting plans and returning to France, according to Mercadier. The officer presented it as “a sort of concern for our safety, but all they wanted was to prevent us from having any opportunity to work in Socotra. There was no danger to our safety apart from the local authorities,” Mercadier added.

    “The French journalists were questioned in Socotra due to their lack of proper credentials,” Summer Ahmed, the STC’s U.S.-based representative, told CPJ via email. “We have advised them to register properly as journalists with the National Southern Media Authority (NSMA).”

    The NSMA operates in all areas under STC control, including Socotra and the south of Yemen, and functions as an “arm of the STC,” Ahmed told CPJ.

    Mercadier told CPJ that he believes their detention was “politically motivated,” adding that NSMA insists on being informed about all meetings and interviews before they occur, calling the request “drastic measures completely incompatible with the conduct of independent journalism.”

    Following the arrest of the two journalists, NSMA issued a directive on June 7 urging all media outlets to register their outlets and journalistic employees. On June 13, a second directive urged foreign journalists and international media outlets to register and obtain licenses from NSMA before conducting any reporting activities. 

    Local journalists and press freedom advocates have named NSMA as one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of press freedom in Yemen. In September 2022, the Yemeni Journalists Syndicate denounced the NSMA’s decision to prohibit certain journalists from conducting interviews with specific media channels.

    Journalists reporting in areas under the control of the STC have faced assault and prolonged detention, especially when they report on abuses allegedly committed by militias loyal to the STC or critically report on the UAE. 

    In August 2022, STC security forces detained freelance Yemeni journalist Ahmed Maher and his brother in Aden. Maher remains in custody, has endured harsh interrogations, and was banned multiple times from attending his own trial.

    In February 2023, security forces affiliated with the STC took control of the Yemeni Journalists Syndicate’s headquarters in Aden and transferred control to a newly established STC entity known as the Southern Media and Journalists’ Syndicate, according to a statement by the syndicate. On June 9, the Yemeni Journalists Syndicate issued a statement that condemned the ongoing control of their headquarters by the STC and demanded its restoration.

    On June 18, STC security forces arrested and detained journalist Akram Karem in Aden for criticizing the local authorities in the Al-Tawahi district and exposing corruption on his Facebook page. He was released on June 20 on the orders of the governor of Aden.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Banned by the State Department from traveling to the United States until he became India’s prime minister in 2014, Narendra Modi was on Thursday ushered into the White House for the second time in as many years amid praise from U.S. President Joe Biden.

    Standing next to Modi – who was denied U.S. visas over his role as governor in Gujarat’s 2002 anti-Muslim riots – Biden said the pair were “trusted partners” who share the “core principles” of democracy.

    “Welcome, Mr. Prime Minister. Welcome back to the White House,” Biden said. The meeting, he added, was happening at an “inflection point” in world history that was forcing their countries together.

    ENG_CHN_ModiVisit_06222023.2.jpg
    India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi stands with President Joe Biden as they watch the United States Army Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps during a State Arrival Ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House, Thursday, June 22, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press)

    For his part, Modi glossed over any bygones – and travel bans.

    He had only seen the White House’s exterior when he traveled to the country “as a common man” 30 years ago. But not this time: “This grand welcome ceremony at the White House today,” the premier said, “is an honor and pride for the 1.4 billion people of India.”

    “Thank you, Mr. President, for your friendship,” he added.

    The specter of China

    During the morning ceremony, neither Biden nor Modi betrayed the reasons for the embrace of their two countries. 

    But there were clues.

    One was in the abundance of announcements that followed, headlined by a US$2.7-billion factory to be built in India by U.S. microchip maker Micron, which was last month banned from selling in China amid the ongoing chip war between the United States and Beijing.

    There were deals, too, for General Electric to build fighter jet engines for India’s military, as well as for the sale of Stryker armored vehicles and lightweight long-range howitzers, which India’s military currently positions along its disputed Himalayas border with China.

    ENG_CHN_ModiVisit_06222023.3.JPG
    America’s General Electric will build jet engines for India’s LCA Tejas fighter [shown]. (Samuel Rajkumar/Reuters file photo)

    China’s specter was also present during an afternoon press conference at the White House, with Biden asked his views of Modi’s crackdown on religious and media freedoms in the context of his recent public comments that Chinese President Xi Jinping is a “dictator.” 

    “We’re straightforward with each other and we respect each other,” Biden said of Modi, without answering the reporter’s question.

    “One of the fundamental reasons that I believe the U.S.-China relationship is not in the space it is in with the U.S.-Indian relationship,” he said, “is that there’s an overwhelming respect for each other.”

    ‘A pretty amazing transition’

    The personal bonhomie between Biden and Modi marks a dramatic shift in relations between the countries, with New Delhi long skeptical of American foreign policy aims and one of the primary architects of the stridently neutral Cold War-era Non-Alignment Movement.

    A socialist republic according to the preamble of its 1950 Constitution, India nonetheless long hewed closer to the Soviet Union. In fact, the historical ties between Moscow and New Delhi – and India’s reliance on Russian-made weaponry – were widely seen as key to Modi’s recent reluctance to isolate Russia amid its invasion on Ukraine.

    ENG_CHN_ModiVisit_06222023.4.jpg
    Workers at Russia’s MiG factory assemble a MiG-29K fighter jet for the Indian Navy in Moscow in 2011. (Associated Press)

    But that has shifted as China – a historical rival of India, and one with which it shares a disputed 3,400-kilometer (2,100-mile) border – has supplanted Russia as the lead geopolitical rival to the United States.

    “On security ties, we’ve really seen a pretty amazing transition in the last couple of decades,” said Richard M. Rossow, chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    Rossow said in a call last week to preview Modi’s visit that India’s longtime policy of nonalignment has over recent years “kind of shifted to language of strategic autonomy” and put an end to its historical reluctance to work too closely with the United States.

    “That really is not exactly true when we focus on the main strategic threat that we both look at and share in the Indo-Pacific region, which is China,” he said. “We’ve found it relatively easy to open up doors that may have been closed 10-15 years ago.”

    But that has not meant any alliances with the United States, with Modi at times warming to American advances when appearing threatened by China’s growing power while thumbing his nose at other times.

    “Trying to define what this relationship is,” Rossow said of U.S.-Indian ties, “is like crossing the river by feeling pebbles with your feet.”

    Autonomous India

    From Washington’s perspective, though, a stronger but fiercely independent India can still aid U.S. foreign policy objectives.

    “As is well known in D.C. policy circles, India will never be a treaty ally of the United States,” explained Milan Vaishnav, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the director of its South Asia program. “However, U.S. strategists see India playing a central role in their larger framework of deterring China.”

    Vaishnav told Radio Free Asia that even if they do not become official allies, “the United States and India view their futures as inextricably linked” on technology, defense and the broader economy, because India provides an alternative to China as a manufacturing base.

    Amid U.S.-led efforts to “de-risk” supply chains away from a reliance on Chinese manufacturers, Vaishnav said, American officials are keen, in particular, to help India find “a foothold in the semiconductor market” and thereby establish a long-term alternative source market.

    Rossow of CSIS said the same logic extended to India’s military and the need “to reduce reliance on Russia as a major military supplier.”

    “We’re really trying to push the envelope … beyond what we’ve ever done for a country that’s not an ally” in terms of sharing military technology, he said, with an explicit aim of “helping India to become more self-reliant in some areas of weapons production.”

    ENG_CHN_ModiVisit_06222023.5.jpg
    Indian troops clash with China’s People’s Liberation Army soldiers along the de facto border between India and China in this undated photo. (RFA screenshot from citizen journalist video)

    Speaking on the condition of anonymity on Wednesday evening, a senior Biden administration official also alluded to China as a key factor driving India closer to the United States militarily.

    “I think some of the challenges that they faced along their own borders have concentrated their attention and caused them to focus intensively on both greater preparation on the defense side, and also seeking closer partnerships internationally,” the official told reporters.

    The multipolar world

    Ultimately, with India’s main priority to maintain its autonomy, playing off other world powers to its advantage is the aim of its game.

    It’s a foreign-policy shift that has been forged by Modi’s external affairs minister, S. Jaishankar, a strategic realist who former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger singled out in an interview with The Economist as “the practicing political leader that is quite close to my views.” 

    The author of the foreign-policy treatise “The India Way: Strategies for an Uncertain World,” Jaishankar’s view of the emerging world order is one defined by a multipolarity of four major powers – China, Russia, India and the United States, who can at best be “frenemies.”

    New Delhi won’t be constrained by any commitments to – or against – its “frenemies,” the minister has made clear. In the meantime, though, why not take what you can get without entering into alliances? 

    “We would like to have multiple choices. And obviously try to make the best of it,” he told The Economist. “Every country would like to do that. Some may be constrained by other obligations, some may not.”

    Edited by Malcolm Foster


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alex Willemyns for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Just Stop Oil and was authored by Just Stop Oil.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Just Stop Oil and was authored by Just Stop Oil.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The total federal deficit at $31+ trillion?

    Maybe it’s time for some creative thinking . . . a totally unique strategy that benefits all Americans, not just capitalist predators.

    Special use currency is not unprecedented.

    Abraham Lincoln used “greenbacks” — the paper currency shown above, backed by nothing more than confidence in the government —  to finance the Civil War.  He printed $449,338,902 of this currency, a lot of money at the time.

    A century later, on June 4, 1963, John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 which set in motion the issuance of silver certificate notes, currency backed by silver reserves being held at that time by the U.S. Treasury.  Records show that Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 worth of cash money.  This bypassed the established procedure of borrowing money into circulation from the Federal Reserve.  $20 billion of such United States Notes were eventually put into circulation before he was assassinated.  It has been suggested it was Kennedy’s and Lincoln’s introduction of such interest-free debt-free currency which was the primary reason both of them were murdered.

    Understand that their actions were completely within the framework of the Constitution.  Of course, presidents must seek Congressional approval, as the ultimate authority for creating money actually resides with Congress.  This is delineated in Article 1: The Legislative Branch, Section 8: Powers of Congress . . .

    There is no dispute that what both Lincoln and Kennedy did, while anathema to private banking interests, was entirely legal.  In fact, progressive economists would argue that it is incumbent on our elected officials to again secure absolute control of the currency, and that money creation never should have been ceded to the private banks.

    Risk of assassination aside, no legal case or compelling argument can be made against using this power.  Our current debt-driven system requiring us to borrow from the private banking institution, misleadingly named The Federal Reserve, to inject money into the economy is absurd and in the long term counter-productive.

    While ultimately our goal should arguably be to totally eliminate the Federal Reserve’s role in this process, at least for now we can pick up where Kennedy left off, prudently using what we call U.S. Peace Dollars, to cover a sizable portion of the federal government’s budgeting requirements.

    U.S. Peace Dollars would look almost exactly like their Federal Reserve Note counterparts.  Same layout, same denominations, same founders-of-the-nation and presidential images.

    Where U.S. currency now says … FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE

    … U.S. Peace Dollars not surprisingly would say … U. S. PEACE DOLLARS

    Where U.S. currency now says … IN GOD WE TRUST

    … U.S. Peace Dollars would say … PROMOTING PEACE

    Where in nearly microscopic print U.S. currency now says … THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

    … U.S. Peace Dollars would say … THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DOMESTIC FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

    Which brings up a critical feature of this financial instrument: U.S. Peace Dollars would be for domestic use only. This is to prevent them from being shipped overseas or being fed into the ongoing frenzy of currency speculation.  Banks would be instructed to block transfer of U.S. Peace Dollars equivalencies to non-domestic banking institutions.  For example, if a person deposited $8,000 of U.S. Peace Dollars into a domestic account, transfer of funds to non-domestic banks or use of funds for purchases outside the U.S. could only be made from balances of his or her account in excess of $8,000 accruing from regular Federal Reserve Note deposits.

    This restriction is to guarantee that U.S. Peace Dollars go exclusively toward promoting America’s domestic economy, meaning only purchasing goods and services “Made in the USA”.  This precludes exporting any newly generated Peace Dividend wealth, which would only exacerbate our already excessive, out-of-control trade deficit and facilitate capital flight from the country.

    Private banks would be incentivized to create U.S. Peace Dollars credit cards.  If there is institutional resistance to this by private banks, the U.S. government can fill that need by issuing through its own agencies such credit instruments.

    A host of small-business and employee-owned business incentives could be built around U.S. Peace Dollars, for example giving matching federal grants or at least preferential treatment for investing U.S. Peace Dollars in job-creating domestic business start-ups.  Worker-owned businesses and co-ops could be high on the priority list for such support.

    All of this points the economy in a hopeful and highly constructive, new direction.  Further expanding general usage of U.S. Peace Dollars down the road could gradually dismantle the current Debt Doomsday Machine of the Federal Reserve paradigm.  Imagine Congress arguing over the size of budget surpluses instead of budget deficits!

    Wouldn’t that be refreshing?


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by John Rachel.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Peace advocates on Thursday slammed the House of Representatives’ passage of a mammoth $858 billion military spending bill as an early holiday gift for the Pentagon and the weapons corporations who benefit from the United States’ ongoing — but largely forgotten — War on Terror. House lawmakers voted 350-80 in favor of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with 45 Democrats and 35…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The incoming GOP House majority is already showing signs of schism as far right members attempt to sabotage the long-expected rise of Republican leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy to the position of House speaker. Whoever prevails will have the unenviable job of balancing the thirst for culture war in the conspiracy-obsessed, MAGA wing of the GOP with the desire among members from swing states to…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Reveal host Al Letson talks with leading academics and journalists to take the temperature of American democracy: What did we expect from the midterms, what did we get, and what does that mean for 2024?

    Reveal’s Ese Olumhense and Mother Jones senior reporter Ari Berman discuss how gerrymandering, abortion rights, election denial and fear of voting crimes played out in contentious states like Arizona, Wisconsin and Florida.

    Next, Andrea Bernstein and Ilya Marritz, who report on threats to democracy for ProPublica and are hosts of the podcast WIll Be Wild, join Letson to discuss how the violence and disinformation that sparked the Jan. 6 insurrection continues to shape the country’s political landscape. The reporters tell the story of how the Department of Homeland Security backed off efforts to identify and combat false information after Republican pundits and politicians accused the Biden administration of stomping on the free speech rights of anyone who disagrees with them.

    Then, reporter Jessica Pishko delves into the world of a group called the constitutional sheriffs. This association of rogue sheriffs claims to be the highest law in the land and has increasingly come to see themselves as election police. Pishko attends a meeting in Arizona where Richard Mack, a leader of the movement who has also been involved with the far-right Oath Keepers, extols the rights of sheriffs to get involved in monitoring elections. In recent years, this right-wing group has grown from a fringe organization to one with national power and prominence. Pishko discusses the chilling effect these sheriffs have on voting.

    In his time as president, Donald Trump bucked the norms and mixed presidential duties with personal business, refused to release his tax returns and pardoned his political allies.This week, he announced he’s running for president again in 2024. Letson speaks with two lawyers who have spent the past two years identifying how to rein in presidential power and close loopholes Trump exposed: Bob Bauer, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama, and Jack Goldsmith, former assistant attorney general in President George W. Bush’s Office of Legal Counsel. They’re also co-authors of the 2020 book “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency.”

  • The balance of power in Congress is still up in the air two days after Tuesday’s midterm elections, and control of the Senate now rests on three states: Nevada, Arizona and Georgia. Meanwhile, Republicans have not yet won enough House seats to regain the majority, though there are still over 30 House races not yet decided. Many analysts say if Democrats lose control of the House, it may largely be because of New York state, where Republicans have flipped four congressional seats. Sochie Nnaemeka, director of the New York Working Families Party, says the “low-participation, low-energy election” was the result of the Democrats’ “failed strategies at the state level.” And Zohran Mamdani, New York state assemblymember for District 36, explains how GOP-favored redistricting, which he pins on Democratic leadership, “may be part of the reason why we do not hold the House.” Both Nnaemeka and Mamdani are part of a growing coalition calling for the resignation of Jay Jacobs, chair of the state’s Democratic Committee, who they say laid the ground for major Democratic losses to the GOP in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: The balance of power in Congress remains in play two days after the midterm elections. Control of the U.S. Senate rests in the hands of three states: Nevada, Arizona and Georgia. If the Democrats win two of the states, they’ll keep control of the Senate. Meanwhile, Republicans have not yet won enough House seats to regain the majority. There are still over 30 House races not yet decided. On Wednesday, President Biden held a news conference at the White House about the midterm results.

    PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: While the press and the pundits are predicting a giant red wave, it didn’t happen. … Democrats had a strong night, and we lost fewer seats in the House of Representatives than any Democratic president’s first midterm election in the last 40 years. And we had the best midterm for governors since 1986.

    AMY GOODMAN: Many analysts say if Democrats lose control of the House, it may largely be because of New York state, where Republicans have flipped four congressional seats.

    Democratic Congressmember Sean Patrick Maloney suffered one of the most shocking losses Tuesday. He’s the chair of the powerful Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. According to the Cook Political Report, Maloney is the first sitting House campaign committee chair to lose a race in 30 years.

    Meanwhile, in the New York governor’s race, Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican-backed Lee Zeldin, but by just over five percentage points. Two years ago, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump in New York by 22 percentage points.

    On Wednesday, New York Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for the resignation of Jay Jacobs. He’s the chair of the New York State Democratic Committee.

    To look more at what happened in New York and what it could mean for the country, we’re joined by two guests. Zohran Mamdani is a New York state assemblymember. And Sochie Nnaemeka is director of the New York Working Families Party.

    Zohran Mamdani, I wanted to begin with you. If you can help to explain what took place in New York? It wasn’t just random that Democrats lost four major House seats, which could determine the balance of the House of Representatives. If you can talk about why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, yourself, as well, have demanded the resignation of the head of the Democratic Party of New York, and what this has to do with a ballot initiative and redistricting in New York, one of the most byzantine states for rules around elections and voting?

    ASSEMBLYMEMBER ZOHRAN MAMDANI: Absolutely. Well, I think on Tuesday what we saw was an illustration of just how broken our state party machinery is, and that is across the entirety of the state.

    Last November, we had a ballot measure which, if passed, would have ensured that we could have had a more favorable map for Democratic congressional races going into this election. And that ballot measure was opposed by the state Republican Party to the tune of $3 million and an entire statewide tour. Yet, meanwhile, the Democratic Party, headed by Jay Jacobs, spent zero dollars on supporting that ballot measure. And as is no surprise to any of us because of the disparity in spending and effort, that ballot measure lost. And the loss of that ballot measure was then used as a pretext in the court cases that occurred afterwards to ensure that we had state-drawn maps, maps which were then far more favorable to Republicans, and maps which may be part of the reason why we do not hold the House.

    So, all of that, from both November into this moment right here, has illustrated that our state party is simply not up to the job. The state party chairman, Jay Jacobs, is not the man to lead it, or the person, rather. He has, instead, been far more focused on defeating the left than defeating the right. He spent $7,500 to beat one of my colleagues, Jabari Brisport, who was running for reelection in a primary, which is 75 more hundred dollars than he ever spent on passing that referendum, which could have ensured that Joe Biden would have had control over the entirety of Congress to pass a Democratic agenda over the next two years.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Zohran, could you explain — when you say what happened last November with the ballot measure, explain why it’s so important, redistricting and state-drawn maps.

    ASSEMBLYMEMBER ZOHRAN MAMDANI: Absolutely. So, every 10 years with the census, the state has to redistrict all of its districts, from the local to the congressional level. And there was a ballot measure which stated that if the Independent Redistricting Commission, a commission that had been created by Governor Cuomo, which had the same number of Democrats and Republicans — if that commission could not agree on a set of maps, then a simple majority of the Legislature would suffice in creating new maps. And as we know, whenever you create a commission with the same number of Democrats and Republicans, with the stakes as high as redistricting, there is a very low likelihood of them agreeing on any one set of maps. So we knew that it was going to come to the Legislature. And if this referendum had been passed, then it would have ensured that the Legislature had a clear mandate from New Yorkers to redraw those maps.

    The Legislature — the referendum did not pass. The Legislature drew its own maps. And then the Republicans sued those maps in court. And the highest court, the judges specifically who were appointed by Andrew Cuomo, sided with the Republicans and used this referendum as part of the justification for why those new maps had to be thrown out. And as a consequence, they ordered a special master, which is a title of an individual who drew new maps for the state of New York, to draw these maps. And many of these maps ended up being far more favorable to Republicans than the ones that would have been passed had we passed that referendum.

    AMY GOODMAN: And then you had people like Carolyn Maloney, these congressional stalwarts, the OG, the old guard, versus Jerrold Nadler. They have always been colleagues, for decades, in the House. I wanted to go to AOC’s tweet, Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ”NYS Dem party leadership, which was gutted under Cuomo, stuffed with lobbyists, works to boost GOP, and failed to pass a basic state ballot measure to protect NY redistricting, must be accountable. I called for Jay Jacob’s resignation a year ago and I still hold that position.”

    Let’s put this question to Sochie Nnaemeka, who is the director of the New York Working Families Party. For people to understand in other states, that’s a line on the ballot you could vote for. For example, if you wanted to vote for Governor Hochul again, you could vote for her on the Democratic line, or you could vote for her on the Working Families line. Sochie Nnaemeka, if you can address what AOC is pointing to, the legacy of Andrew Cuomo, and big money donors and lobbyists who still control the Democratic Party of New York?

    SOCHIE NNAEMEKA: Absolutely. Good morning, Amy.

    What we saw was just a series of failures and failed strategies at the state level that really resulted in an election that did not have to be this close. Assemblymember Mamdani talked about the first kind of origin story of Cuomo’s failed districting initiative, Sean Patrick Maloney then jumping into a district south of him, pushing out Mondaire Jones, Democratic incumbents, retirements, and so on and so forth. We just saw a cascading series of crises that led to a low-participation, low-energy general election, a failed infrastructure ability to reach out to voters, especially young voters and voters of color in New York City by the state party.

    And ultimately, if the top of the ticket is not performing at a high level, it is impossible for us to imagine a surge or a wave at the down-ballot level. And so we’re seeing Republicans really taking seats across Long Island, holding on to seats in upstate New York. There is a failed strategy [inaudible] the Democratic Party. And for us, we think it’s a crisis of democracy, because unless you’re actually engaging, recruiting, activating and speaking to young voters, to voters of color, to voters in the city, you’re leaving it up to the consultants and the airwaves to battle for the hearts and minds of working people. That’s a failed strategy. And now the Democratic Party really has to rethink what kind of party that they want to lead.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Sochie, what about victories for the Working Families Party outside of New York state?

    SOCHIE NNAEMEKA: What we did see is, in many states — we look at Pennsylvania, Summer Lee, who held on to her seat despite the influx, the kind of negative ads, the intense dark money that was spent against her. We saw that money also being used in the primary. And we see that in New York state, as Zohran referenced to — right? — the kind of tacit collusion between establishment Democrats and dark money to push out progressives, and then a lack of strategy at the general election. Delia Ramirez is going to win in the Illinois races. So, there is some energy across the United States.

    Unfortunately, in New York state, Democrats did not follow the same playbook that Joe Biden did, for example, that talk about big initiatives — commutations and pardons of federal offenses around marijuana, student debt initiatives. We need big, bold ideas. And in the absence of that, we just saw this relentless, rabid stream of Republican fearmongering.

    AMY GOODMAN: And we’ll be joined by Delia Ramirez tomorrow, the congressmember-elect from Illinois. She’s the first Latina congresswoman to represent Illinois, congresswoman-elect. Sochie, on that issue of the Working Party line, how many more votes did you get this time, and what does that mean? So what if you vote for a Democrat on the Democratic Party line or on the Working Families line? What kind of power does that give you?

    SOCHIE NNAEMEKA: Well, progressives across the state really stepped up to defeat the far right. We knew what was on the line. We knew what was at stake with an extremist like Lee Zeldin. And so, what we were telling voters is that you can work to defeat the far right, and you can put forward an affirmative vision of the New York state that you want.

    In the absence of that messaging from Democrats, we were telling New Yorkers, in particular young people, people of color, immigrants, those who the Democratic Party are maybe not chasing their votes, if you want universal healthcare in New York, if you want universal child care, if you believe that we should make the wealthy pay their fair share and pay what they owe in taxes, vote on the Working Families Party line to deliver that mandate. We see Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez saying that, in particular, that Democrats need working people’s backs to deliver on those big initiatives. Otherwise, the Democratic Party is beholden to corporate interests, to big donors, to consultants. And we have to use our party line to deliver that mandate.

    We had over 280,000 or so New Yorkers who chose to vote on the Working Families line to deliver that clear message. That is basically the margin of difference between Kathy Hochul and Lee Zeldin in this election. And so, we know that New Yorkers, that these ideas are incredibly — are popular with New Yorkers. And now we expect our partners in state government to heed that and to deliver a real working people’s agenda come January.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Zohran, could you talk a little bit about what you think is likely to happen, and also the base of support for Jay Jacobs, who you and, as we mentioned, Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling to resign?

    ASSEMBLYMEMBER ZOHRAN MAMDANI: Yes. I think, you know, first, to be clear, the constituency of calls for resignation has grown, to the extent that a number of my colleagues have been calling for that for many months, and some have also joined recently. I’m thinking of Assemblywoman Jessica González-Rojas, Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher, state Senator Jabari Brisport, state Senator Julia Salazar. The list kind of goes on and on, because so many people have seen that in terms of the vision that we have for the Democratic Party, a party that reflects the state that it is supposed to lead, there is this disconnect. And the disconnect boils down to the leadership of one person, Jay Jacobs, who last year compared the Democratic nominee for the Buffalo mayor’s race, India Walton, to the head of the KKK and faced no consequences for doing so, continued to keep his position.

    You know, I think what yesterday has shown us is very much what Sochie was saying. You can only get so far presenting a negative version of the Republican vision. We can only get so far telling people that “Vote to defeat Lee Zeldin.” We need to have an affirmative vision. The Working Families Party has laid out what that vision could look like, and now the Democratic Party needs to do so, as well.

    And when I think about that, I think particularly about two issues: housing and the climate crisis. Right? More than 75% of New Yorkers across the state are concerned about rising rents, and more than 67% believe that we need to pass good cause eviction as a means by which to keep those rents under control. And so, yesterday — two days ago, rather, when I was at the poll sites handing out literature, I was also talking to people about housing, because in my neighborhood, rents have skyrocketed. In Manhattan, the median rent is now over $4,000. We’re looking at a higher rent increase of 30% from last year to this year. So these are the issues that the state needs to deliver on when we get back to Albany in January. We need to pass good cause eviction. We need to pass the the Housing Access Voucher Program, because then we could have done something that we can point to when we come back to voters and say, “We see the rising costs in your life, and we’re taking action on doing so.”

    And the second issue is the climate crisis. Right? More than 68% of New Yorkers on Tuesday voted for the Environmental Bond Act. Sixty-eight percent of New Yorkers voted for the state to spend more than $4.2 billion on remedying the costs of climate change on a wide variety of issues. And that shows that there is a constituency broader than either party that wants the state to take action on the climate crisis. And so, when we get back to Albany, we have to heed that call, pass the Build Public Renewables Act, ensure that we have a greener energy grid, one that is giving out cut-price electricity to working-class New Yorkers and taking advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed in Washington, D.C.

    AMY GOODMAN: Zohran Mamdani, we want to thank you very much for being with us, New York state assemblymember, and Sochie Nnaemeka, director of the New York Working Families Party.

    Coming up, we look at what the midterms mean for the movement to reform the criminal justice system. A lot was made of the Republican framing of the issues in this election, particularly around crime. But when it came to who was elected, it’s very interesting to see the trend to more progressive criminal justice solutions. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar are seen in the Capitol Visitor Center after a briefing by administration leaders on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan on August 24, 2021.

    The corporate news media certainly do love their deftly twisted story lines. Yesterday’s House voting binge on a variety of hugely important pieces of legislation got the treatment. Why? Because apparently they need the “Dems in Disarray” trope fully in the mix the way hummingbirds need nectar.

    For example, the $3.5 trillion budget blueprint — which includes crucial climate measures and social programs — passed on a straight party line vote on Tuesday. This was a large victory for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who faced down an “uprising” of conservative House Democrats. I put “uprising” in quotes, because, really, the whole point of that knife-to-a-gunfight exercise was so more people would hear the name “Josh Gottheimer.” Not exactly the storming of the Bastille. In the end, all nine “rebel” Democrats voted with the caucus, including Gottheimer, who led the farcical charge. William Wallace weeps.

    The New York Times headline was a perfect example of the media phenomenon: “House Narrowly Passes $3.5 Trillion Blueprint,” as if the resolution passed by a single vote that was hanging by a finger. Progressives won this bill by the largest margin they could possibly win by. They won by a touchdown and a two-point conversion, and to call the win “narrow” is sneaky-misleading because everything in the House is narrow, due to the slim Democratic majority.

    Little drops of poison in the ear… well, it worked on Hamlet’s dad, so why not the American people? The corporate noisemakers do know how to push those buttons. This sort of contorted spin was ubiquitous once the voting was done on Tuesday — The Washington Post used the words “revolt,” “frenzy,” “embarrassment” and “debacle” in the second paragraph of its report, while failing completely to note that Pelosi ran the damn table all day long — and is going to make things really interesting if it continues into September.

    Why so? Next month is going to be one of the more extraordinary stretch runs of vital legislation in the history of the country. Coming soon to a vote are:

    – COVID-motivated enhanced federal unemployment benefits, which expire September 6;
    – The $1 trillion infrastructure bill, by September 27;
    – The $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill by September 15 (non-binding deadline);
    – The debt ceiling (fungible deadline, but best settled by end of September);
    – Funding for the federal government, ends September 30 (this and the debt ceiling could be combined);
    – Federal highway program authorization, expires September 30;
    – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) authorization, expires September 30;
    – Increased benefits for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), expires September 30.

    My head hurts. They’re going to have to start a whole new channel over at C-SPAN to cover the last day of next month alone. Think of all the interesting ways the corporate media will find to spin all of this in favor of their masters. Ow, yeah, my head hurts.

    Tuesday also saw the passage in the House of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, easily the most vital piece of voting rights legislation since the Voting Rights Act itself. This was a concrete victory for voting rights activists. However, as the John Lewis Bill does not affect the budget, it cannot be passed via reconciliation in the Senate, and so must survive the filibuster and the 60-vote cloture barrier. In an evenly divided Senate and with Mitch McConnell riding herd over the Republican minority, it is all but certain the Lewis Act is doomed in that chamber. That not a single Republican voted for it in the House is a grim signal of its probable fate.

    Keep an eye on how rapidly that media will staple the black hat onto the House Progressive Caucus. After the votes yesterday, the caucus immediately issued a statement that threw down a bright, flashing marker on the process: “[W]e will only vote for the infrastructure bill after passing the reconciliation bill.” The Gottheimer group was after the exact opposite; they were ultimately ameliorated by a Pelosi promise to consider the infrastructure bill by September 27. Like I said, a “revolt” settled that easily? Mmm, not so much.

    “When asked about the new end-of-September deadline,” reports Punchbowl News, “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she views the two pieces of legislation as being tied together, and indicated her vote on infrastructure is contingent on a reconciliation package being ready for a vote. ‘If that is not the case then they shouldn’t count on us,’ Ocasio-Cortez warned about progressives.”

    This is no small threat; the Progressive Caucus is comprised of nearly 100 souls. They are a legitimate big dog with the power to derail any legislation they deem unworthy or incomplete. They have not flexed that muscle to date, but it sounds a lot like they’re getting ready to if they feel the need.

    The media will have ample opportunity to label the Progressive Caucus as “radicals,” while the House Freedom Caucus — composed of ultra-conservative Republicans — prepares to disrupt and derail the wildly popular infrastructure bill because, according to them, it is a “Trojan Horse for the radical Pelosi/Biden agenda.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is simply too weak to stop them. A lot of House Republicans would love to vote on this bill, but the Freedom Caucus is laboring to deny them the chance. In the immortal words of Al Pacino in Scarface, “Say hello to the bad guy.”

    As for the Republican minority in the Senate, what do you expect from a pig but a grunt? The infrastructure bill should sail past the 60-vote cloture barrier due to its wide popularity, but it is almost certain that no Republican will vote for the budget bill. This is to be expected, which is why the Democrats are planning on pushing the bill to passage by way of the reconciliation process, which needs only a simple majority for victory, and not one Republican vote if the Democratic Caucus holds together.

    That would be the problem right there. The real trouble in the Senate, to the astonishment of none, will come from Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Jon Tester and however many “moderate” Democrats are lurking in the tall grass. They have threatened to vote against the bill unless it is pared down significantly. If and when this bill goes up for a final vote maybe $2 trillion smaller than the House-passed bill, you can thank conservative Democrats, who are at least as dangerous and destructive as their Republican pals.

    A wild and wooly month lays before us. When the progressives fight to salvage vital programs for the people and the environment, while Republicans and their right-leaning Democratic quislings chop away at the funding for those programs like maddened beavers, see if you can guess who the corporate media will side with. Three guesses, the first two don’t count.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner waits backstage to be introduced ahead of Sen. Bernie Sanders at a rally at Winston-Salem State University on February 27, 2020, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

    Progressive Nina Turner’s congressional campaign announced Monday that it brought in a nearly $2.2 million haul since the Ohio Democrat launched her candidacy in December, including $1.55 million in the first quarter of 2021.

    The former Ohio state senator and 2020 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign co-chair is running for Ohio’s 11th congressional district; the seat was vacated by Rep. Marcia Fudge, who now serves as President Joe Biden’s Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary.

    Turner announced her campaign late last year and has since won endorsements from groups including Justice Democrats and Sunrise Movement Cleveland and federal lawmakers like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

    According to The Washington Post, the campaign cash shows Turner “far outpacing rivals in the special primary for a safe Democratic congressional seat in Cleveland.”

    Among Turner’s competitors is Cuyahoga County councilwoman and chair of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party Shontel Brown, who, by contrast, raised just $680,000 overall in campaign funds—$640,000 of which came in the first quarter.

    Other veterans of the Sanders presidential campaign, including Anna Bahr and Winnie Wong, team celebrated the announcement.

    “You absolutely love to see it,” tweeted Wong.

    The Turner campaign says it’s received 77,578 individual contributions from every state, including Ohio, and from all the zip codes in the 11th district. The average donation in the first quarter was $28.

    “Momentum is building and people can feel it!” Marisa Nahem, press secretary for the congressional campaign, said in a Twitter thread that noted the campaign takes no corporate PAC money.

    Deputy campaign manager Kara Turrentine said the figures reflected a “truly people-powered campaign.” ⁦

    Turner’s progressive platform includes Medicare for All, a Green New deal, cancellation of student debt, and an end to for-profit prisons and immigrant detention centers.

    The primary for the special election to fill Fudge’s seat is set for Aug. 3, 2021.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Can the biggest stimulus in modern U.S. history stave off home foreclosures, save businesses and prevent the worst economic crash since the Great Depression? 

    Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.