New Zealand’s National-led coalition government’s policy on Gaza seems caught between a desire for a two-state diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and closer alignment with the US, which supports a Netanyahu government strongly opposed to a Palestinian state
In the last 17 months, Gaza has been the scene of what Thomas Merton once called the unspeakable — human wrongdoing on a scale and a depth that seems to go beyond the capacity of words to adequately describe.
The latest Gaza conflict began with a horrific Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 that prompted a relentless Israel ground and air offensive in Gaza with full financial, logistical and diplomatic backing from the Biden administration.
During this period, around 50,000 people – 48,903 Palestinians and 1706 Israelis – have been reported killed in the Gaza conflict, according to the official figures of the Gaza Health Ministry, as well as 166 journalists and media workers, 120 academics,and more than 224 humanitarian aid workers.
Moreover, a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, signed in mid-January, seems to be hanging by a thread.
Israel has resumed its blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza and cut off electricity after Hamas rejected an Israeli proposal to extend phase 1 of the ceasefire deal (to release more Israeli hostages) without any commitment to implement phase 2 (that envisaged ending the conflict in Gaza and Israel withdrawing its troops from the territory).
Hamas insists on negotiating phase 2 as signed by both parties in the January ceasefire agreement
Over the weekend, Israel reportedly launched air-strikes in Gaza and the Trump administration unleashed a wave of attacks on Houthi rebel positions in Yemen after the Houthis warned Israel not to restart the war in Gaza.
New Zealand and the Gaza conflict Although distant in geographic terms, the Gaza crisis represents a major moral and legal challenge to New Zealand’s self-image and its worldview based on the strengthening of an international rules-based order.
New Zealand’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasised partnership and cooperation between indigenous Māori and European settlers in nation-building.
While the aspirations of the Treaty have yet to be fully realised, the credibility of its vision of reconciliation at home depends on New Zealand’s willingness to uphold respect for human rights and the rule of law in the international arena, particularly in states like Israel where tensions persist between the settler population and Palestinians in occupied territories like the West Bank.
New Zealand’s declaratory stance towards Gaza
In 2023 and 2024, New Zealand consistently backed calls in the UN General Assembly for humanitarian truces or ceasefires in Gaza. It also joined Australia and Canada in February and July last year to demand an end to hostilities.
The New Zealand Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, told the General Assembly in April 2024 that the Security Council had failed in its responsibility “to maintain international peace and security”.
He was right. The Biden administration used its UN Security Council veto four times to perpetuate this brutal onslaught in Gaza for nearly 15 months.
In addition, Peters has repeatedly said there can be no military resolution of a political problem in Gaza that can only be resolved through affirming the Palestinian right to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
The limitations of New Zealand’s Gaza approach Despite considerable disagreement with Netanyahu’s policy of “mighty vengeance” in Gaza, the National-led coalition government had few qualms about sending a small Defence Force deployment to the Red Sea in January 2024 as part of a US-led coalition effort to counter Houthi rebel attacks on commercial shipping there.
While such attacks are clearly illegal, they are basically part of the fallout from a prolonged international failure to stop the US-enabled carnage in Gaza.
In particular, the NZDF’s Red Sea deployment did not sit comfortably with New Zealand’s acceptance in September 2024 of the ICJ’s ruling that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) was “unlawful”.
At the same time, the National-led coalition government’s silence on US President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to “own” Gaza, displace two million Palestinian residents and make the territory the “Riviera” of the Middle East was deafening.
Furthermore, while Wellington announced travel bans on violent Israeli settlers in the West Bank in February 2024, it has had little to say publicly about the Netanyahu government’s plans to annex the West Bank in 2025. Such a development would gravely undermine the two-state solution, violate international law, and further fuel regional tensions.
New Zealand’s low-key policy On balance, the National-led coalition government’s policy towards Gaza appears to be ambivalent and lacking moral and legal clarity in a context in which war crimes have been regularly committed since October 7.
Peters was absolutely correct to condemn the UNSC for failing to deliver the ceasefire that New Zealand and the overwhelming majority of states in the UN General Assembly had wanted from the first month of this crisis.
But the New Zealand government has had no words of criticism for the US, which used its power of veto in the UNSC for more than a year to thwart the prospect of a ceasefire and provided blanket support for an Israeli military campaign that killed huge numbers of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
By cooperating with the Biden administration against Houthi rebels and adopting a quietly-quietly approach to Trump’s provocative comments on Gaza and his apparent willingness to do whatever it takes to help Israel “to get the job done’, New Zealand has revealed a selective approach to upholding international law and human rights in the desperate conditions facing Gaza
Professor Robert G. Patman is an Inaugural Sesquicentennial Distinguished Chair and his research interests concern international relations, global security, US foreign policy, great powers, and the Horn of Africa. This article was first published by The Spinoff and is republished here with the author’s permission.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Vietnamese leader To Lam recently spent a week in Indonesia and Singapore, where he celebrated the 70th and 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations, respectively, and elevated ties to “comprehensive strategic partnership,” Vietnam’s highest ranking.
Such high-level visits are not unusual given Hanoi’s close ties with those fellow ASEAN countries. But what’s striking about this tour is that Lam, the general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV), is playing the top diplomat role, normally the duty of the president or prime minister.
By doing this, Lam has made clear that he sees the CPV’s most powerful post as having executive functions in the party-state never taken on by his predecessors, who were focused on policy and ideology.
Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto (R) shakes hands with Vietnam’s Communist Party General Secretary To Lam after a press conference at the Presidential Palace in Jakarta on March 10, 2025.(Bay Ismoyo/AFP)
Lam, as minister of public security, weaponized counter-corruption investigations to systematically remove rivals from the CPV Politburo from December 2022 to mid-2024, culminating in his election as president in May 2024.
Following the death of the longtime CPV General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong in July 2024, state President Lam was elevated to the top party spot.
Some observers believe Lam tried to hold onto the presidency, but that was seen as an unacceptable accumulation of power that violated Vietnam’s norm of collective leadership.
He relinquished the presidency and in October 2024, Luong Cuong was appointed to replace him.
Cuong, who served as the Army’s top political commissar, was viewed as an institutional check on the growing clout of the Ministry of Public Security within the CPV’s senior ranks.
Tightening his grip
But Lam has clearly consolidated power since then.
He has been able to install key allies in critically important positions.
These include Luong Tam Quang who succeeded him as minister of public security, and another deputy, Nguyen Duy Ngoc from the Central Committee office.
Le Minh Hung heads the VPV’s organization Commission, which makes him the de facto head of human resources for the party, a key position ahead of the next five-year party congress in January.
Rounding out Lam’s inner circle are deputy prime minister Nguyen Hoa Binh; Do Van Chien, former head of the Supreme Court who heads the party’s mass mobilization arm, the Vietnam Fatherland Front; and foreign policy guru Le Hoai Trung, now Lam’s chief of staff.
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto (L) and Vietnam’s Communist Party General Secretary To Lam inspect the guard of honor, during a welcoming ceremony, on the day of their meeting, at the Merdeka Palace in Jakarta, Indonesia, March 10, 2025.(Ajeng Dinar Ulfiana/Reuters)
Lam has put his loyalists on an expanded CPV Politburo, which at its nadir last year, due to forced retirements, had just 13 members. Ngoc was elevated to the Politburo in violation of party rules that require having served a full term on the Central Committee.
Politburo expansion matters for another reason: The norm is that no more than 50% of the politburo gets replaced at a party congress. Expanding the top decision-making body gives Lam more maneuvering room to retire any remaining rivals.
Reinforcing his power is his de facto control of the Ministry of Public Security through his protégé Luong Tam Quang. And his recent installation of former security deputy Ngoc as the head of the CPV’s Central Inspection Commission, the party corruption watchdog, has expanded his ability to weaponize counter-corruption investigations.
In short, anyone within the Central Committee who poses a threat or presents a challenge to Lam ahead of the 14th Congress in January is likely to face legal jeopardy. Central Committee compliance at the party congress is expected to be high.
We have seen just how secure Lam is going into the Congress. Normally, decision-making and policy implementation crawls to a standstill in the year preceding a Congress.
Yet, this year we have seen unprecedented policy implementation in the form of a major government restructuring that eliminated five government ministries, three state-level commissions, and cut over 100,000 public sector jobs.
The reforms are impacting the provinces too, with a proposed consolidation of smaller provinces and the proposed elimination of all district level offices.
Leaders rarely embark on such bold policies if their re-election is in doubt.
Lam is very concerned about Vietnam falling into the middle income trap, and worries about bureaucratic inefficiency, and is acting with added urgency.
Vietnam’s Communist Party General Secretary To Lam gestures during the autumn opening session at the the National Assembly in Hanoi on Oct. 21, 2024.(Nhac Nguyen/AFP)
The general secretary is a very different figure than his predecessor.
With the exception of a four year stint as chairman of the National Assembly, Trong’s six decade-long career was spent within the party, and almost all of that as a theoretician.
As the party’s top ideologue, Trong’s job was to “set the line” for policy.
Lam is doing something fundamentally different, turning the general secretary into an executive position.
He’s not just setting the bookends in which policy can be deliberated, he’s proactively leading policy, formulation, and implementation.
Lam may have been forced to cede the presidency last September, but there is no doubt that he is the top diplomat.
State-led capitalism
For eight years, Lam was the party’s top enforcer and defender of its monopoly of power, but he was no ideologue. Communism was simply a means to an end.
There is a shrewd, ruthless pragmatism to Lam who sees CPV legitimacy coming from economic performance.
Vietnam, under his tenure, is likely to remain every bit as authoritarian, but operate more in the mold of state-led capitalism.
Lam has clearly looked to China’s supreme leader Xi Jinping for selective inspiration.
At the 14th Congress, he may push again for the general secretary post and the presidency to be conjoined, as in China.
Lam has systematically removed rival factions, and surrounded himself with a small core of empowered loyalists.
But most of all, like Xi, he sees himself as the man of the moment, the only person capable of taking on needed structural reforms, while maintaining the party’s monopoly of power.
And as Xi ran the tables at the 20th Congress in October 2022, Lam is poised to do the same at the CPV’s 14th.
What could make this possible, is the way that Lam has reinvented the position of general secretary, assuming executive functions, in a way that none of his predecessors in the Doi Moi era have.
Zachary Abuza is a professor at the National War College in Washington and an adjunct at Georgetown University. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Defense, the National War College, Georgetown University or Radio Free Asia.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by commentator Zachary Abuza.
A little over a week ago — and unsurprisingly ignored by the British corporate media — the United Nations published a new report calling for Keir Starmer’s Labour Party government to take “corrective measures” to address the impact of the devastating cuts to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) disability benefits introduced under Conservative governments.
The recommendations, made by the UN’s committee on economic, social, and cultural rights, call for an increase in disability-related benefits, more commonly known as PIP and ESA, to allow disabled people to live adequately.
The irony isn’t lost on me.
Just as the UN calls for an increase in spending on Britain’s welfare system along comes Keir Starmer’s Labour to attack the very people the report calls to be protected by increased spending.
DWP cuts to cover for the unwinnable war against Putin
With an unwinnable war of distraction against Putin’s Russia looking increasingly unlikely to happen, Labour has officially declared a catastrophic war on sick and disabled people instead.
Documents leaked to ITV suggest the Labour government plan to cut £6 billion from the welfare budget, with £5 billion coming from DWP PIP — money that is awarded to help with the additional cost of living with disabilities.
I need to know, what the fuck actually happens to an MP when they enter parliament?
Their promise of building a better tomorrow is left at the door, along with anything that resembles the intellectual ability to think for themselves.
These detestable, Labour freeloaders make traffic wardens and speed camera cops look like loveable angels of the highways.
Have any of the soulless carpetbaggers even thought about looking at the number of current job vacancies — 819,000 — and the number of healthy DWP jobseekers — 1.46 million — and then wondered what they plan to do with the disabled people that they will try and force into work with a combination of ‘anti-obesity’ pills, public shaming and cuts to disability benefits?
How things have changed
Cast your mind back to 2020. Covid arrived in the UK, millions of people were told to stay at home, and in many cases were forced to apply for DWP Universal Credit to help make ends meet.
For some, it was the first time in their lives that they needed to claim some form of social security, and as pitiful as Universal Credit is, there’s no doubt that it’s better than a poke in the eye with a shitty stick when you’re wondering how you are going to afford to put some food on the table, wherever you sit upon the political spectrum.
But most noticeably, the media and the political establishment came together to mute the entirely dishonest feckless scrounger narrative, almost.
Suddenly, you could get a speedier advance on your Universal Credit claim. Universal Credit, and let’s not forget the furlough scheme, were shining examples of why the welfare state was so important to the British people.
Now think about where we are today.
The hostility towards disabled benefit claimants being promoted in the British media, and helped along by Labour politicians this past week has been as vile and hostile as anything I have seen over the past ten years. No doubt.
The half-hearted, dim-witted attempt at compassion and understanding from just five years ago has gone, and once again, the hostile rhetoric has returned to haunt the millions of disabled people that feel utterly betrayed by Keir Starmer.
Dignitas sponsoring the DWP?
Labour think the answer to our apparent economic woes lies in penalising some of the most vulnerable people in Britain while the media get angry over Sky TV, iPhones, and single mums scrounging DWP benefits. We’re actually living through the Cameron years again.
What next? Why don’t we just have Dignitas sponsor the DWP’s ‘economically inactive’ task force and be done with the fluffy bullshit about helping disabled people back into work?
If you tell them you’re friendly with Liz Duncan Smith they might even throw in a free flight to Switzerland. One way, obviously.
How do they sleep at night?
I’ll tell you exactly how they sleep. Perfectly well, on a nice comfortable bed, with adequate warmth that is generously paid for from the public purse. That’s not all of them. Some of them hang upside down in their lairs all day because they cannot be exposed to sunlight.
I’ve sat down over the last few days and looked at the “difficult decisions” that we need to make to ensure Zelenskyy can lose a war to Russia in a dignified manner, and I think we’re missing an obvious opportunity.
Why force millions of disabled people to find nonexistent jobs AND send the neo-Nazis a shit tonne of bombs when we can send the Ukrainian comedy guy a shit tonne of disabled people, deemed surplus to requirements by the British Labour Party?
Furthermore, why do we need to boost our own army numbers at home while there’s plenty of British pensioners that can earn back (some of) their winter fuel allowance with a bit of paratrooper duty and hand-to-hand combat with Putin’s highly trained killers, and keep warm at the same time?
YOU try filling out a DWP Universal Credit claim
I need to be careful here.
I don’t want the editor thinking I’ve joined UKIP 2.0, but don’t let anyone tell you a bed-bound chronic pain sufferer can’t do their bit by volunteering to pull down lefty protestors from Big Ben, or better still, do some labouring on one of the many building sites that must be cropping up everywhere, what with the prime minister promising to get Britain building houses again…
In a coma? Don’t let that hold you back. Members of the House of Lords have been getting away with it for centuries. If those brandy-drenched dossers can turn up half-dead for a twenty minute shift and pick up more than £300 for the inconvenience, there’s absolutely nothing stopping you from finding ‘dignity in work’.
Work sets you… okay I’ll stop now.
I think it’s a weird coping mechanism. Labour turns out to be worse than the Tories, my little brain retreats in absolute horror, and all I’m left with is sarcasm.
If the ridiculous right honestly believe a life on benefits is so bloody easy, why don’t they ditch their jobs and start filling out the forms to claim DWP Universal Credit? They can always volunteer if they want to contribute something positive, or give themselves a purpose to get up in the morning, right? They can start on my front garden first thing Monday morning, if it’s a pride thing.
You should see the weeds that are growing, and I’m not talking about the laughably-illegal stuff that you can smell just about everywhere these days.
I don’t smoke da reefa – however…
I know that’s another conversation altogether, but why is it you can go to your doctor and get some seriously heavy duty opioids — I’m regularly offered oxycontin and morphine by my various GPs — for free if you qualify, but you can’t smoke a bit of self-purchased pain relieving wacky baccy without risking a criminal record? Isn’t that what’s known as “arse about tit”, or something?
I don’t smoke weed, and I rarely take anything stronger than a paracetamol to manage osteoarthritis, a chronic pain syndrome called fibromyalgia, and a couple of other issues that deem me to be blue-badge-worthy.
There’s also the fact that I don’t want to be having conversations with imaginary purple penguins whilst trying to lecture sizeable groups on the virtues of losing weight in a healthy and balanced way, if you know what I mean?
But like most of you, I know more than one person that benefits from instant pain relief after they’ve had a smoke, so why not take it out of the hands of the dealers, who often sell harder substances, and make it as widely available as a pack of 16 Nurofen from your nearest Tesco Express?
That would obviously require a tiny bit of progressive thinking, so you can bet your bottom dollar that Keir Starmer will reclassify cannabis as a Class A substance before you can say “a pack of king-size Rizla and just these eighteen bags of Haribo Tangfastics, please”, given half-the-chance.
Labour’s new war on disabled people will go down as one of the darkest chapters of this deeply unpopular government’s one term in power.
Labour’s assault on DWP claimants: its darkest hour yet
We were ridiculed by the centrists for having the temerity to point out that Keir Starmer is a bit of a Tory. Perhaps they were right to laugh at us, because there’s no “bit of” about it. Keir Starmer is a one nation Tory, and a fucking nasty one at that.
Taking money from pensioners? Looking for war with Russia? Slashing DWP disability money to pay for it? Kissing the saggy arse of a neofascist tangerine? Funded by foreign lobbyists? Supportive of genocidal regimes and their fugitive leaders?
This really isn’t what a Labour government is supposed to look like. Is it?
Finally, sharing independent left-wing media on every fucking platform known to humankind has never been so important.
There’s a very good chance you are reading my weekly Canary column via the platform formally known as Twitter, or perhaps Facebook.
While the battle with the establishment media will never end, the giants of social media have turned up and taken the narrative to a whole new, exceptionally dangerous level.
Please do support the Canary, if you can. You will struggle to find better coverage of Labour’s war on the disabled people of Britain, because the Canary actively supports and employs disabled writers and journalists to bring you the news the corporate media prefers to gloss over.
As Donald Trump and his tariffs trade war escalates, the stock markets have taken a massive hit, and many investors and economists fear that a recession is imminent as shockwaves continue to pound Wall Street.
Given the huge hit to share prices earlier this week, in response to the tariffs, it appears that Justin Trudeau’s comment just last month about Trump’s tariffs being “very dumb” couldn’t ring truer.
Trump tariffs: a week of chaos
This week, Trump threatened that the tariffs could get more vicious for the rest of the world, as he proposed introducing a 200% tariff on EU wine and champagne. He took to Truth Social to express his thoughts on the EU’s retaliatory tariffs which he dubbed (in true Trumpian Language), “nasty”.
His justification for this is that the claims that US trading partners have long taken advantage of the country, and that the tariffs will bring back jobs and help the economy to boom.
However, the reality is that Trump’s tariffs will simply rip up the economy and destroy any hope of the US working with its trading partners, who have now become de facto enemies to Trump’s administration.
The tariffs have already taken a big hit on Canada’s economy, as his steel and aluminium import ones came into effect on Wednesday. It has become evident that Trump wants to take a wrecking ball to not only the US economy, but the centuries-long global trade order shared with its allies.
Not only has he placed tariffs on steel and aluminium but also proposed tariffs to come into effect from 2 April, which will have a devastating impact upon the car industry in Canada – potentially forcing businesses to shut.
The incoming prime minister, successor of Trudeau, and ex-Bank of England boss Mark Carney called Trump’s tariffs an “attack on Canadian workers, families and businesses”.
Carney also promised to continue to fight for the Canadian people against Trump’s devastating economic endeavours. He strongly stated that the US “will pay a financial price for this so big that it will be read about in history books for many years to come.”
Voters are not happy
The fraction and tension between Canada and the US is not only concerning Canadians, but voters too – who are deeply concerned about how they are going to be able to pay their bills, after their horrified reaction to tumbling stock markets which have taken hits to their shares, salaries, and older people’s pockets.
In a recent poll conducted by Navigator Research, 37% of registered voters supported his plan, whilst 41% were opposed to it.
Then, global stock markets fell sharply with the S&P 500 making a sharp downturn from its post-election gains. US retail services have warned that it is “highly likely” that the prices on the shelves will rise. This is due to the 25% duty that came into fruition on exports from Mexico to the US.
This will be disappointing to Trump loyalists who thought their egg prices would reduce. During the election campaign die hard MAGA fans voted for Trump with the misguided and brainwashed belief that he was the answer to the economy.
Even the Trump administration conceded that the tariffs will have implications on the US, as Howard Lutnick told CNBC that “there may well be short-term price movements”.
Global discontent
Not only have American voters expressed extreme discontent, but people across the world have begun to boycott US products, notably Elon Musk’s Tesla. People rushed to put signs up on their car bonnets with the phrase “I bought this car before I knew Elon was crazy”.
Similarly in Canada, consumers have joined the fight against Trump’s tariffs through buying Canadian maple syrup instead of American, as they join the worldwide boycott against Uncle Sam. There has also been a surge in searches on Google titled “Boycott the USA”, which expresses just how discontented the rest of the world is with Trump’s disastrous presidency.
Furthermore, in Europe and other countries websites and apps have been set up which display alternative products compared to US goods, such as “Buy European”, “European Alternatives”, and “Made in Canada”.
Even Trump himself understands the fireball he has caused in the economy. When asked on Fox News about the possibility of a recession, he neither confirmed nor denied that one was potentially on the way, as he responded, “I hate to predict things”.
His rather dizzying attitude to the economy, and policies that he initiates and then retracts, has had a jolting impact on the stock markets around the world, as economists are confused as to how to react to his erratic behaviour.
Trump tariffs are playing with fire
But Trump and his tariffs are evidently playing with people’s businesses and livelihoods and driving consumer confidence into the floor, as people continue to battle and grapple with the cost of living which feels never ending for many.
Trump’s policies will only make this worse, and his classic excuse for when it all goes up in flames will be blaming the ‘deep state’ – but also Joe Biden, a former president who is no longer in charge of the US economy, yet who Trump loves to berate at any given chance.
Professor Larry Sabato, who works at the University of Virginia and teaches politics, said in a response to his consistent blame game of Biden:
Here’s another norm that Trump has exploded. Trump has no limits, and his base lets him get away with anything. So, expect it to continue.
There will come a point, however, when Trump will have to face the consequences of his actions, and a point when he can no longer place the blame on Biden. He will eventually be forced to face the tune of the music within the American public, which at the moment, is very much one of discontent .
When it comes to antisemitism, politicians in Australia are often quick to jump on the claim without waiting for evidence.
With notable and laudable exceptions like the Greens and independents such as Tasmanian federal MP Andrew Wilkie, it seems any allegation will do when it comes to the opportunity to imply Arab Australians, the Muslim community and Palestinian supporters are trying to destroy the lives of the Jewish community.
A case in point. The discovery in January this year of a caravan found in Dural, New South Wales, filled with explosives and a note that referenced the Great Synagogue in Sydney led to a frenzy of clearly uninformed and dangerous rhetoric from politicians and the media about an imminent terrorist attack targeting the Jewish community.
It was nothing of the sort as we now know with the revelation by police that this was a “fabricated terrorist plot”.
As the ABC reported on March 10: “Police have said an explosives-laden caravan discovered in January at Dural in Sydney’s north-west was a ‘fake terrorism plot’ with ties to organised crime”, and that “the Australian Federal Police said they were confident this was a ‘fabricated terrorist plot’,” adding the belief was held “very early on after the caravan was located”.
One would have thought the political and media class would know that it is critical in a society supposedly underpinned by the rule of law that police be allowed to get on with the job of investigating allegations without comment.
Particularly so in the hot-house atmosphere that exists in this nation today.
Opportunistic Dutton
But not the ever opportunistic and divisive federal opposition leader Peter Dutton.
After the Daily Telegraph reported the Dural caravan story on January 29, Dutton was quick to say that this “was potentially the biggest terrorist attack in our country’s history”. To his credit, Prime Anthony Albanese said in response he does not “talk about operational matters for an ongoing investigation”.
Dutton’s language was clearly designed to whip up fear and hysteria among the Jewish community and to demonise Palestinian supporters.
He was not Robinson Crusoe sadly. New South Wales Premier Chris Minns told the media on January 29 that the Dural caravan discovery had the potential to have led to a “mass casualty event”.
The Zionist Federation of Australia, an organisation that is an unwavering supporter of Israel despite the horror that nation has inflicted on Gaza, was even more overblown in its claims.
It issued a statement that claimed: “This is undoubtedly the most severe threat to the Jewish community in Australia to date. The plot, if executed, would likely have resulted in the worst terrorist attack on Australian soil.”
Note the word “undoubtedly”.
Uncritical Israeli claims
Then there was another uncritical Israel barracker, Sky News’ Sharri Markson, who claimed; “To think perpetrators would have potentially targeted a museum commemorating the Holocaust — a time when six million Jews were killed — is truly horrifying.”
And naturally, Jilian Segal, the highly partisan so-called “Antisemitism Envoy” said the discovery of the caravan was a “chilling reminder that the same hatred that led to the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust still exists today”.
In short, the response to the Dural caravan incident was simply an exercise in jumping on the antisemitism issue without any regard to the consequences for our community, including the fear it spread among Jewish Australians and the further demonising of the Arab Australian community.
No circumspection. No leadership. No insistence that the matter had not been investigated fully.
As the only Jewish organisation that represents humanity, the Jewish Council of Australia, said in a statement from its director Sarah Schwartz on March 10 the “statement from the AFP [Australian Federal Police] should prompt reflection from every politician, journalist and community leader who has sought to manipulate and weaponise fears within the Jewish community.
‘Irresponsible and dangerous’
“The attempt to link these events to the support of Palestinians — whether at protests, universities, conferences or writers’ festivals — has been irresponsible and dangerous.” Truth in spades.
And ask yourself this question. Let’s say the Dural caravan contained notes about mosques and Arab Australian community centres. Would the media, politicians and others have whipped up the same level of hysteria and divisive rhetoric?
The answer is no.
One assumes Dutton, Segal, the Zionist Federation and others who frothed at the mouth in January will now offer a collective mea culpa. Sadly, they won’t because there will be no demands to do so.
The damage to our legal system has been done because political opportunism and milking antisemitism for political ends comes first for those who should know better.
Greg Barns SC is national criminal justice spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance. This article was first published by Pearls and Irritations social policy journal and is republished with permission.
So now while (most of) the rest of the media have stopped pushing constant clickbait about scroungers, I’m out of words. I’m exhausted. But I’m not giving up. This week’s column is something a little different. As so many disabled people are emailing their MPs I wanted to share what I wrote to my MP Lewis Atkinson. If you would like to write to your own MP you can use this as a template.
DWP cuts: the cruelest so far
Dear Lewis,
I am writing to you to share my deep concern about the reported DWP cuts to disability benefits that are coming.
As a disability rights journalist, I am appalled that Labour are (reportedly) planning further cuts to disabled people’s vital benefits. I’m saddened that after years in opposition holding the Tories to account on disability benefits-related deaths, the Labour Party now want to push disabled people further into poverty, which could result in god knows how many more deaths.
These DWP cuts are supposed to help disabled people into work, but in reality, they will do the opposite. DWP PIP is a vital benefit for many who do work already, it has nothing to do with unemployment. In fact many, including myself, rely on PIP so that we can work only the hours we need instead of making ourselves more ill.
PIP is not ‘easy’ to get
Despite what is often claimed by politicians and the media, DWP PIP is also not an easy to claim benefit, so it’s preposterous that the government seemingly want to make it harder to claim. The PIP form is 40 pages long, and requires the claimant to provide an extensive amount of evidence from medical professionals. You can’t just say you have mental health issues of ADHD like many pundits claim.
Whilst raising Universal Credit for those searching for work or in work is a good thing, balancing that by cutting benefits for those who can’t work is just cruel. How is that supposed to incentivise people in to work when they’ve already been deemed unfit for work by a system that is already inhumane to navigate?
Stark figures
What is equally worrying to me is the claim that the DWP plans to freeze the rate of PIP so that it doesn’t rise with inflation, this is despite disabled people already being in deep poverty. There are many, many stats around disability and poverty but here are just a few:
Disabled people have on average 44% less disposable income annually than non-disabled people.
34% of disabled people are in the lowest category for household income, compared to 13% of non-disabled people.
55% of disabled adults said they were struggling to afford energy bills.
41% of disabled people couldn’t afford to heat their homes.
31% of disabled people said they had less money to spend on food.
36% of disabled people are struggling with their rent of mortgage.
Trussell Trust estimated in 2023 that 75% of people accessing their food banks had at least one disabled person in their household.
As you well know, our area the North East is a hugely deprived area, with 25% living in poverty, but you may not know that the North East also has the highest rate of disabled people in the whole country. 21.2% of people in the North East are disabled, while 7.8% of households in the North East have two or more disabled people in them. I surely don’t need to impress on you how much further this would plunge our region into poverty and make it even harder for our people to live.
Dodgy stats
A key statistic that the DWP use to support all of this cruelty is that 200,000 people in the Low Capability for Work Related Activity Universal Credit group said that they would like to work. However, this isn’t the whole picture.
That figure was taken from just 5% answering that they would like to work tomorrow if given the right support. The second half of that sentence is crucial, as at the moment, disabled people do not have enough support. Pumping money into work coaches wont stand for anything when the waiting list for Access to Work grows and grows.
There’s also another part to that stat that is ignored. If 5% said they could work with the right support, then 95% said no, they couldn’t. The 200,000 figure has been scaled up to be representative of the number of claimants. So if we do that for how many said no, we’re looking at around 3.8 million who the government know couldn’t work and are still planning on cutting the benefits for.
DWP cuts must not go ahead
I also know that you are on the Assisted Dying Bill Committee, whilst the committee maintains that disabled people are not in danger of being subjected to assisted dying, many disabled people are still concerned – especially due to the amendments that are being denied. Whilst there has still not been an expansion for incurable conditions, people will be allowed if they feel like a burden. I honestly do not see how disabled people would not feel like burdens when this government consistently makes us out to be them.
I would finally like to invite you to a meeting held by the Coalition Against Benefit Cuts in Parliament next week. The meeting is on 17 March 4-6pm, at the Thatcher Room in Portcullis House.
I urge you to stand against these reported changes, for the good of all disabled people – but especially for those in your constituency who would struggle to live if these DWP cuts came in.
SPECIAL REPORT: By Giff Johnson, editor of the Marshall Islands Journal and RNZ Pacific correspondent in Majuro
The late Member of Parliament Jeton Anjain and the people of the nuclear test-affected Rongelap Atoll changed the course of the history of the Marshall Islands by using Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior ship to evacuate their radioactive home islands 40 years ago.
They did this by taking control of their own destiny after decades of being at the mercy of the United States nuclear testing programme and its aftermath.
In 1954, the US tested the Bravo hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll, spewing high-level radioactive fallout on unsuspecting Rongelap Islanders nearby.
For years after the Bravo test, decisions by US government doctors and scientists caused Rongelap Islanders to be continuously exposed to additional radiation.
Marshall Islands traditional and government leaders joined Greenpeace representatives in showing off tapa banners with the words “Justice for Marshall Islands” during the dockside welcome ceremony earlier this week in Majuro. Image: Giff Johnson/RNZ Pacific
The 40th anniversary of the dramatic evacuation of Rongelap Atoll in 1985 by the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior — a few weeks before French secret agents bombed the ship in Auckland harbour — was spotlighted this week in Majuro with the arrival of Greenpeace’s flagship Rainbow Warrior III to a warm welcome combining top national government leaders, the Rongelap Atoll Local Government and the Rongelap community.
“We were displaced, our lives were disrupted, and our voices ignored,” said MP Hilton Kendall, who represents Rongelap in the Marshall Islands Parliament, at the welcome ceremony in Majuro earlier in the week.
“In our darkest time, Greenpeace stood with us.”
‘Evacuated people to safety’
He said the Rainbow Warrior “evacuated the people to safety” in 1985.
Greenpeace would “forever be remembered by the people of Rongelap,” he added.
In 1984, Jeton Anjain — like most Rongelap people who were living on the nuclear test-affected atoll — knew that Rongelap was unsafe for continued habitation.
The Able US nuclear test at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands on 1 July 1946. Image: US National Archives
There was not a single scientist or medical doctor among their community although Jeton was a trained dentist, and they mainly depended on US Department of Energy-provided doctors and scientists for health care and environmental advice.
They were always told not to worry and that everything was fine.
But it wasn’t, as the countless thyroid tumors, cancers, miscarriages and surgeries confirmed.
Crew of the Rainbow Warrior and other Greenpeace officials — including two crew members from the original Rainbow Warrior, Bunny McDiarmid and Henk Hazen, from Aotearoa New Zealand – were welcomed to the Marshall Islands during a dockside ceremony in Majuro to mark the 40th anniversary of the evacuation of Rongelap Atoll. Image: Giff Johnson/RNZ Pacific
As the desire of Rongelap people to evacuate their homeland intensified in 1984, unbeknown to them Greenpeace was hatching a plan to dispatch the Rainbow Warrior on a Pacific voyage the following year to turn a spotlight on the nuclear test legacy in the Marshall Islands and the ongoing French nuclear testing at Moruroa in French Polynesia.
A Rainbow Warrior question
As I had friends in the Greenpeace organisation, I was contacted early on in its planning process with the question: How could a visit by the Rainbow Warrior be of use to the Marshall Islands?
Jeton and I were good friends by 1984, and had worked together on advocacy for Rongelap since the late 1970s. I informed him that Greenpeace was planning a visit and without hesitation he asked me if the ship could facilitate the evacuation of Rongelap.
At this time, Jeton had already initiated discussions with Kwajalein traditional leaders to locate an island that they could settle in that atoll.
I conveyed Jeton’s interest in the visit to Greenpeace, and a Greenpeace International board member, the late Steve Sawyer, who coordinated the Pacific voyage of the Rainbow Warrior, arranged a meeting for the three of us in Seattle to discuss ideas.
Jeton and I flew to Seattle and met Steve. After the usual preliminaries, Jeton asked Steve if the Rainbow Warrior could assist Rongelap to evacuate their community to Mejatto Island in Kwajalein Atoll, a distance of about 250 km.
Steve responded in classic Greenpeace campaign thinking, which is what Greenpeace has proved effective in doing over many decades. He said words to the effect that the Rainbow Warrior could aid a “symbolic evacuation” by taking a small group of islanders from Rongelap to Majuro or Ebeye and holding a media conference publicising their plight with ongoing radiation exposure.
“No,” said Jeton firmly. He wasn’t talking about a “symbolic” evacuation. He told Steve: “We want to evacuate Rongelap, the entire community and the housing, too.”
Steve Sawyer taken aback
Steve was taken aback by what Jeton wanted. Steve simply hadn’t considered the idea of evacuating the entire community.
But we could see him mulling over this new idea and within minutes, as his mind clicked through the significant logistics hurdles for evacuation of the community — including that it would take three-to-four trips by the Rainbow Warrior between Rongelap and Mejatto to accomplish it — Steve said it was possible.
And from that meeting, planning for the 1985 Marshall Islands visit began in earnest.
I offer this background because when the evacuation began in early May 1985, various officials from the United States government sharply criticised Rongelap people for evacuating their atoll, saying there was no radiological hazard to justify the move and that they were being manipulated by Greenpeace for its own anti-nuclear agenda.
Women from the nuclear test-affected Rongelap Atoll greeted the Rainbow Warrior and its crew with songs and dances this week as part of celebrating the 40th anniversary of the evacuation of Rongelap Atoll in 1985 by the Rainbow Warrior. Image: Giff Johnson/RNZ Pacific
This condescending American government response suggested Rongelap people did not have the brain power to make important decisions for themselves.
But it also showed the US government’s lack of understanding of the gravity of the situation in which Rongelap Islanders lived day in and day out in a highly radioactive environment.
The Bravo hydrogen bomb test blasted Rongelap and nearby islands with snow-like radioactive fallout on 1 March 1954. The 82 Rongelap people were first evacuated to the US Navy base at Kwajalein for emergency medical treatment and the start of long-term studies by US government doctors.
No radiological cleanup
A few months later, they were resettled on Ejit Island in Majuro, the capital atoll, until 1957 when, with no radiological cleanup conducted, the US government said it was safe to return to Rongelap and moved the people back.
“Even though the radioactive contamination of Rongelap Island is considered perfectly safe for human habitation, the levels of activity are higher than those found in other inhabited locations in the world,” said a Brookhaven National Laboratory report commenting on the return of Rongelap Islanders to their contaminated islands in 1957.
It then stated plainly why the people were moved back: “The habitation of these people on the island will afford most valuable ecological radiation data on human beings.”
And for 28 years, Rongelap people lived in one of the world’s most radioactive environments, consuming radioactivity through the food chain and by living an island life.
Proving the US narrative of safety to be false, the 1985 evacuation forced the US Congress to respond by funding new radiological studies of Rongelap.
Thanks to the determination of the soft-spoken but persistent leadership of Jeton, he ensured that a scientist chosen by Rongelap would be included in the study. And the new study did indeed identify health hazards, particularly for children, of living on Rongelap.
The US Congress responded by appropriating US$45 million to a Rongelap Resettlement Trust Fund.
Subsistence atoll life
All of this was important — it both showed that islanders with a PhD in subsistence atoll life understood more about their situation than the US government’s university educated PhDs and medical doctors who showed up from time-to-time to study them, provide medical treatment, and tell them everything was fine on their atoll, and it produced a $45 million fund from the US government.
However, this is only a fraction of the story about why the Rongelap evacuation in 1985 forever changed the US narrative and control of its nuclear test legacy in this country.
The crew of Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior III vessel were serenaded by the Rongelap community to mark the 40th anniversary of the evacuation of Rongelap Islanders from their nuclear test-affected islands this week in Majuro. Image: Giff Johnson/RNZ Pacific
Rongelap is the most affected population from the US hydrogen bomb testing programme in the 1950s.
By living on Rongelap, the community confirmed the US government’s narrative that all was good and the nuclear test legacy was largely a relic of the past.
The 1985 evacuation was a demonstration of the Rongelap community exerting control over their life after 31 years of dictates by US government doctors, scientists and officials.
It was difficult building a new community on Mejatto Island, which was uninhabited and barren in 1985. Make no mistake, Rongelap people living on Mejatto suffered hardship and privation, especially in the first years after the 1985 resettlement.
Nuclear legacy history
Their perseverance, however, defined the larger ramification of the move to Mejatto: It changed the course of nuclear legacy history by people taking control of their future that forced a response from the US government to the benefit of the Rongelap community.
Forty years later, the displacement of Rongelap Islanders on Mejatto and in other locations, unable to return to nuclear test contaminated Rongelap Atoll demonstrates clearly that the US nuclear testing legacy remains unresolved — unfinished business that is in need of a long-term, fair and just response from the US government.
The Rainbow Warrior will be in Majuro until next week when it will depart for Mejatto Island to mark the 40th anniversary of the resettlement, and then voyage to other nuclear test-affected atolls around the Marshall Islands.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
New Zealand-based Canadian billionaire James Grenon owes the people of this country an immediate explanation of his intentions regarding media conglomerate NZME. This cannot wait until a shareholders’ meeting at the end of April.
Is his investment in the owner of The New Zealand Herald and NewstalkZB nothing more than a money-making venture to realise the value of its real estate marketing subsidiary? Has he no more interest than putting his share of the proceeds from spinning off OneRoof into a concealed safe in his $15 million Takapuna mansion?
Or does he intent to leverage his 9.6 percent holding and the support of other investors to take over the board (if not the company) in order to dictate the editorial direction of the country’s largest newspaper and its number one commercial radio station?
Grenon has said little beyond the barest of announcements that have been released by the New Zealand Stock Exchange. While he must exercise care to avoid triggering statutory takeover obligations, he cannot simply treat NZME as another of the private equity projects that have made him very wealthy. He is dealing with an entity whose influence and obligations extend far beyond the crude world of finance.
While I do not presume for one moment that he reads this column each week, let me suspend disbelief for a moment and speak directly to him.
Come clean and tell the people of New Zealand what you are doing and, more importantly, why.
Over the past week there has been considerable speculation over the answers to those questions. Much of it has drawn on what little we know of James Grenon. And it is precious little beyond two facts.
Backed right-wing Centrist
The first is that he put money behind the launch of a right-wing New Zealand news aggregation website, The Centrist, although he apparently no longer has a financial interest in it.
The second fact is that he provided financial support for conservative activists taking legal action against New Zealand media.
When I contacted a well-connected friend in Canada to ask about Grenon the response was short: “Never heard of him . . . and there aren’t that many Canadian billionaires.”
In short, the man who potentially may hold sway over the board of one of our biggest media companies has a very low profile indeed. That is a luxury to which he can no longer lay claim.
It may be that his interest is, after all, a financial one based on his undoubted investment skills. He may see a lucrative opportunity in OneRoof. After all, Fairfax’s public listing and subsequent sale of its Australian equivalent, Domain, provided not only a useful cash boost for shareholders but the creation of a stand-alone entity that now has a market cap of about $A2.8 billion.
Perhaps he wants a board cleanout to guarantee a OneRoof float.
If so, say so.
Similar transactions
Although spinning off OneRoof could have dire consequences for the viability of what would be left of NZME, that is a decision no different to similar transactions made by many companies in the financial interests of shareholders.
There is a world of difference, however, between seizing an investment opportunity and seeking to secure influence by dictating the editorial direction of a significant portion of our news media.
If the speculation is correct — and the billionaire is seeking to steer NZME on an editorial course to the right — New Zealand has a problem.
Communications minister Paul Goldsmith gave a lamely neoliberal response reported by Stuff last week: He was “happy to take some advice” on the development, but NZME was a “private company” and ultimately it was up to its shareholders to determine how it operated.
Let me repeat my earlier point: NZME is an entity whose influence and obligations extend far beyond the crude world of finance (and the outworn concept that the market can rule). Its stewardship of the vehicles at the forefront of news dissemination and opinion formation means it must meet higher obligation than what we expect of an ordinary “private company”.
The most fundamental of those obligations is the independence of editorial decision-making and direction.
I became editor of The New Zealand Herald shortly after Wilson & Horton was sold to Irish businessman Tony O’Reilly. On my appointment the then chief executive of O’Reilly’s Independent News & Media, Liam Healy, said the board had only one editorial requirement of me: That I would not advocate the use of violence as a legitimate means to a political end.
Only direction echoed Mandela
Coming from a man who had witnessed the effects of such violence in Northern Ireland, I had no difficulty in acceding to his request. And throughout my entire editorship, the only “request” made of me by O’Reilly himself was that I would support the distribution of generic Aids drugs in Africa. It followed a meeting he had had with Nelson Mandela. I had no other direction from the board.
Yes, I had to bat away requests by management personnel (who should have known better) to “do this” or “not do that” but, without exception, the attempts were commercially driven — they did not want to upset advertisers. There was never a political or ideological motive behind them. Nor were such requests limited to me.
I doubt there is an editor in the country who has not had a manager asking for something to please an advertiser. Disappointment hasn’t deterred their trying.
In this column last week, I wrote of the dangers of a rich owner (in that case Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos) dictating editorial policy. The dangers if James Grenon has similar intentions would be even greater, given NZME’s share of the news market.
The journalists’ union, E tu, has already concluded that the Canadian’s intention is to gain right-wing influence. Its director, Michael Wood, issued a statement in which he said: “The idea that a shadowy cabal, backed by extreme wealth, is planning to take over such an important institution in our democratic fabric should be of concern to all New Zealanders.”
He called on the current NZME board to re-affirm a commitment to editorial independence.
Michael Wood reflects the fears that are rightly held by NZME’s journalists. They, too, will doubtless be looking for assurances of editorial independence.
‘Cast-iron’ guarantees?
Such assurances are vital, but those journalists should look back to some “cast-iron” guarantees given by other rich new owners if they are to avoid history repeating itself.
I investigated such guarantees in a book I wrote titled Trust Ownership and the Future of News: Media Moguls and White Knights. In it I noted that 20 years before Rupert Murdoch purchased The Times of London, there was a warning that the newspaper’s editor “far from having his independence guaranteed, is on paper entirely in the hands of the Chief Proprietors who are specifically empowered by the Articles of Association to control editorial policy”, although there was provision for a “committee of notables” to veto the transfer of shares into undesirable hands.
To satisfy the British government, Murdoch gave guarantees of editorial independence and a “court of appeal” role for independent directors. Neither proved worth the paper they were written on.
In contrast, the constitution of the company that owns The Economist does not permit any individual or organisation to gain a majority shareholding. The editor exercises independent editorial control and is appointed by trustees, who are independent of commercial, political and proprietorial influences.
There are no such protections in the constitution, board charter, or code of conduct and ethics governing NZME. And it is doubtful that any cast-iron guarantees could be inserted in advance of the company’s annual general meeting.
If James Grenon does, in fact, have designs on the editorial direction of NZME, it is difficult to see how he might be prevented from achieving his aim.
Statutory guarantees would be unprecedented and, in any case, sit well outside the mindset of a coalition government that has shown no inclination to intervene in a deteriorating media market. Nonetheless, Minister Goldsmith would be well advised to address the issue with a good deal more urgency.
He might, at the very least, press the Canadian billionaire on his intentions.
And if the coalition thinks a swing to the right in our news media would be no bad thing, it should be very careful what it wishes for.
If the Canadian’s intentions are as Michael Wood suspects, perhaps the only hope will lie with those shareholders who see that it will be in their own financial interests to ensure that, in aggregate, NZME’s news assets continue to steer a (relatively) middle course. For proof, they need look only at the declining subscriber base of The Washington Post.
Postscipt On Wednesday, The New Zealand Herald stated James Grenon had provided further detail, of his intentions. It is clear that he does, in fact, intend to play a role in the editorial side of NZME.
Just how hands-on he would be remains to be seen. However, he told the Herald that, if successful in making it on to the NZME board, he expected an editorial board would be established “with representation from both sides of the spectrum”.
On the surface that looks reassuring but editorial boards elsewhere have also been used to serve the ends of a proprietor while giving the appearance of independence.
And just what role would an editorial board play? Would it determine the editorial direction that an editor would have to slavishly follow? Or would it be a shield protecting the editor’s independence?
Only time will tell.
Devil in the detail Media Insider columnist Shayne Currie, writing in the Weekend Herald, stated that “the Herald’s dominance has come through once again in quarterly Nielsen readership results . . . ” That is perfectly true: The newspaper’s average issue readership is more than four times that of its closest competitor.
What the Insider did not say was that the Herald’s readership had declined by 32,000 over the past year — from 531,000 to 499,000 — and by 14,000 since the last quarterly survey.
The Waikato Times, The Post and the Otago Daily Times were relatively stable while The Press was down 11,000 year-on-year but only 1000 since the last survey.
In the weekend market, the Sunday Star Times was down 1000 readers year-on-year to stand at 180,000 and up slightly on the last survey. The Herald on Sunday was down 6000 year-on-year to sit at 302,000.
There was a little good news in the weekly magazine market. The New Zealand Listener has gained 5000 readers year-on-year and now has a readership of 207,000. In the monthly market, Mindfood increased its readership by 15,000 over the same period and now sits at 222,000.
The New Zealand Woman’s Weekly continues to dominate the women’s magazine market. It was slightly up on the last survey but well down year-on-year, dropping from 458,000 to 408,000. Woman’s Day had an even greater annual decline, falling from 380,000 to 317,000.
Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. This article was published first on his Knightly Views website on 11 March 2025 and is republished with permission.
While Rodrigo Duterte may still command support from his core base in the Philippines, something has clearly shifted. Yet the power he did wield haunts the nation as it awaits his trial at the International Criminal Court and it renews speculation about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who also has an ICC arrest warrant out for him.
COMMENTARY:By Pia Ranada of Rappler
I witnessed former President Rodrigo Duterte when he was at the height of power. I witnessed how he would walk into an event five hours late and still be applauded.
I remember how he was allowed to say he was protecting the rights of children, in the same breath as giving his blessing for a drug raid that killed children.
Award-winning Rappler journalist Ranada . . . “His allies turned a blind eye or made excuses whenever Duterte chipped at the integrity of our democratic institutions.” Image: Rappler
I remember how he was able to address the United Nations General Assembly after years of threatening to slap and kill its rapporteurs.
His allies turned a blind eye or made excuses whenever Duterte chipped at the integrity of our democratic institutions — his threats and curses against the Commission on Audit and Commission on Human Rights, the Vice President, the Supreme Court, the media.
The brute force of his power
On a personal level, I experienced being at the end of the brute force of his power.
Rendered voiceless in a press conference where he ranted about a Rappler story on a military project (he silenced the microphone so my responses would not be heard). Told several times I was “not a Filipino” for being so critical in my reporting about his administration.
Many Filipinos took his words as gospel truth and, no matter what I did, could not convince them otherwise.
What made it terrifying was not the violent language he used but the knowledge that he had the entire power of the state to back him up. That power was given to him by Filipinos who voted him into the presidency.
He wielded a terrible power. Opposition was a shout in the dark. Most people could only watch in horror as Duterte did the unthinkable every day and was applauded for it. The excuse of his allies was his popularity, his approval ratings.
For others, the reason was fear.
Duterte playing the ‘victim’
Today, Duterte finds himself playing a role he never expected to play: a victim.
A president so secretive of his health and hospital visits now puts his personal physician front and center and allows himself to appear weak and ailing. Government doctors declared him healthy during a check-up right after he landed from Hong Kong.
Beside him, in the room where he waited, is lawyer Salvador Medialdea, arguing and appealing to the prosecutor general. Only years ago, Medialdea was executive secretary, his words and signature able to mobilise entire government bodies to do Duterte’s bidding.
The man on Duterte’s left is identified by today’s news articles as his lawyer. But not long ago, Martin Delgra was the powerful chief of the Land Transportation Office.
These two men bewailed the various deprivations Duterte has supposedly had to suffer. But when they held power, they did not lift a finger against the blatant violations of rule of law perpetrated against teenage boys, fathers, mothers, daughters, tricycle drivers, vendors, opposition leaders, journalists, and more.
The reversal of fate is the most stunning aspect of this arrest.
The choices a nation makes
I, too, was in Hong Kong at the same time as Duterte, though I did not know it at the time. I was there for a layover of my flight from a work trip.
I took a Cathay Pacific flight back to Manila, eager to return to my family, knowing there was a lot of work at the newsroom waiting for me.
Duterte, too, would take a Cathay Pacific flight to the same airport terminal I landed in. But he would be returning as the subject of an ICC arrest warrant, the first former Asian head of state to be summoned to answer for crimes against humanity.
But the true horror of Duterte’s violations is not that he committed them but that most Filipinos allowed them to happen. Even now, Duterte is rallying his support base around the idea that he waged his drug war for the preservation of the country.
It took a process in an international court to arrest Duterte. Investigations in the House and Senate came late in the day and only after the crumbling of a political alliance that for quite some time protected Duterte.
As we await Duterte’s ICC trial, Filipinos have to come to terms with the Duterte presidency enabled by our choices and what choices have to be made to ensure those offences never happen again.
A leader, no matter how charismatic, must never be allowed to exploit our differences, tap into our fears and insecurities as a nation, benefit from forgiving natures in order to dismantle our democratic processes, and commit the mass murder of our citizens.
It’s a trial of our consciences that must also begin now.
Pia Ranada is Rappler’s community lead, in charge of linking the news website’s journalism with communities for impact. Previously, she was an investigative and senior reporter for Rappler. She is best known for her coverage of the Rodrigo Duterte administration when she was Rappler’s Malacañang reporter.
Marin Vandamme, a fellow at the School for Moral Ambitionin Amsterdam, argues why the EU’s food strategy must emphasise protein diversification.
Let me take you to a familiar scene: a family dinner where everything is going smoothly – until the conversation turns to food. Someone makes an offhand comment about eating less meat, and suddenly, the table splits in two.
One side passionately argues that meat consumption is destroying the planet, while the other insists that any attempt to change traditional diets is an attack on personal freedom. Voices rise, forks pause mid-air, and an otherwise pleasant evening turns into a heated debate. Meanwhile, most people at the table are left awkwardly eating in silence, unsure of where to place themselves in an argument that feels like it has no middle ground.
Unfortunately, this dynamic is not unique to family gatherings. It plays out on a larger scale in political institutions, the media, and public discourse. The debate around how we produce and consume protein has become deeply polarised, leaving us stuck in a cycle of confrontation rather than progress. Yet, finding common ground is crucial, because the production and consumption of proteins impacts Europe’s food security, climate resilience, public health and, most importantly, farmers.
On the one hand, our over-reliance on imported feed puts our self-sufficiency at risk – 85% of the EU’s high-protein feed comes from just two countries. Our meat consumption exceeds WHO recommendations, with dire consequences for public health. Meanwhile, livestock farming contributes to 70% of agricultural emissions, and it is a major driver of biodiversity loss and pollution.
Yet, the other side of the coin is just as real: the animal farming industry employs four million people across Europe, provides crucial incomes for farmers, and plays an essential role in maintaining rural landscapes. Animal husbandry is also a core part of many farmer’s practices, like rotation systems, and provides opportunities for regions not suited for growing crops. Moreover, the consumption of animal proteins is deeply cultural, and embedded in national cuisines and traditions.
This is a complex issue. Nevertheless, instead of tackling it with the nuance it requires, we have collectively failed to find solutions. The debate has become polarised between two extremes: either we can only eat salads, or we eat meat every day all the time. For too many of us, this false duality defines our position in this debate.
The path forward: embracing protein diversification
Graphic by Green Queen
Neither of these two options is satisfactory and that is why we need protein diversification: a balanced approach that recognises that we can’t hide behind the status quo and that we need to find effective solutions that work for all and leave no one behind.
Protein diversification means shifting towards a mix of plant, animal, and novel proteins in a sustainable, resilient, and healthy approach. There is no silver bullet; we need rather a menu of options that ensures adapted solutions are put in place for all stakeholders.
This is the case we made in our just-published position paper co-signed by over 90 organisations spanning the entire value chain – an unlikely coalition of meat processors and vegan farmers, agro-ecologists and precision fermentation companies, smallholder farmers and industrial players, health experts, consumer advocates, and environmental groups. This diversity underscores the power of protein diversification: it allows us to rise above polarisation and forge pragmatic solutions.
Our paper called on the European Commission to make protein diversification a priority of its mandate. We showcase the farmers already embracing it, demonstrating that this is not a theoretical vision but that this can be a win-win situation that benefits farmers and rural areas, competitiveness and food security, the environment and animal welfare, and our health.
The EU vision on proteins: a small step in the right direction
Courtesy: European Parliament
The newly released EU Vision for Food and Agriculture includes encouraging signals. It explicitly acknowledges that we need to rethink both how proteins are produced and consumed in Europe and commits to developing a comprehensive plan to create a more self-sufficient and sustainable protein system.
This is an important opening to continue advocating for protein diversification. Moreover, the explicit mention of consumption, an issue that is too often ignored, opens the door to engage on a broad range of policies from production to consumption.
Other positive elements include strengthening farmers’ positions in the value chain, supporting their transition to sustainable practices, and reinforcing the European Food Safety Authority, which is crucial for the approval of novel proteins. The Vision also highlights circularity, bioeconomy, and the revalorisation of waste streams, all of which can contribute to a more sustainable protein landscape creating major benefits for farmers.
However, the vision falls short in key areas. It is less ambitious than the outcomes of the Strategic Dialogue, most notably in failing to propose a plant-based action plan or even mentioning legumes and pulses. The focus remains heavily on sustainable livestock, relying on technological fixes rather than aligning production with regional environmental capacities. Additionally, it lacks a clear direction of travel; commitments remain vague, often lacking clear timelines or implementation strategies.
What needs to happen next?
Courtesy: EIT Food
The vision may not be as transformative as many had hoped, but it leaves space for action. To ensure protein diversification happens and delivers benefits to all, it is critical to continue the collective effort that has been started.
We will continue to support stakeholders from across the food system to join forces with each other and with the commission to ensure the comprehensive plan on proteins and the CAP reform support protein diversification and deliver benefits for all.
Beyond that, members of the European Parliament must urgently build on the established base of support for protein diversification to receive the needed support in the relevant committees. Finally, Member States must elevate the topic of protein diversification as a strategic priority by developing national protein plans, sharing best practices and uniting on the topic in the Council.
We have momentum. The time to act is now – for the sake of peaceful family dinners, but mostly for the sake of all in the food system. We need to rise above polarisation, build ambitious coalitions, and commit to a protein landscape that is competitive, resilient, healthy, sustainable and that ensures farmers and rural areas thrive.
I push through levels of pain and sickness, just to get out of bed in the morning, that would make Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer cry like babies and flee to A&E.
Why?
I have myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).
A devastating chronic condition, for which there is no cure.
I was a teacher of children with special educational needs and disabilities. I loved my work. Then I got Covid-19, became sick, and never recovered.
Covid caused me to develop ME which absolutely decimated my health and life. I was forced to give up my career and apply for financial support from the DWP to be able to afford a roof over my head and to eat.
I would much prefer to work and receive the healthy salary I used to earn. Before I became disabled, I was intending to climb Ben Nevis for charity. Now I cannot walk to the shop round the corner.
Life is a hard. Disabled people deserve respect and compassion. Support and care. Not this barrage of abuse from the people we voted in, thinking they would uphold the human rights of all UK citizens – not just the section of society who have had the ‘luck’ to not be disabled.
Believe me it’s a privilege to have your health. Anyone can become disabled. Tomorrow it could be you. How would you like to be treated?
Stop the cuts, Reeves.
Disabled people are human beings too and deserve to be treated as such.
Donald Trump’s distasteful State of the Disunion address urged salvation, anything to give relief from the madness. A lack of empathy and gruff manner displayed a chilling use of the anguish of parents of ravished children to promote the war on immigrants. Did the parents want to be there? Did they want their deceased children used for political opportunity? Naming public places after the children, as if the parents had won a prize, is unconscionable. If a close relative had a major accomplishment and died peacefully and graciously, relatives would welcome having his/her name forged in the consciousness of the American public. I doubt parents want to be daily reminded of the gruesome and untimely deaths of their children when they walk their neighborhoods.
Trump continued his sadistic excursion through graveyards by continually pointing to the Democratic aisle, letting everyone know the Dems and their previous leaders, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, were in charge during vicious attacks on Americans. Mentioning the capture of the “mastermind” of the Kabul airport killings of American citizens, “you know the killings during the mess that Joe Biden allowed,” in a State of the Union to both houses of Congress, just to ridicule Biden and show his mastery, made Trump equal in depravity to the “so called” mastermind. Is the person really the “mastermind,” or someone Pakistani intelligence willingly supplied for a few greenbacks? What does the revelation of a “capture” have to do with the state of the union?
Aggravating that we will have four years of this punishing behavior; more aggravating to realize that tens of millions support this malicious behavior; more and more aggravating is that we encounter similar disturbances in everyday life. Try to discuss Israel’s genocide at Columbia University.
It does not have to be this way. We don’t have to tear each other apart and subdue the rest of the world to live decently; the Ukrainians and Russians don’t have to fight and die for land that Russians and Ukrainians can peacefully determine by themselves; Jews can live well anywhere in the word, they don’t need to slaughter Palestinians to survive.
Without having economic or political power, having an effect in changing attitudes and the course of civilization is a difficult challenge. Exposing injustice is now leading to enhancing injustice ─ making it happen faster. Correcting false information is now leading to spreading false information faster; mendacity is appreciated. It’s the ancient story ─ good vs. evil, and the “good guys,” who refuse to adopt the winning methodology of “cheat, lie, and accuse,” have no chance. In all institutions — academic, medical, scientific, economic — those in control protect their agendas, regardless of validity or truth.
The apathetic and those disinterested in encouraging challenges accept conventional beliefs and concepts, even when thought exposes them as spurious. Many, accepted theories and notions deserve and need attack. Changing a programmed mindset and planning a strategy to liberation are official civil duties. The only alternative is revolution. Where is Georges Danton when we most need him?
“The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.”- Maximilien Robespierre
With the sudden departure of New Zealand’s Reserve Bank Governor, one has to ask whether there is a pattern here — of a succession of public sector leaders leaving their posts in uncertain circumstances and a series of decisions being made without much regard for due process.
It brings to mind the current spectacle of federal government politics playing out in the United States. Four years ago, we observed a concerted attempt by a raucous and determined crowd to storm the Capitol.
Now a smaller, more disciplined and just as determined band is entering federal offices in Washington almost unhindered, to close agencies and programmes and to evict and terminate the employment of thousands of staff.
This could never happen here. Or could it? Or has it and is it happening here? After all, we had an occupation of parliament, we had a rapid unravelling of a previous government’s legislative programme, and we have experienced the removal of CEOs and downgrading of key public agencies such as Kāinga Ora on slender pretexts, and the rapid and marked downsizing of the core public service establishment.
Similarly, while the incoming Trump administration is targeting any federal diversity agenda, in New Zealand the incoming government has sought to curb the advancement of Māori interests, even to the extent of questioning elements of our basic constitutional framework.
In other words, there are parallels, but also differences. This has mostly been conducted in a typical New Zealand low-key fashion, with more regard for legal niceties and less of the histrionics we see in Washington — yet it still bears comparison and probably reflects similar political dynamics.
Nevertheless, the departure in quick succession of three health sector leaders and the targeting of Pharmac’s CEO suggest the agenda may be getting out of hand. In my experience of close contact with the DHB system the management and leadership teams at the top echelon were nothing short of outstanding.
The Auckland District Health Board, as it then was, is the largest single organisation in Auckland — and the top management had to be up to the task. And they were.
Value for money
As for Pharmac, it is a standout agency for achieving value for money in the public sector. So why target it? The organisation has made cumulative savings of at least a billion dollars, equivalent to 5 percent of the annual health budget. Those monies have been reinvested elsewhere in the health sector. Furthermore, by distancing politicians from sometimes controversial funding decisions on a limited budget it shields them from public blowback.
Unfortunately, Pharmac is the victim of its own success: the reinvestment of funds in the wider health sector has gone unheralded, and the shielding of politicians is rarely acknowledged.
The job as CEO at Pharmac has got much harder with a limited budget, more expensive drugs targeting smaller groups, more vociferous patient groups — sometimes funded in part by drug companies — easy media stories (individuals being denied “lifesaving” treatments), and, more recently, less sympathetic political masters.
Perhaps it was time for a changing of the guard, but the ungracious manner of it follows a similar pattern of other departures.
The arrival of Sir Brian Roche as the new Public Service Commissioner may herald a more considered approach to public sector reform, rather than the slightly “wild west” New Zealand style with the unexplained abolition of the Productivity Commission, the premature ending of an expensive pumped hydro study, disbandment of sector industry groups, and the alleged cancellation of a large ferry contract by text, among other examples of a rather casual approach to due process.
The danger we run is that the current cleaning out of public sector leaders is more than an expected turnover with a change of government, and rather a curbing of independent advice and thought. Will our public media agencies — TVNZ and RNZ — be next in line for the current thrust of popular and political attention?
Major redundancies
Taken together with the abolition of the Productivity Commission, major redundancies in the public sector, the removal of research funding for the humanities and the social sciences, a campaign by the Free Speech Union against university autonomy, the growing reliance on business lobbyists and lobby groups to determine decision-making, and the recent re-orientation of The New Zealand Herald towards a more populist stance, we could well be witnessing a concerted rebalancing of the ecosystem of advice and thought.
In half a century of observing policy and politics from the relative safety of the university, I have never witnessed such a concerted campaign as we are experiencing. Not even in the turmoil of the 1990s.
We need to change the national conversation before it is too late and we lose more of the key elements of the independence of advice and thought that we have established in the state and allied and quasi-autonomous agencies, as well as in the universities and the creative industries, and that lie at the heart of liberal democracy.
Dr Peter Davis is emeritus professor of population health and social science at Auckland University, and a former elected member of the Auckland District Health Board. This article was first published by The Post and is republished with the author’s permission
When investing, as in horror films, the most terrifying villains are the ones we thought were dead. Stagflation that economic nightmare of the 1970s characterized by stagnant growth paired with persistent inflation was supposedly dead and buried decades ago. But like any good movie monster, it’s clawing its way back to the surface, and Americans need to prepare for its return.
The warning signs are unmistakable. Despite the Federal Reserve’s aggressive rate-hiking campaign over the past two years, inflation remains stubbornly above target. February’s Consumer Price Index showed prices still rising at 3.2%, while previous months have delivered unwelcome upside surprises. Meanwhile, GDP growth has begun to sputter, at just 1.6% in the first quarter, down sharply from 3.4% in late 2023.
Even more alarming, the Atlanta Federal Reserve’s closely watched GDPNow forecast model has recently slashed its second-quarter growth projection. When the Fed’s regional banks signal economic deceleration while inflation persists, the stagflation alarm bells should be ringing loudly.
This toxic combination represents the classic stagflation recipe: prices rise faster than paychecks while economic momentum simultaneously loses steam. Conventional economic models struggle to address this scenario, as policies that fight inflation typically hamper growth, while growth-boosting measures often exacerbate inflation.
Stagflation is particularly pernicious because it confounds traditional economic remedies. When inflation and unemployment rise simultaneously, policymakers face an impossible choice between fighting one problem while exacerbating the other.
The warning signals extend beyond inflation and growth statistics. Federal agencies have begun implementing hiring freezes and initiating workforce reductions as budget pressures mount. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that federal government employment declined by 5,000 jobs in January alone, with more cuts potentially looming. These job losses contribute to economic stagnation without addressing the underlying inflation problem.
Meanwhile, fiscal austerity measures designed to address budget deficits have reduced government spending across multiple agencies. While necessary for long-term fiscal health, these spending cuts remove economic stimulus precisely when private sector growth is already slowing, amplifying stagflationary pressures.
Perhaps most concerning for millions of Americans is the resumption of student loan payments after a three-year pandemic pause. With average monthly payments of $200-$300, the Department of Education estimates that borrowers collectively face over $7 billion in monthly payments—essentially a massive consumer spending tax that dampens economic activity without addressing supply-side inflation drivers. For many households, these payments come on top of significantly higher housing costs, energy bills, and grocery expenses.
Labor markets offer another concerning indicator. Despite headlines touting low unemployment, job growth has slowed considerably. In contrast, wage growth hasn’t kept pace with inflation in many sectors. Companies are increasingly caught in a vise between rising costs and consumers unable or unwilling to absorb higher prices.
The roots of our current predicament are not hard to identify. Years of extraordinary monetary accommodation followed by trillions in pandemic stimulus created excess liquidity. Supply chain disruptions, geopolitical tensions, and energy price volatility fueled the fire. We’re left with an economy where growth is cooling, but prices refuse to follow suit.
For investors, the stagflation playbook requires a dramatic departure from conventional wisdom. The investment landscape of the next several years will reward those willing to adapt and punish those clinging to outdated strategies.
First and foremost, commodities deserve a prominent place in any stagflation-resistant portfolio. During the 1970s stagflation, the S&P GSCI commodity index delivered a staggering 586% return over the decade. Gold performed even more spectacularly, rocketing from about $269 per ounce in 1970 to over $2,500 by 1980.
Why do commodities shine in stagflationary environments? They represent tangible assets with intrinsic value that tend to rise with inflation. Hard assets become monetary safe havens when currencies weaken through policy interventions or economic uncertainty.
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) also merit serious consideration. Unlike conventional bonds, which suffered brutal losses during the 1970s with approximately negative 3% annualized actual returns, TIPS adjust their principal value based on the Consumer Price Index. This built-in inflation protection can preserve purchasing power when conventional fixed-income investments crumble.
Investors should pivot decisively toward defensive sectors within equities—consumer staples, healthcare, and utilities. These industries provide essential goods and services people need regardless of economic conditions, and many possess the pricing power to pass inflation through to consumers. During past stagflationary episodes, U.S. consumer staples delivered average quarterly returns of +7.9%, while consumer discretionary stocks declined by 1.3%.
The dangers of stagflation extend far beyond investment portfolios. The most insidious aspect of stagflation is how it methodically erodes societal living standards. When prices rise faster than wages for extended periods, everyday purchases become increasingly painful. Essentials consume a growing share of household budgets, leaving less for discretionary spending, savings, or investments in the future.
The psychological toll shouldn’t be underestimated either. During the 1970s stagflation, consumer confidence plummeted to record lows as Americans believed economic malaise was permanent. This pessimism affected everything from marriage rates to entrepreneurship, creating a downward spiral of reduced risk-taking and investment precisely when the economy needed it most.
Stagflation particularly punishes those on fixed incomes especially retirees whose pension or Social Security benefits fail to keep pace with true living costs. It also penalizes savers, and those with traditional fixed-income investments, who watch their purchasing power diminish monthly.
For younger Americans already grappling with housing affordability challenges and now facing resumed student loan payments, stagflation compounds financial stress. Many millennials and Gen Z workers entered a labor market already characterized by stagnant real wages; persistent inflation threatens to erase what little progress they’ve made.
Businesses suffer, too, caught between rising input costs and price-sensitive consumers. Profit margins contract, leading to reduced hiring, investment cuts, and, in many cases, layoffs. Small businesses with less pricing power and financial cushion are particularly vulnerable, potentially leading to increased market concentration as only the largest firms survive.
Stagflation will eventually end through successful policy intervention or economic adjustment, but the transition may prove lengthy and painful. The 1970s stagflation persisted for nearly a decade before Paul Volcker’s Federal Reserve crushed inflation, with interest rates approaching 20%.
Today’s policymakers face a similar dilemma, but even higher debt levels constrain their options. The Fed has signaled reluctance to cut rates while inflation remains elevated, yet maintaining restrictive policy risks further dampening growth—the very definition of our stagflationary trap.
Preparation means building financial resilience for individuals: reducing high-interest debt, maintaining emergency savings, and seeking opportunities to increase skills and income potential. Homeowners with fixed-rate mortgages benefit from what amounts to an inflation discount on their housing debt, while renters may need to budget more aggressively as housing costs continue climbing.
Though difficult, stagflation is ultimately a surmountable challenge. Following the 1970s ordeal, America entered a period of extraordinary growth and prosperity. The pain of adjustment, while real, eventually gave way to renewed economic vitality. The same can happen again if we make the difficult choices necessary to restore price stability while fostering sustainable growth.
The stagflation monster may be back, but America has faced and overcome economic challenges throughout its history. By understanding the nature of the threat and taking appropriate actions both as individuals and as a society, maybe we can weather this economic storm and emerge stronger on the other side. The alternative of ignoring the warning signs until a crisis forces our hand will only prolong the pain and deepen the eventual reckoning. The time for clear-eyed assessment and deliberate action is now.
Whilst observing the questionable economic decisions of our elected officials, it seems that no one will bury stagflation back in the graveyard.
Of course I want peace. Probably as much as anyone reading this.
Naturally, I get excited and hopeful, whenever there are any signs that we are moving in the direction of a more peaceful world.
At the same time, I’m fed up with being led down a primrose path only to find an Abrams tank waiting at the end.
Trump has made enormous strides, or the appearance of enormous strides, toward rapprochement with Russia and ending the Ukraine war. He rightfully points out that this was a needless conflict. Whether he could and would have prevented it is debatable.
Certainly, the fact that the horrifying slaughter which has claimed an estimated 1,000,000 Ukrainians and 100,000 Russians may finally be ending soon is welcome news.
But make no mistake about it.
Trump is not a Peace President.
Because at the same time we entertain the prospect of peace in Ukraine, there are many extremely disturbing things unfolding elsewhere. Here are just a few revealing items.
Trump has ramped up the bombing of Somalia. Of course, we know what a threat to our national security Somalia is. And we also know that innocent Somali citizens are the wrong color, so if we kill a few thousand more, who cares?
It has been reported by reliable non-mainstream sources that a formidable number of B-52 bombers continue to arrive at U.S. bases in the Middle East. These are high-altitude aircraft, so it is doubtful they will be used to drop food and other humanitarian supplies to the besieged people of Gaza. That anti-Iran rhetoric is also accelerating makes this very concerning. Trump may not be Putin’s puppet, but he most assuredly is Bibi’s buttboy. WW3 anyone?
Lethal weapons from the U.S. continue to pour into Israel. So far Trump has approved $12 billion, that enormous sum within only a month-and-a-half. The Trump administration in a ham-fisted unconstitutional end run around Congress days ago rushed more than $2 billion to Netanyahu’s killing machine, justifying the armaments by declaring that Israel is facing a state of emergency. What’s the emergency? The tour buses for Israelis to gleefully view the genocide need an oil change?
Then there’s the constant saber rattling about China. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently announced that the U.S. is ready to go to war with China. It’s inevitable, you know. War with China. No other option. Why? DON’T BE SO RUDE! What? Are you a Xi Jinping apologist? They’re COMMIES. Enough said.
Many analysts are saying that seeking peace in Ukraine actually serves the war agenda: 1) The U.S. is seeking to split Russia off from their close relationship with China, and 2) Ukraine is a distraction. America must marshal its military resources for the Big War. Kiddie cops cozy up to Kiev. Real men bomb Beijing.
Trump loves power. Trump loves thumping his chest as the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Any talk of peace ultimately only in some twisted fashion feeds into delusions of empire, underscores the right of might, fuels the quest for conquest.
So …
When you walk that primrose path, take care to avoid the landmines.
Why is Phnom Penh now willing to give the United States what it has been demanding for years?
At a meeting on Feb. 24 with Ronald Clark, commanding general of the the U.S. Army Pacific, Cambodia’s military chief Vong Pisen made the most explicit call to date for restarting the bilateral “Angkor Sentinel” military drills that Phnom Penh had suspended in 2017.
Washington has been encouraging the resumption of the exercises since at least 2020, yet Phnom Penh had strung the U.S. along with offers of counterterrorism cooperation, a much lower-level form of engagement.
Cambodia suspended Angkor Sentinel in early 2017 on the premise that its troops were needed to guard that year’s local elections.
Gen. Ronald P. Clark, left, commander of the US Army Pacific, meets with Gen. Vong Pisen, commander-in-chief of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces, on Feb. 24, 2025.(Royal Cambodian Armed Forces)
A few months later, however, Cambodia’s military started its first joint “Golden Dragon” drills with China. A few months after that, Cambodia’s ruling party dissolved its only political opponent on charges of plotting a U.S.-backed coup.
The same year, Phnom Penh banned several U.S. Congress-funded organizations, sparking a deterioration in U.S.-Cambodia relations.
In 2018, Washington started alleging that Phnom Penh had agreed to a secret deal to allow China exclusive use of its Ream Naval Base. U.S. policymakers came to see Cambodia as a “lost” Chinese client state.
Some observers suggest that Phnom Penh’s offer to restart the Angkor Sentinel drills is a result of Cambodia’s leadership succession in 2023.
That year, long-ruling prime minister Hun Sen, who typically has taken a dim view of the U.S., handed over power to his eldest son Hun Manet, a West Point-educated general considered by some to be reformist and Western-looking.
This is almost certainly not the reason.
China dependency
Hun Manet might be the prime minister, but Hun Sen still calls the shots, especially over foreign policy. Hun Sen’s trusted ally, Prak Sokhonn, was brought back as foreign minister last November to further solidify his control over foreign relations.
Another claim is that Phnom Penh is trying to appease U.S. President Donald Trump to avoid tariffs and wants to win over Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who as senator had long called for U.S. sanctions on Cambodia over its democratic backsliding and human rights violations.
In fact, it was the Biden administration that began a slow, gradual process of reengaging Cambodia, and talks about Angkor Sentinel began at least in October.
The foundations were probably laid long before that, possibly when then-CIA Director Bill Burns visited Phnom Penh last June to meet with Hun Sen. It was the Biden administration that arranged for an U.S. warship to make a port call in Cambodia in December, the first to do so since 2016.
The actual motivation for Phnom Penh to reopen the war games is that it has now accepted that it must reduce its dependency on China.
This explains why Cambodia has spent considerable energy in improving relations with Japan, Canada, Australia and Saudi Arabia in recent months — while also trying to silence exiled dissidents in those countries.
The Chinese military ship Qijiguang prepares to dock at the Sihanoukville port, Cambodia, May 19, 2024.(AFP)
Cambodia’s economy grew by around 5 percent last year, but it’s far from healthy.
Aside from domestic factors like private debt and bad loans, a lack of Chinese investment since the COVID-19 pandemic has weakened the construction and real estate sectors, while tourism is still reeling from the lack of Chinese visitors.
The U.S., by contrast, has steadily accounted for around two-fifths of all Cambodia’s exports for almost a decade.
More importantly, Beijing will no longer throw armfuls of cash at every infrastructure project Phnom Penh thinks it needs.
This became clear last year when Beijing refused to put up substantial funds for the Funan Techo Canal, a vanity megaproject for the Hun family. Last year, China did not approve any new loans to Cambodia.
Scam center crackdown
As well as being more picky, the Chinese government has demanded that Southeast Asian governments tackle their vast cyber scam industries, which are defrauding ordinary Chinese out of tens of billions of dollars each year
The scam centers have put a strain on China’s already weakened economy and the heavy role of Chinese crime groups in the sector is increasingly a source of national embarrassment for the Chinese Communist Party.
Beijing launched a massive public information campaign about its scam-busting efforts in December, before public anger rose in January over news that Chinese actor Wang Xing had been kidnapped in Thailand and forced to work in a scam compound in Myanmar.
He was rescued, but the Chinese public is demanding their government take more action to rescue their relatives.
Talk among Cambodia watchers is that Beijing is irate about Phnom Penh’s lackluster efforts at cracking down on the scam sector.
A casino in Sihanoukville, Cambodia, Feb. 2020.(Reuters)
China has found a willing partner in Thailand—which launched major raids on scam compounds on its border with Myanmar last month. Beijing has also cooperated with Laos’ communist government and some parties in Myanmar’s raging civil war.
Cambodia, though, is allegedly dragging its feet, much to everyone’s frustration, not just China’s.
Some analysts reckon that “pig-butchering” scammers are finding a safe haven in Cambodia as compounds are shut down elsewhere in the region.
Bangkok has just revealed that it is debating whether to build a wall along parts of its border with Cambodia.
Pressing Phnom Penh
If the United States Institute for Peace (USIP) is correct, Cambodia’s scam industry is worth $12.5 billion annually, the equivalent of a third of the formal economy.
According to some experts, Cambodia is also somewhat unique in that a large percentage of the proceeds are laundered through the local economy.
If the authorities were to launch a major crackdown, most Cambodian oligarchs and senior ruling party politicians would allegedly lose access to billions of dollars in tithes and dodgy contracts.
“The level of co-option of state actors in countries like Cambodia exceeds what we saw in narco-states of the 1990s in Latin America,” Jacob Sims, an expert on organized crime in Southeast Asia, recently told The Economist.
Worse, it might destabilize the economy. Who knows how much money from the scammers is propping up construction or property or any other sector?
We now have the ironic situation in which the U.S. and China are aligned over what they want from the Cambodian government: a substantial and meaningful crackdown on the scammers.
Indeed, Washington, like Beijing, is also increasingly concerned that Cambodia-based scammers are defrauding its nationals.
Last September, the U.S. embassy in Phnom Penh estimated that Americans had lost at least $100 million to scams originating in Cambodia.
The same month, Ly Yong Phat, a Cambodian senator and the oligarch arguably closest to the Hun family, was hit by U.S. sanctions because of his association with the illegal industry.
Beijing’s growing frustration with Phnom Penh might soon come to a head.
There is talk that Chinese President Xi Jinping is set to visit Phnom Penh, possibly next month. It’s unlikely that he would arrive — or depart — without a major concession from the Hun family on the scam industry.
Phnom Penh possibly wants to use the resumption of the Angkor Sentinel drills with the U.S. as a way of signaling to Beijing that it is not as beholden as it once was to Chinese pressure.
Whether China would go “soft” so as not to lose influence to the U.S. is another matter.
According to informed sources in Phnom Penh and Washington, most U.S. policymakers don’t view the resumption of Angkor Sentinel as a major sea change after eight years of fraught U.S.-Cambodia relations.
While welcoming an important step towards healthier relations, Washington will be looking for Cambodia to make a more drastic break from Beijing, they say.
David Hutt is a research fellow at the Central European Institute of Asian Studies (CEIAS) and the Southeast Asia Columnist at the Diplomat. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of RFA.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by commentator David Hutt.
No Other Land rightly won Best Documentary Feature at this year’s Oscars. The film has been touted as a Palestine-Israel collaboration, with Palestinian Basel Adra and Israeli Yuval Abraham part of the directorial team alongside Rachel Szor and Hamdan Ballal. Basel and Yuval both appear in the film, which is a meticulously crafted documentary on repeated Israeli demolitions of Basel’s hometown, Masafer Yatta.
We made this film because we believe that there can be no just future between the river and the sea for all the inhabitants without real justice for the Palestinian people and the Palestinian refugees.
However, Yuval’s comments at the Oscars reveal much about both the political dynamics within the film, and in Hollywood more broadly.
No Other Land
Basel was the first to speak during their acceptance speech at the Oscars, and he said:
Thank you to the Academy for the award. It’s such a big honour for the four of us and everybody who supported us for this documentary. About two months ago, I became a father and my hope to my daughter that she will not have to live the same life I am living now, always fearing settler violence, home demolitions, and forced displacements that my community, Masafer Yatta, is living and facing every day under the Israeli occupation.
No Other Land reflects the harsh reality that we have been enduring for decades and still persist as we call on the world to take serious action to stop the injustice and to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people.
Basel served as the primary figure in No Other Land, and his family and community in Masafer Yatta were the subjects of the film. Through his camera, we meet his mother, father, and siblings.
The documentary is punctuated with frequent and terrifying interventions from the Israeli military.
We see them thrust demolition papers signed by Israeli officials into the faces of the Masafer Yatta community. They repeatedly force Palestinians out of their homes, confiscate building materials, and bodily remove people from their homes.
They demolish an elementary school, they arrest Palestinians, they terrorise children. And, these soldiers increasingly stalk Basel as it becomes clear that he will persist with recording their actions.
Sanitisation
Yuval travels across the border as Basel’s friend. Yuval is there to document the ethnic cleansing of the region as an Israeli journalist. The two go for food, and Yuval serves as a kind of interlocutor once the Israeli military square up to residents in Masafer Yatta.
No Other Land explores Yuval’s tenuous position as a friend of Basel as the reality of Israeli ethnic cleansing understandably makes Basel and his community weary and suspicious of Yuval.
We made this film, Palestinians and Israelis, because together our voices are stronger. We see each other, the atrocious destruction of Gaza and its people, which must end. The Israeli hostages, brutally taken in the crime of October 7th, which must be freed.
When I look at Basel, I see my brother, but we are unequal. We live in a regime where I am free under civilian law, and Basel is under military laws that destroy his life and he cannot control. There is a different path, a political solution, without ethnic supremacy, with national rights for both of our people. And I have to say, as I am here, the foreign policy in this country is helping to block this path.
Why? Can’t you see that we are intertwined? That my people can be truly safe, if Basel’s people are truly free and safe. There is another way. It’s not too late for life, for the living. There is no other way.
Yuval’s comments are typical of someone who has had a settler colonial upbringing. The equation of the destruction of Gaza alongside the hostages taken on 7 October is, at best, a partial and ignorant narrative. Israel has been abducting Palestinians for decades, holding them without charge or trial, and brutally torturing people.
Using 7 October as somehow equivalent to the genocide in Gaza is a sickening sanitisation of the horror Israel has unleashed in Gaza.
Yuval’s acceptance speech is underpinned with notions of a two state solution which, considering the ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Palestine that Israeli forces have carried out with horrifying glee, is a fantasy.
American foreign policy is indeed blocking any path to peace. But, Yuval’s remarks gesture towards a vision of peace where coexistence is presumed to be an Israeli desire. The past year or so has demonstrated that Israeli leadership, allies, and civilians desire no such thing.
Zionist tactics
Yuval’s comments stand starkly against his colleagues. Basel is calling for a stop to ethnic cleansing and forced displacement. Yuval, meanwhile, is calling for a ‘both sides’ approach which pretends that Israel and Palestine are on an even playing field.
Israel continues to have the might of the Western world supporting its ethnic cleansing, while the most powerful states could barely even muster a call for ceasefire, never mind a call for a liberated Palestine.
No Other Land does lay these tensions out. For anyone who’s seen the documentary, Yuval’s comments won’t have come as a surprise.
On multiple occasions, Basel’s face is etched with sorrow and yearning as he sees his friend, Yuval, able to travel and live freely. Yuval is so accustomed to his own freedom that he is able to casually declare he is going home, after a day gathering journalistic information about the forced displacement of Basel’s family.
Later in the documentary when Basel and Yuval go out for food, Yuval asks Basel if he’d like to have a family, a wife and kids, of his own. When Basel answers that for him this question is complicated, Yuval asks if it’s a question of money.
Basel doesn’t give a direct answer – often during the film, he stops talking in the middle of a conversation, looking wearied and heartbroken.
What else could he say or do?
No Other Land: showing Israel’s relentless ethnic cleansing
No Other Land demonstrates the relentless nature of Israeli ethnic cleansing. Not only do they force children and injured civilians out of their homes, they leave them having to live in caves. They confiscate construction equipment, lest the local community recover. They shoot at protesters. They arrest people and disappear them. Their arrivals in the middle of the night herald only terror.
Yuval has to know that he is the more acceptable face of No Other Land. His presence is there to make Palestinian suffering palatable to a Western palate. It’s difficult to forget Basel’s expressions as the trauma of his daily life plays out on his face. Yuval is able to imagine any kind of future he likes, full of family, children, travel, joy, and laughter. His future is a certainty, all while his countrymen, and perhaps even friends and family, terrorise Palestinians.
Israeli safety (and the very notion of its future) has been directly tied to the destruction of Palestinian life since the creation of Israel. The least we can do is consider the Palestinian imaginary of freedom and liberation as one that is irrevocably tied to the Israeli genocidal ethos.
No Other Land is a triumph of a documentary – but it is a triumph that belongs to Basel, his family, and his community in Masafer Yatta.
After waking up and hearing the news that Kyle Clifford had watched Andrew Tate videos before his sadistic rape and murder of Louise Hunt (his then-girlfriend) and the cold-blooded killing of her sister and mum, it got me thinking: surely now, people will stand up against the war of terror on women?
Andrew Tate: a vilified misogynist
Andrew Tate, who has been charged in Romania for rape and human trafficking as well as setting up organised crime groups to sexually exploit women, is a vilified misogynist. He makes hating women and girls his career, as he bombards men and young, vulnerable teenage boys with content that encourages them to treat women as subordinate and deserving of punishment and abuse if they don’t do as they are instructed by their ‘master’.
In several of his clips, he consistently discusses choking women, controlling them, and even threatening them with a machete:
It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up bitch.
Self-styled hero to men and boys, Tate is instead the absolute embodiment of toxic masculinity. He and his views no longer hide in the shadows of the dark web, but in full view of the public as he perpetuates the very seams of social media, with his videos worryingly being viewed more than 11.6 billion times.
Yet little to nothing has been done by social media platforms to prevent Tate’s extremely harmful content from appearing on people’s timelines. It seems that there is no care or guardrails even remotely being put up to stop him from poisoning the minds of boys who are infected by the Tate misogyny parasite.
More and more, we see young teenage boys being pulled into the sphere of Tate and other dangerous far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson.
Ensnaring young men and boys
Many teachers across schools in England have also expressed their concerns. The growing influence of Andrew Tate is doing irreparable harm to the minds of boys who believe that women are beneath them and should be forced to simply stay in the house to cook and clean and obey their orders.
Enamoured by Tate’s lifestyle – the flash cars, the Lamborghinis, and the crypto – it is clear that Andrew Tate is essentially grooming young boys en masse to share his same deeply polluted and chauvinistic views, so they too might become minions of Tate
But the reality of that is far from the truth.
It will simply create people like Kyle Clifford, who was so incandescent with rage towards his girlfriend that he plotted the triple murder for months on end before he eventually carried out his savage and cold-blooded crime.
Before committing murder, he had begun to research and purchase weapons as well as watching porn online and misogynistic videos.
The prosecutor, Alison Morgan, argued that the kind of material and content that Clifford was searching was key in terms of how:
he views women and why sexualised violence is an important part of the attack.
During the trial, the prosecution was also told that Clifford did not like to be told “no” by women. Louise had raised concerns to close friends and loved ones about him being an aggressive person with a very nasty temper.
Enabling misogyny, rape, and murder
Four British women who had sued Andrew Tate on Thursday for his harmful content, and published a statement through their lawyers, also reinforced the call for Tate to be removed from social media companies’ platforms, as the misogynist continues to “reap enormous profits from his hateful content”.
Whilst women are made to suffer, boys as young as 10 and 11 are being convinced to believe the rhetoric that “men are better than women”. There are even reports of young girls in the classroom who engage with Andrew Tate’s content being asked for sex by their schoolmates.
It is therefore clear that this ultra-macho world is more than just crypto, fitness, and getting other men on side. It also suggests that belittling women is fine and acceptable in a world where Tate and others like him are not held to account for their actions.
Similar to being groomed for a terrorist gang or organisation, teachers have also raised concerns that schools must get a grip on Tate’s catastrophic influence on teenage boys. They’ve said that the public and government needs to start a wider conversation about how to stop violence against women and girls and his impact and encouragement of this.
Police have raised fears and alarms too. They have in recent years and months come across cases where Andrew Tate has been at the front and centre of the radicalisation of young men, with recent statistics from the NPCC stating that from 2022-23, violence against women and girls accounted for “20% of all police recorded crime”.
Andrew Tate: blood on his hands
To make matters worse, just last week, Andrew Tate was welcomed to the US with open arms by president Donald Trump who evidently sees the influencer as a useful tool to reinforce his anti-DEI and anti-‘woke’ world view.
This is not at all surprising considering that Trump has been accused of raping several women in the US and made consistent comments that degrade women. For example, during his first election campaign he deemed it as acceptable to “grab em by the pussy” (meaning women). So, Trump clearly sees Tate as a man who is cut from the same twisted cloth.
Surely this is enough for social media companies to take back control to protect users from such harmful and repulsive content?
We must do more to protect women and girls across the country who are at a high risk of experiencing abuse at the hands of men by removing Tate from social media platforms.
It is evident that by simply letting Andrew Tate continue to pollute the minds of men and boys across the world, we are not only going to see a rise in domestic abuse and violence, but the rapes and murders of young women and girls.
Apparently, the greatest battles are fought within ourselves, and I can kind of run with that right now.
On one hand, you have the ex-comedy guy that somehow ended up in charge of a country with a bit of a Nazi problem, Voldemort Zelenskyy.
President Zelenskyy may well do something for Home Counties women of a certain age, but I’m always going to be a tad sceptical of a man that said he wants his country to become a “big Israel”.
Ukraine and Zelensky: no friends of ours
Part of this drive to become a big Israel involves “conscription squads” descending on towns and cities across Ukraine, searching for men between the ages of 25 and 60, KIDNAPPING them, and forcing them to sign up to stand in front of Putin’s army.
I still see a few lost souls on the left with a Ukrainian flag next to their social media user names. Honestly, Ukraine and Zelenskyy are no friends of ours, although they do have a deep and intimate relationship with the British tax payer.
May I remind you, Zelenskyy described the fugitive leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, as the greatest statesman of our times.
Child killer, ethnic cleanser, tyrant, evil genocidal murderer — add one of your own if you like — but greatest statesman of our times? Fuck off.
Then on the other hand, you have the greatest threat to world peace since himself, a Hillbilly MAGA fanatic masquerading as a vice president, and the world’s richest person egging them on from the sidelines.
President Donald Trump definitely doesn’t do anything for Home Counties women of a certain age, but I have absolutely no scepticism towards Trump, because he makes no secret of his desire to turn Gaza into a rich (white) man’s paradise.
Trump: truly evil
What can I say about Trump that hasn’t already been said?
Robert De Niro, an actor that is entirely familiar with portraying violent and dangerous characters, said of Trump:
I’ve spent a lot of time studying bad men. I’ve examined their characteristics, their mannerisms, the utter banality of their cruelty. Yet there’s something different about Donald Trump. When I look at him, I don’t see a bad man. Truly. I see an evil one.
So there you have it. Two cheeks of the same, yet entirely different arse.
While some on the left will applaud Trump for cutting out the supply of American arms to Ukraine, let us not forget the very same American idiot is arming Israel to “finish the job”, in Gaza.
Don’t get me wrong, president Zelenskyy got exactly what he deserved. I’m regularly sickened to see European leaders emptying their respective countries’ coffers to fund and fuel further death and destruction.
Did anyone ask you how you felt about cuts to vital public services to fund a conflict in a former Soviet state? Nor me.
Take from the pensioners to give to Ukraine
What the Labour Party takes from Britain’s poorest pensioners with one hand, they give to Zelenskyy to fight an unwinnable war with the other.
Putin’s Russia is likely to win, and no amount of sabre rattling, Euros, or British Pounds from domestically-desperate liberals is going to change that.
Why aren’t the far-right flag shaggers apoplectic with rage with the military welfare being gifted to the tiresome Zelenskyy when there were 2,270 homeless veteran cases reported last year? The double standards are truly staggering.
This has to end somewhere and somehow because it is unsustainable and entirely unacceptable when there is a vast array of problems both home and abroad that need to be prioritised way ahead of Zelenskyy’s pocket money.
We seem to live in an age where the corporate media demand that you pick a side. If you’re not screaming “Slava Ukraini” from the rooftops you’re labelled a Putin apologist.
The Putin apologist label is often used to stifle perfectly legitimate criticisms of the Ukrainian regime in the same way Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters were wrongly accused of being virulent antisemites to stifle perfectly legitimate criticisms of the Israeli pariah state.
If we carry on as we are, Keir Starmer’s final bill for the Ukraine distraction will end up making Brexit look like a bargain.
I know it’s not a popular opinion amongst the British people, but if Ukraine is our problem so is Gaza, Lebanon, and South Sudan.
Why should a failed colonialist country like Britain get to decide the life of a child from Kyiv is worth more than the life of a child from Rafah?
Vote Labour, get ne-Nazis
Nearly 900,000 Russian sons and daughters have died fighting this needless war. Countless Ukrainian’s have perished, many of whom had absolutely no choice but to lay down their lives for someone else’s conflict.
Unless peace prevails, it will be British sons and daughters that pay the ultimate price for NATO’s ongoing expansion and Putin’s aggressive response.
The voices for peace are few and far between. There is no weakness in declaring death and destruction must come to an immediate end. A strong leader understands that every war starts with words and ultimately, ends with words.
Britain simply does not have that leadership. Starmer is no different to any of the previous occupants of Number 10, Downing Street.
If Keir Starmer was a genuinely principled leader, he wouldn’t be allowing British Labour MPs to parade members of Ukraine’s far-right Azov Brigade around parliament, would he?
Vote Labour, get Neo-Nazis.
They secretly harbour ambitions of a return to the ‘halcyon days’ of the British Empire and a time when Britain had an armed forces that rampaged and robbed its way around the world with no fucks given for the millions of victims of its colonial desires.
Zelenskyy got the brutal stage-managed slap he well and truly deserved, be in no doubt of that. Britain now has to decide if they want to be next in line for a pasting, and while that is unlikely to come from a mesmerised Donald Trump, it will take a bit more than a state visit to stop Mr Putin from reaching out and putting little isolated Keir Starmer flat on his backside.
Let’s start off with the good news: Gisele Pelicot has been awarded the number one spot in the Independent’s50 most influential women of 2025. The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is ‘accelerate action’; in view of current projections that gender equality will not be achieved until 2158 at the existing rate of progress.
Pelicot undoubtedly deserves the top spot. Due to her brave public testimony, dozens of perpetrators of male violence have been convicted. International awareness of the dark web, and sexual violence against older women, has been raised.
However, as I scrolled down to find Kate Middleton, Rachel Reeves and – I kid you not – Kemi Badenoch occupying 2nd, 3rd and 4th place in the Independent’s list, I wondered if I’d slept through March and woken up on April Fool’s Day.
Independent’s 50 most influential women: surely a joke?
We certainly need to do something but, with all due respect, I’m not sure that trad wife multi-millionaire Kate Middleton – a literal Princess – is going to lead us out of this mess.
While even Meghan Markle concedes that Kate is essentially a ‘good person’, as the suffragettes knew all too well – centuries of women being ‘good’ and ‘well behaved’ has never led to women receiving an equal share of social, political, and economic power.
I’m struggling to recall an occasion in the past two decades when Kate Middleton, the epitome of white aristocratic privilege, has used her power to effect real change for disadvantaged women. She sits at the top of an archaic institution that embodies feudalism, colonialism, and the patriarchy, and she is one of the few women who benefits from the status quo.
Rachel Reeves, aka the Iron Chancellor, isn’t doing too badly out of the capitalist status quo either.
Let’s be clear: Rachel Reeves is not a champion for working class and marginalised women, and our desperately under-funded public services will continue to suffer while she remains at the helm.
Kate, Rachel, and Kemi: the worst of the worst?
Kemi Badenoch is no feminist ally either.
While she opens the Independent’s sleek, corporate-style IWD short video by stressing the importance of ‘equality of opportunity’, it’s worth clarifying that she is talking about the ‘opportunity’ that disadvantaged women have to compete for jobs with Oxbridge-educated white men.
To be fair to the Independent, Kate, Rachel and Kemi are extremely influential, and that’s precisely the problem we’re up against. They represent loyalty and obedience to a system of ultra-capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy that threatens the human rights of women everywhere.
The Independent: more clear-eyed realism, less loyalty and obedience
This all sounds terribly bleak, but truly, if we really want to dismantle systemic oppression against women, we need clear-eyed realism, and we need ordinary women and men to join grassroots movements.
We can use our people power to show that we won’t stand for sexism in 2025.
There are smaller things we can do too.
The UK is full of feminist icons, but they’re probably not sitting in a Palace or the House of Commons. I’m fairly sure there’s a true feminist icon in your neighbourhood: maybe she lives on your street, or even in your house.
This International Women’s Day, we should let these women know that we see them, their struggle isn’t in vain, and we’ve got their back.
The global celebration of International Women’s Day is a call to action to support and amplify the efforts of the extraordinary girls and women around the world who are tirelessly working within their communities to defend their rights and to empower future generations.
Last month, we saw the Argentinian federal court issue arrest warrants against 25 Myanmar officials, including the seniormost military leaders, for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya community between 2012 and 2018. Our thoughts immediately went to the brave Rohingya women who helped make this significant legal action possible.
For years, the Shanti Mohila (Peace Women), a group of over 400 Rohingya women living in the refugee camps in southeastern Bangladesh, have defied societal expectations and conservative gender norms.
They are leaders in their community fighting for recognition and justice for the harms endured at the hands of the Myanmar military. They play a vital role as leaders, educators, and advocates for justice.
The 2017 “clearance operations” by the Myanmar military against the historically persecuted Rohingya Muslim minority living in the Rakhine state were a series of widespread and systematic attacks involving mass killings, torture, and destruction of houses that led to the largest forced displacement of the Rohingya community from Myanmar into neighboring Bangladesh.
Sexual violence was a hallmark of these “clearance operations,” with young women and girls disproportionately affected by brutal and inhuman acts of sexual and gender-based violence. Yet, despite efforts to destroy them through long-term serious physical and mental harm, Rohingya women fought back.
Shanti Mohila members participate in a series of art facilitation sessions conducted by Legal Action Worldwide in collaboration with Artolution Inc. in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, in 2024.(Ayesha Nawshin/Legal Action Worldwide)
Shanti Mohila members have mobilized to raise awareness of the large-scale sexual and gender-based violence endured by Rohingya women between 2016 and 2017. They have spoken about their experiences before international justice proceedings and catalyzed change by breaking down the stigma associated with victimhood and inspiring next generations of Rohingya women through action.
In 2023, their remarkable achievements were recognized as they were honored as Raphael Lemkin Champions of Prevention by the U.N. Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide.
Contributing evidence to justice mechanisms
The testimonies Shanti Mohila members have provided and encouraged other survivors to step forward to provide over the past years have given the opportunity to investigative mechanisms, NGOs, and lawyers to present evidence before all ongoing international justice proceedings.
Specifically, Shanti Mohila members are among the survivors who provided key witness statements in The Gambia v. Myanmar case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
In 2019, two representatives were in The Hague as part of The Gambia delegation to observe provisional measures hearings at the ICJ.
In 2023, they were among the group of seven witnesses in Buenos Aires to testify in the investigative hearings under the universal jurisdiction principle before the federal criminal court – leading to the recent court order of the first-ever arrest warrants for crimes of genocide against key state officials and members of the Myanmar military.
“I could not believe I could tell an international court about my sufferings. I could not believe it until I stepped into the courtroom,” said “Salma” (not her real name), a Rohingya female witness who requested anonymity for privacy and safety concerns.
“It was difficult for me to speak about the death of my family and their names, but I did it for justice, for my grandchildren, for a future where we can return home with dignity,” she said. “They [perpetrators] targeted women first to break our community, our morale.”
“Who would have thought that we, the Rohingya women, would one day be taking the Myanmar military to the court?”
It is worth highlighting here why exactly the evidence from survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) is so critical to successfully prosecute and hold the Myanmar military accountable, particularly for genocide.
The “intent to destroy a group in whole or in part” is a necessary element to prove the crime of genocide, which can be notoriously difficult to evidence.
In the Rohingya context, the scale and brutality of SGBV during the 2017 “clearance operations” was identified by the U.N. Independent Fact-Finding Mission as one of the key factors that “inferred” the Myanmar military’s genocidal intent to destroy the Rohingya people.
Rohingya refugee women hold placards as they take part in a protest at the Kutupalong refugee camp to mark the first year of their exodus in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, Aug. 25, 2018.(Mohammad Ponir Hossain/Reuters)
Sexual violence against Rohingya women and young mothers in front of their families, and the accompanying sexual mutilations and forced pregnancies, are some of the most significant reflections of the perpetrators’ desire to inflict severe social and reproductive harm on the community.
The SGBV was not only a part of the campaign of mass killings, torture and destruction of property in 2017 but also committed in the context of decades-long propagated narrative that uncontrolled Rohingya birth rate is a threat to the survival of the nation, and state policies that placed significant legal restraint on Rohingya reproductive rights.
In a 2023 study on long-term impact of sexual and gender-based violence against the Rohingya men, women, and hijra conducted by the Legal Action Worldwide (LAW), clinical analysis by psychologists and medical doctors revealed that the SGBV against Rohingya had resulted in: permanent damage to survivors’ genitalia impacting their ability to procreate; severe psychological injuries that have left them in a state of extreme emotional distress; damaged the survivors’ family relations including with their spouse and children; severe ostracization of the women and children born of rape; and forced reorganization of the Rohingya households.
The evidence of SGBV is critical in that its commission and its enduring and foreseeable impact on survivors clearly shows that the Myanmar military inflicted serious mental and bodily harm and imposed measures intending to prevent births within the community. It also reflects a deliberate incremental step in causing the biological or physical destruction of the group while inflicting acute suffering on its members in the process.
Leaders within the Shanti Mohila network have been instrumental in supporting the conceptualization and implementation of studies such as the 2023 report – making them truly the grassroots advocates for the community.
Towards holistic justice and healing
Alongside these important contributions, the Shanti Mohila members continuously work within the camps in Cox’s Bazar to ensure awareness of the ongoing justice processes and provide peer support to one another and the wider community.
Last year, LAW and Shanti Mohila engaged with Rohingya activists around the globe through LAW’s Rohingya Diaspora Dialogue initiative to foster wider recognition and advocacy for the significant work being done by the Rohingya women in Cox’s Bazar on gender equality and to hold the perpetrators of serious crimes responsible.
These actions embody Shanti Mohila’s commitment and openness to learning.
They are dedicated to remaining bold and effective advocates for their community and being against the illegitimate military regime that continues to commit atrocities against civilians across Myanmar.
Shanti Mohila members stand in an embrace in a gesture of support and solidarity, in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, in 2022.(Ayesha Nawshin/Legal Action Worldwide)
The challenges remain plenty since the renewed conflict between Arakan Army and Myanmar military in late 2023 has led to upward of 60,000 Rohingya arriving in Cox’s Bazar in a new wave of forced displacement, joining over 1 million Rohingya refugees already living in the camps.
The evolving conflict dynamics in the Rakhine state and its impact on the Rohingya there add to the tensions in the camps. The risk of another surge in the forced recruitment of the Rohingya in the camps by organized groups pressuring youths to join the civil war in Myanmar persists.
Amid this, the work and growth of Shanti Mohila can prove to be a stabilizing force, beyond their contributions to women empowerment and the justice process. They can provide an avenue to offset the negative impacts of the deteriorating regional security situation through promoting efforts toward reconciliation and encouraging people to keep the rule of law and justice at the center of their struggle.
On this International Women’s Day, we celebrate the groundbreaking work of Shanti Mohila and the power and legacy they are creating for generations of Rohingya women, their community as a whole, and women across fragile and conflict-affected contexts worldwide.
Ishita Kumar, based in Cox’s Bazar, is the legal and program adviser on the Rohingya crisis for Legal Action Worldwide (LAW), an independent, non-profit organization of human rights lawyers and jurists working in fragile and conflict-affected areas. LAW has been supporting Shanti Mohila leaders and representing over 300 Rohingya in the ongoing international justice processes about their treatment in Myanmar, including at the International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court and supporting universal jurisdiction cases in foreign domestic courts such as in Argentina. The views expressed here are hers, not those of Radio Free Asia.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by guest commentator Ishita Kumar.
One thing that instantly struck me watching the White House press conference February 28, 2025 with US President Donald Trump, Vice President J. D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was that the grand welcome accorded to Zelenskyy by the previous US government of Joe Biden and some Western European governments had gone to Zelenskyy’s head. He expected that as he was like an idol to warmongers like Biden and to reporters itching to see Russia defeated, that he would be so to Trump, too.
(Watch Biden/Zelenskyy bonhomie at a press conference with reporters from the dominant/major/traditional/legacy media, the war media, to whom Russia is the “evil empire,” per President Ronald Reagan’s label.)
Zelenskyy was told to put on a suit when visiting the White House. He showed up wearing a commando like stylish black sweatshirt with the logo of Ukrainian tryzub or trident and black pants, both from Ukrainian fashion designer Elvira Gasanova’s menswear label Damirli.
One should have the freedom to wear whatever one wants, however, Zelenskyy has not always worn such casual clothes. He used to wear suits till Russia attacked1 Ukraine, since then his attire has been military/commando style clothes which he says he’ll wear till the war ends. Zelenskyy is not always on the war front, but his clothing creates an impression that he is just coming from the war front, this in turn deludes him into believing that he is kind of a commando. This commando mentality proved almost fatal for the United States-Ukraine relations when he acted as one during the meeting. On March 3, Trump ordered a pause to all military aid to Ukraine — the first wise step to stop the war. Intelligence sharing is also on pause. Zelenskyy needs to come out of this commando mentality.
If Zelenskyy was more powerful than Trump, he could do, wear, say, whatever he wanted to. But he is not. He met Trump for Ukraine, not for himself. If the meeting was a personal one, no one will give a damn even if he blew it up. No. This interaction was for Ukraine and he should have remembered that. As the saying goes: Beggars can’t be choosers. Or as Trump put it: “You don’t have the cards. With us, you have the cards. Without us, you don’t have any cards.”
Zelenskyy badly needs a class in 101 diplomacy. You don’t cut off the branch you’re sitting on; Zelenskyy almost cut off the branch (of the US aid tree) on which Ukraine depends. During the meeting, he constantly argued rather than try and take the conversation towards a more agreeable path.
Despite the fact that US Senator Lindsey Graham, a strong Trump supporter, had warned Zelenskyy beforehand: “Don’t take the bait. Don’t let the media or anyone else get you into an argument with President Trump.”
Zelenskyy’s arguments wouldn’t have mattered if he was arguing with the Biden team, because it was the Biden regime’s war.
Another thing one can deduce from Zelenskyy’s behavior is that he’s not smart like Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu or India’s Narendra Modi (both have big egos and cruel mentality, and wouldn’t hesitate to unleash violence to achieve the desired goals). But neither argue or show any displeasure when they meet Trump because they know they are weak partners vis-a-vis the US which is very strong — I would say too strong for our world, not a very good thing. Israeli leaders are famous for insulting, bypassing, or ordering US leaders but they can’t do that with Trump — of course, instead, they get things done with flattery.
Invited for lunch, but humiliated and shown the door without lunch from the White House, Zelenskyy flew into London in the warm and comforting embrace (albeit, a momentary one) of Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the UK. (Britain, once the greatest empire in the world, now has not much power except, every now and then, it makes some noise to draw attention.)
A conference of 18 leaders: Europeans and Canada’s Justin Trudeau, were called to support Ukraine which Starmer called “coalition of the willing.” The unwilling ones will be crushed or maligned. But the leaders were aware that without the US not much can be accomplished.
Tusk should have added: We are all together but still alone unless the Globo Cop US joins in.
It seems like Zelenskyy came his senses. On March 4, he said:
“None of us wants an endless war. Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than Ukrainians.” “My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.”
Zelenskyy must be feeling very humiliated: first for being dressed down by Trump, and, then for accepting “Trump’s strong leadership.”
Advice for Zelenskyy, if he’s allowed to stay in power, or any other leader who takes over: Try to stay neutral, avoid joining NATO, be friendly, as much as possible, with your neighbors, including Russia, and prevent being a proxy in the hands of US/European warmongers. The devastating result in the form of death and destruction for both Ukraine and Russia is in front of you, due to your prolongation of the war.
Ukrainians must watch the following video of a speech given by Jeffrey Sachs to the European Parliament.
Business-being Trump
The effective rate for many anti-bacterial, disinfectant, and other products is advertised as 99.99% effective. In other words, it’s not absolutely effective and not totally potent.
The same analogy can also be applied to Trump. One could say Trump is 99.99% nasty, greedy, cruel, or whatever. That, however, leaves room for some uprightness in Trump.
Trump’s figure for US support of $350 billion dollars to Ukraine was, as usual, exaggerated, the actual amount is about $183 billion — huge sum of money for the war, for which major support comes only from the Democratic Party’s “affluent upper-middle class base.” However, the total amount Ukraine received from the US, European Union institutes, several countries, and groups amounts to $380 billion.
For Trump, Zelenskyy is not a hero. Trump is a different entity with a diverse agenda; he has been talking about ending the Russia/Ukraine war for a long time and so it was counterproductive to argue and throw tantrums rather than listening to Trump and then requesting a favor here and a favor there. Of course, Trump has his own interest in facilitating a ceasefire, he is eyeing Ukraine’s rare earth minerals.
After all, Trump is business-being and like most businesspersons, his motive is always a financial one.
Trump is right when he points out the danger of the Russian Ukraine war:
“You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War Three2.”
Trump attacked
The war news media and many European leaders instead of thanking Trump for his efforts in working for a ceasefire, which would not only prevent loss of life and destruction in Ukraine and Russia but would also save US and European taxpayers’ money, lambasted him for being a “bully” and termed discussion with Zelenskyy an “ambush.”
Financial Times’ Europe editor Ben Hall said Trump and Vance “were spoiling for a fight” with Zelenskyy. Marc Polymeropoulus, MSNBC’s National Security & Intelligence Analyst noted that Trump and Vance “have humiliated the United States” when they shouted at Zelenskyy.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) accused Trump and Vance of “doing Putin’s dirty work.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) described Trump’s berating of Zelenskyy “utter embarrassment” for the US.
Trump is wrong on a huge number of issues but not on this one. All those criticizing him are foes of Ukrainian people; it’s they who are paying the price for this meaningless war.
1 The former USSR’s (now Russia) request for NATO membership in mid 1950s was rejected. Why? two logical reasons: one, if Russia is in NATO then you have no enemy to fight with. That is a no, no. Also, there wouldn’t be a war lobby and no arms-related corruption; not a good thing for lobbyists, Congresspersons, weapons producers who always get their cuts, profit, and so on. The other reason was a united Europe wouldn’t be as vulnerable to US dictates as it is now.
2 The World War I and the World War II started by Europeans and the world was dragged in because most countries were under European colonial rule. (The name World War is a misnomer — actually it should be called European World War.) How wise are these idiot European leaders whose insanity could drive Europe towards the European World War III.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will introduce 27 European Union members with her “ReArm Europe” costing $840 billion.
For nearly half a century, Papua New Guinea has been more than just a home for Laurence “Rocky” Roe — it has been his canvas, his inspiration, and his great love.
A master behind the lens, Rocky has captured the soul of the nation through his photography, preserving moments of history, culture, and progress.
He bid farewell to the country he has called home since 1976 in June 2021 and is now retired and living in Australia. We reflect on the extraordinary journey of a man whose work has become an indelible part of PNG’s visual history.
A journey born of adventure
Rocky Roe’s story began in Adelaide, Australia, where he was born in 1947. His adventure in Papua New Guinea started in 1976 when he arrived as a mechanical fitter for Bougainville Copper. But his heart sought more than the structured life of a mining camp.
In 1979, he took a leap of faith, moving to Port Moresby and trading a higher salary for a passion — photography. What he lost in pay, he gained in purpose.
“I wanted to see Papua New Guinea,” Rocky recalls. “And I got an opportunity to get paid to see it.”
Capturing the essence of a nation
From corporate photography to historic events, Rocky’s lens has documented the evolution of Papua New Guinea. He was there when leaders rose to prominence, capturing moments that would later adorn national currency — his photograph of Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare graces the K50 note.
His work went beyond the formal; he ventured deep into the Highlands, the islands, and bustling townships, preserving the heart and spirit of the people.
With each shot, he chronicled the changing landscape of Port Moresby. From a city of well-kept roads and modest housing in the 1970s to its present-day urban sprawl, Rocky witnessed and documented it all.
The evolution of photography Rocky’s career spanned a transformative era in photography — from the meticulous world of slide film, where exposure errors were unforgiving, to the digital revolution, where technology made photography more accessible.
“Autofocus hadn’t been invented,” he recalls. “Half the world couldn’t focus a camera back then.” Yet, through skill and patience, he mastered the art, adapting as the industry evolved.
His assignments took him to mine sites, oil fields, and remote locations where only helicopters could reach.
“I spent many hours flying with the door off, capturing PNG from above. Looking through the camera made it all feel natural. Without it, I might have been scared.”
The man behind the camera
Despite the grandeur of his work, Rocky remains humble. A storyteller at heart, his greatest joy has been the connections he forged—whether photographing Miss PNG contestants over the years or engaging with young photographers eager to learn.
He speaks fondly of his colleagues, the friendships he built, and the country that embraced him as one of its own.
His time in Papua New Guinea was not without challenges. He encountered moments of danger, faced armed hold-ups, and saw the country grapple with law and order issues. Yet, his love for PNG never wavered.
“It’s the greatest place on earth,” he says, reflecting on his journey.
A fond farewell, but not goodbye Now, as Rocky returns to Australia to tend to his health, he leaves behind a legacy that will live on in the countless images he captured. Papua New Guinea will always be home to him, and its people, his extended family.
“I may come back if someone brings me back,” he says with a knowing smile.
Papua New Guinea bids farewell to a legend, a visual historian who gave us the gift of memories frozen in time. His photographs are not just images; they are stories, emotions, and a testament to a life well-lived in the pursuit of beauty and truth.
Farewell, Rocky Roe. Your work will continue to inspire generations to come.
Independent Papua New Guinea journalist Malum Nalu first published this article on his blog Happenings in Papua New Guinea as part of a series leading up to PNG’s 50th anniversary this year. Republished with permission.
‘To the People of Gaza: A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD! Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER!’
These were not the words of some far-right provocateur lurking in a dark corner of the internet. They were not shouted by an unhinged warlord seeking vengeance.
No, these were the words of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, the most powerful man in the world. A man who with a signature, a speech or a single phrase can shape the fate of entire nations.
And yet, with all this power, all this influence, his words to the people of Gaza were not of peace, not of diplomacy, not of relief — but of death.
Because I know exactly who he is speaking to. He is speaking to my family. To my parents, who lost relatives and their home.
To my siblings, who no longer have a place to return to. To the starving children in Gaza, who have done nothing but be born to a people the world has deemed unworthy of existence.
To the grieving mothers who have buried their children. To the fathers who can do nothing but watch their babies die in their arms.
To the people who have lost everything and yet are still expected to endure more.
No future left
Trump speaks of a “beautiful future” for the people of Gaza. But there is no future left where homes are gone, where whole families have been erased, where children have been massacred.
I read these words and I ask: What kind of a world do we live in?
President Trump’s “words are criminal. They are a direct endorsement of genocide. The people of Gaza are not responsible for what is happening. They are not holding hostages.” Image: NYT screenshot/APR/X@@xandrerodriguez
A world where the leader of the so-called “free world” can issue a blanket death sentence to an entire population — two million people, most of whom are displaced, starving and barely clinging to life.
A world where a man who commands the most powerful military can sit in his office, insulated from the screams, the blood, the unbearable stench of death, and declare that if the people of Gaza do not comply with his demand — if they do not somehow magically find and free hostages they have no control over — then they are simply “dead”.
A world where genocide survivors are given an ultimatum of mass death by a man who claims to stand for peace.
This is not just absurd. It is evil.
Trump’s words are criminal. They are a direct endorsement of genocide. The people of Gaza are not responsible for what is happening. They are not holding hostages.
Trapped by an Israeli war machine
They are the hostages – trapped by an Israeli war machine that has stolen everything from them. Hostages to a brutal siege that has starved them, bombed them, displaced them, left them with nowhere to go.
And now, they have become hostages to the most powerful man on Earth, who threatens them with more suffering, more death, unless they meet a demand they are incapable of fulfilling.
Most cynically, Trump knows his words will not be met with any meaningful pushback. Who in the American political establishment will hold him accountable for threatening genocide?
The Democratic Party, which enabled Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza? Congress, which overwhelmingly supports sending US military aid to Israel with no conditions? The mainstream media, which have systematically erased Palestinian suffering?
There is no political cost for Trump to make such statements. If anything, they bolster his position.
This is the world we live in. A world where Palestinian lives are so disposable that the President of the United States can threaten mass death without fear of any consequences.
I write this because I refuse to let this be just another outrageous Trump statement that people laugh off, that the media turns into a spectacle, that the world forgets.
“‘Shalom Hamas’ means Hello and Goodbye – You can choose. Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you. Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted! I am… pic.twitter.com/88EjVAyWAe
My heart. My everything
I write this because Gaza is not a talking point. It is not a headline. It is my home. My family. My history. My heart. My everything.
And I refuse to accept that the President of the United States can issue death threats to my people with impunity.
The people of Gaza do not control their own fate. They have never had that luxury. Their fate has always been dictated by the bombs that fall on them, by the siege that starves them, by the governments that abandon them.
And now, their fate is being dictated by a man in Washington, DC, who sees no issue with threatening the annihilation of an entire population.
So I ask again: What kind of world do we live in?
And how long will we allow it to remain this way?
Ahmed Najar is a Palestinian political analyst and a playwright. This article was first published by Al Jazeera.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump addressed a joint session of Congress in a highly partisan 100-minute speech, the longest presidential address to Congress in modern history on Wednesday.
Trump defended his sweeping actions over the past six weeks.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years or eight years, and we are just getting started.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump praised his biggest campaign donor, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who’s leading Trump’s effort to dismantle key government agencies and cut critical government services.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And to that end, I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps.
Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight. Thank you, Elon. He’s working very hard. He didn’t need this. He didn’t need this. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
AMY GOODMAN: Some Democrats laughed and pointed at Elon Musk when President Trump made this comment later in his speech.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It’s very simple. And the days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over.
AMY GOODMAN: During his speech, President Trump repeatedly attacked the trans and immigrant communities, defended his tariffs that have sent stock prices spiraling, vowed to end Russia’s war on Ukraine and threatened to take control of Greenland.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland: We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it.
But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.
‘A declaration of war against the American people.’ Video: Democracy Now!
AMY GOODMAN: During Trump’s 100-minute address, Democratic lawmakers held up signs in protest reading “This is not normal,” “Save Medicaid” and “Musk steals.”
One Democrat, Congressmember Al Green of Texas, was removed from the chamber for protesting against the President.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Likewise, small business optimism saw its single-largest one-month gain ever recorded, a 41-point jump.
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 1: Sit down!
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 2: Order!
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions. That’s your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant-at-arms to restore order to the joint session.
Mr Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir.
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: He has no mandate to cut Medicaid!
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Take your seat. Finding that members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant-at-arms to restore order, remove this gentleman from the chamber.
AMY GOODMAN: That was House Speaker Mike Johnson, who called in security to take Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green out. Afterwards, Green spoke to reporters after being removed.
Democrat Congressman Al Green (Texas) . . . “I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare.” Image: DN screenshot APR
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: The President said he had a mandate, and I was making it clear to the President that he has no mandate to cut Medicaid.
I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare. And I want him to know that his budget calls for deep cuts in Medicaid.
He needs to save Medicaid, protect it. We need to raise the cap on Social Security. There’s a possibility that it’s going to be hurt. And we’ve got to protect Medicare.
These are the safety net programmes that people in my congressional district depend on. And this President seems to care less about them and more about the number of people that he can remove from the various programmes that have been so helpful to so many people.
AMY GOODMAN: Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green.
We begin today’s show with Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, former presidential candidate. Ralph Nader is founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. His most recent lead article in the new issue of Capitol Hill Citizen is titled “Democratic Party: Apologise to America for ushering Trump back in.”
Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, all these different programmes. Ralph Nader, respond overall to President Trump’s, well, longest congressional address in modern history.
Environmentalist and consumer protection activist Ralph Nader . . . And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza. Image: DN screenshot APR
RALPH NADER: Well, it was also a declaration of war against the American people, including Trump voters, in favour of the super-rich and the giant corporations. What Trump did last night was set a record for lies, delusionary fantasies, predictions of future broken promises — a rerun of his first term — boasts about progress that don’t exist.
In practice, he has launched a trade war. He has launched an arms race with China and Russia. He has perpetuated and even worsened the genocidal support against the Palestinians. He never mentioned the Palestinians once.
And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza.
But taking it as a whole, Amy, what we’re seeing here defies most of dictionary adjectives. What Trump and Musk and Vance and the supine Republicans are doing are installing an imperial, militaristic domestic dictatorship that is going to end up in a police state.
You can see his appointments are yes people bent on suppression of civil liberties, civil rights. You can see his breakthrough, after over 120 years, of announcing conquest of Panama Canal.
He’s basically said, one way or another, he’s going to take Greenland. These are not just imperial controls of countries overseas or overthrowing them; it’s actually seizing land.
Now, on the Greenland thing, Greenland is a province of Denmark, which is a member of NATO. He is ready to basically conquer a part of Denmark in violation of Section 5 of NATO, at the same time that he has displayed full-throated support for a hardcore communist dictator, Vladimir Putin, who started out with the Russian version of the CIA under the Soviet Union and now has over 20 years of communist dictatorship, allied, of course, with a number of oligarchs, a kind of kleptocracy.
And the Republicans are buying all this in Congress. This is complete reversal of everything that the Republicans stood for against communist dictators.
So, what we’re seeing here is a phony programme of government efficiency ripping apart people’s programmes. The attack on Social Security is new, complete lies about millions of people aged 110, 120, getting Social Security cheques.
That’s a new attack. He left Social Security alone in his first term, but now he’s going after [it]. So, what they’re going to do is cut Medicaid and cut other social safety nets in order to pay for another tax cut for the super-rich and the corporation, throwing in no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, which will, of course, further increase the deficit and give the lie to his statement that he wants a balanced budget.
So we’re dealing with a deranged, unstable pathological liar, who’s getting away with it. And the question is: How does he get away with it, year after year? Because the Democratic Party has basically collapsed.
They don’t know how to deal with a criminal recidivist, a person who has hired workers without documents and exploited them, a person who’s a bigot against immigrants, including legal immigrants who are performing totally critical tasks in home healthcare, processing poultry, meat, and half of the construction workers in Texas are undocumented workers.
So, as a bully, he doesn’t go after the construction industry in Texas; he picks out individuals.
I thought the most disgraceful thing, Amy, yesterday was his use of these unfortunate people who suffered as props, holding one up after another. But they were also Trump’s crutches to cover up his contradictory behavior.
So, he praised the police yesterday, but he pardoned over 600 people who attacked violently the police [in the attack on the Capitol] on 6 January 2021 and were convicted and imprisoned as a result, and he let them out of prison. I thought the most —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, I —
RALPH NADER: — the most heartrending thing was that 13-year-old child, who wanted to be a police officer when he grew up, being held up twice by his father. And he was so bewildered as to what was going on. And Trump’s use of these people was totally reprehensible and should be called out.
Now, more basically, the real inefficiencies in government, they’re ignoring, because they are kleptocrats. They’re ignoring corporate crimes on Medicaid, Medicare, tens of billions of dollars every year ripping off Medicare, ripping off government contracts, such as defence contracts.
He’s ignoring hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare, including that doled out to Elon Musk — subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, you name it. And he’s ignoring the bloated military budget, which he is supporting the Republicans in actually increasing the military budget more than the generals have asked for. So, that’s the revelation —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, if I — Ralph, if I can interrupt? I just need to —
RALPH NADER: — that the Democrats need to pursue.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph, I wanted to ask you about — specifically about Medicaid and Medicare. You’ve mentioned the cuts to these safety net programmes. What about Medicaid, especially the crisis in this country in long-term care? What do you see happening in this Trump administration, especially with the Republican majority in Congress?
RALPH NADER: Well, they’re going to slash — they’re going to move to slash Medicaid, which serves over 71 million people, including millions of Trump voters, who should be reconsidering their vote as the days pass, because they’re being exploited in red states, blue states, everywhere, as well.
Yeah, they have to cut tens of billions of dollars a year from Medicaid to pay for the tax cut. That’s number one. Now they’re going after Social Security. Who knows what the next step will be on Medicare? They’re leaving Americans totally defenceless by slashing meat and poultry and food inspection laws, auto safety.
They’re exposing people to climate violence by cutting FEMA, the rescue agency. They’re cutting forest rangers that deal with wildfires. They’re cutting protections against pandemics and epidemics by slashing and ravaging and suppressing free speech in scientific circles, like CDC and National Institutes of Health.
They’re leaving the American people defenseless.
And where are the Democrats on this? I mean, look at Senator Slotkin’s response. It was a typical rerun of a feeble, weak Democratic rebuttal. She couldn’t get herself, just like the Democrats in 2024, which led to Trump’s victory — they can’t get themselves, Juan, to talk specifically and authentically about raising the minimum wage, expanding healthcare, cracking down on corporate crooks that are bleeding out the incomes of hard-pressed American workers and the poor.
They can’t get themselves to talk about increasing frozen Social Security budgets for 50 years, that 200 Democrats supported raising, but Nancy Pelosi kept them, when she was Speaker, from taking John Larson’s bill to the House floor.
That’s why they lose. Look at her speech. It was so vague and general. They chose her because she was in the national security state. She was a former CIA. They chose her because they wanted to promote the losing version of the Democratic Party, instead of choosing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, the most popular polled politician in America today.
That’s who they chose. So, as long as the Democrats monopolise the opposition and crush third-party efforts to push them into more progressive realms, the Republican, plutocratic, Wall Street, war machine declaration of war against the American people will continue.
We’re heading into the most serious crisis in American history. There’s no comparison.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, we’re going to have to leave it there, but, of course, we’re going to continue to cover these issues. And I also wanted to wish you, Ralph, a happy 91st birthday. Ralph Nader —
RALPH NADER: I wish people to get the Capitol Hill Citizen, which tells people what they can really do to win democracy and justice back. So, for $5 or donation or more, if you wish, you can go to Capitol Hill Citizen and get a copy sent immediately by first-class mail, or more copies for your circle, of resisting and protesting and prevailing over this Trump dictatorship.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, four-time presidential candidate, founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. This is Democracy Now!
The original content of this programme is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence. Republished by Asia Pacific Report under Creative Commons.
The war in Ukraine is, but in reverse, the same situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable; Obama, Biden, and Trump, are not; and, so, we again stand at the brink of a WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (Obama, then Biden, and now Trump), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink — into WW3 — in order to become able to achieve world-conquest. This is as-if Khrushchev had said no to JFK’s proposal in 1962 — but, thankfully, he didn’t; so, WW3 was averted, on that occasion.
How often have you heard or seen the situation in the matter of Cuba being near to the White House (near to America’s central command) being analogized to Ukraine’s being near — far nearer, in fact — to The Kremlin (Russia’s central command)? No, you probably haven’t encountered this historical context before, because it’s not being published — at least not in America and its allied countries. It’s being hidden.
The Ukrainian war actually started after the democratically elected President of Ukraine (an infamously corrupt country), who was committed to keeping his country internationally neutral (not allied with either Russia or the United States), met privately with both the U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010, shortly following that Ukrainian President’s election earlier in 2010; and, on both occasions, he rejected their urgings for Ukraine to become allied with the United States against his adjoining country Russia. This was being urged upon him so that America could position its nuclear missiles at the Russian border with Ukraine, less than a five-minute striking-distance away from hitting the Kremlin in Moscow.
The U.S. Government had engaged the Gallup polling organization, bothbefore and after the coup, in order to poll Ukrainians, and especially ones who lived in its Crimean independent republic (where Russia has had its main naval base ever since 1783), regarding their views on U.S., Russia, NATO, and the EU; and, generally, Ukrainians were far more pro-Russia than pro-U.S., pro-NATO, or pro-EU, but this was especially the case in Crimea; so, America’s Government knew that Crimeans would be especially resistant. However, this was not really new information. During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup.
In other words: what Obama did was generally successful: it grabbed Ukraine, or most of it, and it changed Ukrainians’ minds regarding America and Russia. But only after the subsequent passage of time did the American billionaires’ neoconservative heart become successfully grafted into the Ukrainian nation so as to make Ukraine a viable place to position U.S. nuclear missiles against Moscow (which is the U.S. Government’s goal there). Furthermore: America’s rulers also needed to do some work upon U.S. public opinion. Not until February of 2014 — the time of Obama’s coup — did more than 15% of the American public have a “very unfavorable” view of Russia. (Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, that figure had already risen to 42%. America’s press — and academia or public-policy ‘experts’ — have been very effective at managing public opinion, for the benefit of America’s billionaires.)
Then came the Minsk Agreements (#1 & #2, with #2 being the final version, which is shown here, as a U.N. Security Council Resolution), between Ukraine and the separatist region in its far east, and which the U.S. Government refused to participate in, but the U.S.-installed Ukrainian government (then under the oligarch Petro Poroshenko) signed it in order to have a chance of Ukraine’s gaining EU membership, but never complied with any of it; and, so, the war continued); and, then, finally, as the Ukrainian government (now under Volodmyr Zelensky) was greatly intensifying its shelling of the break-away far-eastern region, Russia presented, to both the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance against Russia, two proposed agreements for negotiation (one to U.S., the other to NATO), but neither the U.S. nor its NATO agreed to negotiate. The key portions of the two 17 December 2021 proposed Agreements, with both the U.S. and with its NATO, were, in regards to NATO:
Article 1
The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties. …
Article 4
The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.
Article 5
The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.
Article 6
All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 3
The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.
Article 4
The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
Any reader here can easily click onto the respective link to either proposed Agreement, in order to read that entire document, so as to evaluate whether or not all of its proposed provisions are acceptable and reasonable. What was proposed by Russia in each of the two was only a proposal, and the other side (the U.S. side) in each of the two instances, was therefore able to pick and choose amongst those proposed provisions, which ones were accepted, and to negotiate regarding any of the others; but, instead, the U.S. side simply rejected all of them.
Washington and NATO have formally rejected Russia’s key demands for assurances that the US-led military bloc will not expand closer towards its borders, leaked correspondence reportedly shows.
According to documents seen by Spanish daily El Pais and published on Wednesday morning, Moscow’s calls for a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted as a member of NATO were dismissed following several rounds of talks between Russian and Western diplomats. …
The US-led bloc denied that it posed a threat to Russia. …
The US similarly rejected the demand that NATO does not expand even closer to Russia’s borders. “The United States continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy.”
NATO-U.S. was by now clearly determined to get Ukraine into NATO and to place its nukes so near to The Kremlin as to constitute, like a checkmate in chess, a forced defeat of Russia, a capture of its central command. This was, but in reverse, the situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did agree to, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable, America’s recent Presidents are not; and, so, we again stand at the brink of WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (America’s recent Presidents), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink in order to become able to achieve world-conquest.
Russia did what it had to do: it invaded Ukraine, on 24 February 2022. If Khrushchev had said no to JFK’s proposal in 1962, then the U.S. would have invaded and taken over Cuba, because the only other alternative would have been to skip that step and go directly to invade the Soviet Union itself — directly to WW3. Under existing international law, either response — against Cuba, or against the U.S.S.R. — would have been undecidable, because Truman’s U.N. Charter refused to allow “aggression” to be defined (Truman, even at the time of the San Francisco Conference, 25 April to 26 June 1945, that drew up the U.N. Charter, was considering for the U.S. to maybe take over the entire world). Would the aggression in such an instance have been by Khrushchev (and by Eisenhower for having similarly placed U.S. missiles too close to Moscow in 1959), or instead by JFK for responding to that threat? International law needs to be revised so as to prohibit ANY nation that is “too near” to a superpower’s central command, from allying itself with a different superpower so as to enable that other superpower to place its strategic forces so close to that adjoining or nearby superpower as to present a mortal threat against its national security. But, in any case, 317 miles from The Kremlin would easily be far “too close”; and, so, Russia must do everything possible to prevent that from becoming possible. America and its colonies (‘allies’) are CLEARLY in the wrong on this one. (And I think that JFK was likewise correct in the 1962 case — though to a lesser extent because the distance was four times larger in that case — America was the defender and NOT the aggressor in that matter.)
If this finding appears to you to be too contradictory to what you have read and heard in the past for you to be able to believe it, then my article earlier today (March 4), “The Extent of Lying in the U.S. Press” presents also five other widespread-in-The-West lies, so that you will be able to see that there is nothing particularly unusual about this one, other than that this case could very possibly produce a world-ending nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. People in the mainstream news-business are beholden to the billionaires who control the people who control (hire and fire) themselves, and owe their jobs to that — NOT really to the audience. This is the basic reality. To ignore it is to remain deceived. But you can consider yourself fortunate to be reading this, because none of the mainstream news-sites is allowed to publish articles such as this. None of the mainstream will. They instead deceived you. It’s what they are hired (by their owners and advertisers) to do, so as to continue ruling the Government (by getting you to vote for their candidates).
SPECIAL REPORT: By Markela Panegyres and Jonathan Strauss in Sydney
The new Universities Australia (UA) definition of antisemitism, endorsed last month for adoption by 39 Australian universities, is an ugly attempt to quash the pro-Palestine solidarity movement on campuses and to silence academics, university workers and students who critique Israel and Zionism.
While the Scott Morrison Coalition government first proposed tightening the definition, and a recent joint Labor-Coalition parliamentary committee recommended the same, it is yet another example of the Labor government’s overreach.
It seeks to mould discussion in universities to one that suits its pro-US and pro-Zionist imperialist agenda, while shielding Israel from accountability.
The UA definition comes in the context of a war against Palestinian activism on campuses.
The false claim that antisemitism is “rampant” across universities has been weaponised to subdue the Palestinian solidarity movement within higher education and, particularly, to snuff out any repeat of the student-led Gaza solidarity encampments, which sprung up on campuses across the country last year.
Some students and staff who have been protesting against the genocide since October 2023 have come under attack by university managements.
Some students have been threatened with suspension and many universities are giving themselves, through new policies, more powers to liaise with police and surveil students and staff.
Palestinian, Arab and Muslim academics, as well as other anti-racist scholars, have been silenced and disciplined, or face legal action on false counts of antisemitism, merely for criticising Israel’s genocidal war on Palestine.
Randa Abdel-Fattah, for example, has become the target of a Zionist smear campaign that has successfully managed to strip her of Australian Research Council funding.
Intensify repression The UA definition will further intensify the ongoing repression of people’s rights on campuses to discuss racism, apartheid and occupation in historic Palestine.
By its own admission, UA acknowledges that its definition is informed by the antisemitism taskforces at Columbia University, Stanford University, Harvard University and New York University, which have meted out draconian and violent repression of pro-Palestine activism.
It should be noted that the controversial IHRA definition has been opposed by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) for its serious challenge to academic freedom.
As many leading academics and university workers, including Jewish academics, have repeatedly stressed, criticism of Israel and criticism of Zionism is not antisemitic.
UA’s definition is arguably more detrimental to freedom of speech and pro-Palestine activism and scholarship than the IHRA definition.
In the vague IHRA definition, a number of examples of antisemitism are given that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but not the main text itself.
By contrast, the new UA definition overtly equates criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism and claims Zionist ideology is a component part of Jewish identity.
The definition states that “criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic . . . when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel”.
Dangerously, anyone advocating for a single bi-national democratic state in historic Palestine will be labelled antisemitic under this new definition.
Anyone who justifiably questions the right of the ethnonationalist, apartheid and genocidal state of Israel to exist will be accused of antisemitism.
Sweeping claims The UA definition also makes the sweeping claim that “for most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity”.
But, as the JCA points out, Zionism is a national political ideology and is not a core part of Jewish identity historically or today, since many Jews do not support Zionism. The JCA warns that the UA definition “risks fomenting harmful stereotypes that all Jewish people think in a certain way”.
Moreover, JCA said, Jewish identities are already “a rightly protected category under all racial discrimination laws, whereas political ideologies such as Zionism and support for Israel are not”.
Like other aspects of politics, political ideologies, such as Zionism, and political stances, such as support for Israel, should be able to be discussed critically.
According to the UA definition, criticism of Israel can be antisemitic “when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions”.
While it would be wrong for any individual or community, because they are Jewish, to be held responsible for Israel’s actions, it is a fact that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former minister Yoav Gallant for Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But under the UA definition, since Netanyahu and Gallant are Jewish, would holding them responsible be considered antisemitic?
The implication of the definition for universities, which teach law and jurisprudence, is that international law should not be applied to the Israeli state, because it is antisemitic to do so.
The UA’s definition is vague enough to have a chilling effect on any academic who wants to teach about genocide, apartheid and settler-colonialism. It states that “criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions”.
What these are is not defined.
Anti-racism challenge Within the academy, there is a strong tradition of anti-racism and decolonial scholarship, particularly the concept of settler colonialism, which, by definition, calls into question the very notion of “statehood”.
With this new definition of antisemitism, will academics be prevented from teaching students the works of Chelsea Watego, Patrick Wolfe or Edward Said?
The definition will have serious and damaging repercussions for decolonial scholars and severely impinges the rights of scholars, in particular First Nations scholars and students, to critique empire and colonisation.
UA is the “peak body” for higher education in Australia, and represents and lobbies for capitalist class interests in higher education.
It is therefore not surprising that it has developed this particular definition, given its strong bilateral relations with Israeli higher education, including signing a 2013 memorandum of understanding with Association of University Heads, Israel.
All university students and staff committed to anti-racism, academic freedom and freedom of speech should join the campaign against the UA definition.
Local NTEU branches and student groups are discussing and passing motions rejecting the new definition and NTEU for Palestine has called a National Day of Action for March 26 with that as one of its key demands.
We will not be silenced on Palestine.
Jonathan Strauss and Markela Panegyres are members of the National Tertiary Education Union and the Socialist Alliance. Republished from Green Left with permission.
Whilst the majority of viewers yelped at the saluting hand of alt-right granddaddy Steve Banon, it was easy to miss the more interesting array of speakers at this month’s conservative conventions, ARC and CPAC. One who has largely gone unnoticed is associate editor of the Spectator, Douglas Murray.
Once the golden boy of the neoconservative right, he’s taken an odd turn in his output over the last few years. In this, he is a representative of a wider plague amongst once “moderate conservatives” who have taken the plunge into something much more vulgar.
Murray delighted the crowd with his comments that either implicitly or explicitly slagged off various groups including Palestinians, migrants, and trans people. He pulled out all of the right’s best tools, such as the infamous “what are men and women?” query.
Ultimately, this residue from the culture war is mostly nonsense. But what is perhaps most striking is this turn in ideology Murray has solidified, namely his more far-right approach on every issue – economic, cultural, and other. The man clearly sees himself to be our generations answer to Bill Buckley, but better resembles a bloated Brownshirt.
Douglas Murray: part of the intellectual dark web
Douglas Murray began his, admittedly, quite prominent career as a descendent of the neoconservative political movement, choosing to dedicate his first book on the subject. Emerging from this committee, he modelled his style of oration on his elder contemporaries, embarrassingly being seen to imitate the exact phraseology of famous leftist-turned-neo imperialist Christopher Hitchens.
He wrote a rather wet eulogy for the old war-monger in a 2011 edition of the Spectator and clearly took a lot from his persona – portraying a bombastic and thick-skinned character. This has obviously aided him in the transition he’s made from neoconservative missionary to podium-thumping far-rightist.
In 2012, Murray became associate editor of the Spectator which is far more of an important detail than at first it may appear. The Spectator is a large publication from the right in the UK and has a circulation two-fold bigger than the New Statesman, its historic (though desperately turncoat) competitor. It reaches a tremendous audience and had significant links to the annals of authority in the Conservative governments of the last 15 years. Murray’s reach, just in regard to his day job, then, is not to be underestimated at all.
Sheltered from a storm
The growing “intellectual dark web” sheltered him from the right-wing storm against neo-conservativism in the mid 2010s and he hasn’t really gone back. Disgraceful figures from this period like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson slowly became fellow travelers on this journey of his.
This group, for the blessedly unaware, constituted a group of intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals writing and speaking on subjects which had little to do with their field of study or experience. And if one took a critical lens to what they were claiming in their tweets, podcasts, and sad excuses for books, you wouldn’t be stunned to know that they and Murray have taken their flags and driven them far into the ground of the Euro-American Far-right.
Immigration – as always
Of course, at this time Douglas Murray was still adjusting his scope to take shot at Europe’s recent immigrant and refugee populations, in light of the contemporary shifts like the Syrian Refugee Crisis. These arguments are one’s he’s devoted serious thought to and uses in almost every slapdash diatribe published under his name.
Those seemingly coherent lines about how multiethnic migration into “The West” – by which he means the white world – has watered down our culture have become more explicit. This is seen in his recent ARC speech, in which he failed to quite hit the register of humour (even in that sweaty locker room of fascists) as he compared “western culture” to the complexities of vanilla ice-cream. For a man who built his lot on identity politics, he’s more than happy to rile up “Westerners” with their own notions of identity.
It is on the immigration issue that Murray first seemed to take his more overtly right turn. His casual Islamophobia is clear, yet what he has attempted to shelter under an auspice of “skepticism” is his flirtation with the most right-wing of the British conservative movement.
The race riots
In his famous article on the subject of the 2024 race riots, Murray states correctly that one of the causes of the unrest was the unemployment in Northern Towns, inflated by the Conservative government post-2008. He on the one hand slams those who undertook class analysis on the 2011 riots, stating that he was “reluctant” to “assume that unemployment and the resultant hopelessness were factors” in that year’s violence. But he then undertakes the precept as the key factor of analysis in the case of the post-Southport riots.
In her recent book, Ash Sarkar points out that many journalists, and in this I would include Murray, only deign to care about the working-class when they’re white and can be crow-barred from their black and brown neighbours.
Douglas Murray: a mid-life radicalisation crisis
As is to be expected from a right-winger like Douglas Murray, he takes on absolutely no critical class analysis whatsoever, as I’m sure he would claim this as a facet of “cultural Marxism”. He doesn’t blame unemployment on deindustrialisation, or on austerity imposed on the North by Conservative governments, but instead on immigrants.
The real “uncomfortable truth” is that wages and jobs are not cut by immigrants, but by bosses and boards of directors, incentivised by the financialisation of our economy and by the British government.
Murray will likely not stop in his swing further and further right. But the story of his trajectory is perhaps an interesting example of what happened to many moderate conservatives. In the late 2010s, those “right-of-centre” commentators were given a wink and a nudge to say what they truly think by powerful far-right political leaders.
Has any nation squandered its diplomatic capital, plundered its own political system, attacked its partners and supplicated itself before its far weaker enemies as rapidly and brazenly as Donald Trump’s America?
The fiery Oval Office meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday saw the American leader try to publicly humiliate the democratically elected leader of a nation that had been invaded by a rapacious and imperialistic aggressor.
And this was all because Zelensky refused to sign an act of capitulation, criticised Putin (who has tried to have Zelensky killed on numerous occasions), and failed to bend the knee to Trump, the country’s self-described king.
The Oval Office meeting became heated in a way that has rarely been seen between world leaders.
What is worse is Trump has now been around so long that his oafish behaviour has become normalised. Together with his attack dog, Vice-President JD Vance, Trump has thrown the Overton window — the spectrum of subjects politically acceptable to the public — wide open.
Previously sensible Republicans are now either cowed or co-opted. Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is gutting America’s public service and installing toadies in place of professionals, while his social media company, X, is platforming ads from actual neo-Nazis.
The Department of Health and Human Services is helmed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine denier, just as Americans have begun dying from measles for the first time in a decade. And America’s health and medical research has been channelled into ideologically “approved” topics.
At the Pentagon, in a breathtaking act of self-sabotage, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered US Cyber Command to halt all operations targeting Russia.
And cuts to USAID funding are destroying US soft power, creating a vacuum that will gleefully be filled by China. Other Western aid donors are likely to follow suit so they can spend more on their militaries in response to US unilateralism.
What is Trump’s strategy? Trump’s wrecking ball is already having seismic global effects, mere weeks after he took office.
The US vote against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia for starting the war against Ukraine placed it in previously unthinkable company — on the side of Russia, Belarus and North Korea. Even China abstained from the vote.
States that voted against the resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:
In the United Kingdom, a YouGov poll of more than 5000 respondents found that 48 percent of Britons thought it was more important to support Ukraine than maintain good relations with the US. Only 20 percent favoured supporting America over Ukraine.
And Trump’s bizarre suggestion that China, Russia and the US halve their respective defence budgets is certain to be interpreted as a sign of weakness rather than strength.
The oft-used explanation for his behaviour is that it echoes the isolationism of one of his ideological idols, former US President Andrew Jackson. Trump’s aim seems to be ring-fencing American businesses with high tariffs, while attempting to split Russia away from its relationship with China.
These arguments are both economically illiterate and geopolitically witless. Even a cursory understanding of tariffs reveals that they drive inflation because they are paid by importers who then pass the costs on to consumers. Over time, they are little more than sugar pills that turn economies diabetic, increasingly reliant on state protections from unending trade wars.
And the “reverse Kissinger” strategy — a reference to the US role in exacerbating the Sino-Soviet split during the Cold War — is wishful thinking to the extreme.
Putin would have to be utterly incompetent to countenance a move away from Beijing. He has invested significant time and effort to improve this relationship, believing China will be the dominant power of the 21st century.
Putin would be even more foolish to embrace the US as a full-blown partner. That would turn Russia’s depopulated southern border with China, stretching over 4300 kilometres, into the potential front line of a new Cold War.
What does this mean for America’s allies? While Trump’s moves have undoubtedly strengthened the US’ traditional adversaries, they have also weakened and alarmed its friends.
Put simply, no American ally — either in Europe or Asia — can now have confidence Washington will honour its security commitments. This was brought starkly home to NATO members at the Munich Security Conference in February, where US representatives informed a stunned audience that America may no longer view itself as the main guarantor of European security.
Vice-President Vance’s controversial speech to European leaders. Video: DW
The swiftness of US disengagement means European countries must not only muster the will and means to arm themselves quickly, but also take the lead in collectively providing for Ukraine’s security.
Whether they can do so remains unclear. Europe’s history of inaction does not bode well.
US allies also face choices in Asia. Japan and South Korea will now be seriously considering all options – potentially even nuclear weapons – to deter an emboldened China.
There are worries in Australia, as well. Can it pretend nothing has changed and hope the situation will then normalise after the next US presidential election?
The future of AUKUS, the deal to purchase (and then co-design) US nuclear-powered submarines, is particularly uncertain.
Does it make strategic sense to pursue full integration with the US military when the White House could just treat Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul and Canberra with the same indifference it has displayed towards its friends in Europe?
Ultimately, the chaos Trump 2.0 has unleashed in such a short amount of time is both unprecedented and bewildering. In seeking to put “America First”, Trump is perversely hastening its decline. He is leaving America isolated and untrusted by its closest friends.
And, in doing so, the world’s most powerful nation has also made the world a more dangerous, uncertain and ultimately an uglier place to be.
On Feb. 11, Hun Sen, Cambodia’s de-facto ruler, claimed that the authorities had weeks ago uncovered a plot to kill him at his provincial mansion using drones.
One person was apparently arrested, Hun Sen said, but others may still be at large.
Who knows whether it is true or not?
Some people suspect it’s a conceit by Hun Sen, the former prime minister who handed power to his eldest son in 2023, to justify his incoming law that will brandish political opponents as “terrorists”, in an attempt to deter foreigners from aiding the exiled opposition movement.
Cambodia’s Senate President Hun Sen at a ceremony marking the fall of the Khmer Rouge regime, in Phnom Penh on Jan. 7, 2025.(Tang Chhin Sothy/AFP)
Speaking about the alleged plot on his life, Hun Sen connected the two: “This is an act of terrorism, and I’d like to urge foreigners to be cautious, refraining from supporting terrorist activities.”
Such skepticism led one commentator, in an interview with Radio Free Asia, to claim that “ordinary citizens do not have the ability” to hit his heavily guarded Takhmao home.
In fact, they do.
Cheap drones for Myanmar opposition
Myanmar’s four-year-old civil war has shown just how much drones have revolutionized not just warfare but the balance of power between the state and the individual.
A long-range modified and armed drone costs Myanmar’s rebels around US$1,500.
By comparison, the International Crisis Group reckons second-hand AK-47s or M-16s cost US$3,000 each.
Myanmar’s military recently took delivery of six Su-30SMEs fighter jets from Russia, for which it paid $400 million — excluding the weaponry.
As one commentator put it last year: “In an asymmetric conflict, the drone is helping to equalize the battlescape.”
Members of the Mandalay People’s Defense Force prepare to release a drone amid clashes with Myanmar’s military in northern Shan state, Dec. 11, 2023.(AFP)
Junta forces are catching up, for sure. AFP reported a few weeks ago that “the military is adopting the equipment of the anti-coup fighters, using drones to drop mortars or guide artillery strikes and bombing runs by its Chinese and Russian-built air force.”
However, the revolutionary importance of drones isn’t that a superior force will never adopt the same technology. It’s that drones — now an irreplaceable weapon in modern warfare — cannot be monopolized by a state.
Not for almost two centuries has there been such a technological leap in the balance of power. Not for at least the past 100 years has a dominant weapon been as cheap and available to the masses.
‘History of weapons’
In October 1945, George Orwell published a short essay that’s best known for popularizing the term “Cold War”.
“You And The Atom Bomb” also offered a take on the weapons that’s rarely reflected on these days.
Had the nuclear bomb been as cheap and easy as a bicycle to produce, Orwell reasoned, it might have “plunged us back into barbarism.”
But because the bomb is a rare and costly thing to make, it might “complete the process [of] robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt.”
Mutually Assured Destruction would keep the peace between the nuclear states, but it meant that existing dictatorship could become permanent, Orwell feared.
How would a band of rag-tag rebels fair against a despot or imperialist prepared to quell any rebellion with a nuclear explosion?
Would the dictator who happily drops biological weapons on their own people not as easily reach for tactical nuclear bombs if they could?
A cruise missile that North Korea has implied has nuclear capabilities nears its target during a test flight off the coast of the Korean peninsula, Feb. 26, 2025.(KCNA via Reuters)
Would the North Korean regime not prefer to go down in a nuclear blaze if the masses were ever to rise up?
Orwell noted that “the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons.”
Students of history are taught that gunpowder made possible a proper rebellion against feudal power; that the musket, cheap and easy to use, replaced the cannon and made possible the American and French revolutions.
Its successor, the breech-loading rifle, was slightly more complex, yet “even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another,” Orwell noted.
State arsenals only
The early 20th century, however, saw the invention of weapons only available to the state and only the most industrialized states—the tank, the aircraft, the submarine and, foremost, the nuclear bomb.
Vietnamese communists, by some accounts, were peasant volunteers who battled with nothing but smuggled guns, punji traps and a clear sense of what they were fighting for, but they were able to defeat the industrialized armies of France and the United States.
In reality, the communists were well supplied with non-rudimentary weaponry by Beijing and Moscow.
East Timorese pro-independence FALINTIL rebels set off on patrol Oct. 3, 1999.(John Feder/News Ltd. via AFP)
More representative of rag-tag guerrilla success were the East Timorese rebels, who had no patrons and only the most basic weapons to battle against Indonesian imperialism and its vastly superior forces.
Their stunning achievement was simply keeping their struggle alive for so long.
But the East Timorese were never going to secure independence in the jungles and hills; their victory depended on staying in the fight until international opinion turned in their favor.
Had it not, Timor-Leste would still be a province of Indonesia, as West Papuans know all too well.
Perhaps drone warfare won’t bring victory to Myanmar’s revolutionaries.
Fighting alone doesn’t win wars. Alliances, superior industrial production, international opinion and quite a bit of luck — all are as important.
Yet without drone warfare, the junta would arguably have won this battle a lot sooner.
It probably hasn’t been lost on the Thai military that another coup might not be accepted as meekly as in earlier military takeovers by a populace which has closely observed events in neighboring Myanmar.
Cambodian soldiers attend celebrations marking the 65th anniversary of the country’s independence, in Phnom Penh, Nov. 9, 2018.(Samrang Pring/Reuters)
Intentional or not, Hun Sen’s revelation that someone apparently tried to kill him using drones has imbued him and his impregnable regime with a rare sense of vulnerability.
His family rules over a 100,000-strong military that he has instructed to “destroy… revolutions that attempt to topple” his regime, plus a loyal National Police and an elite private bodyguard unit.
One son is head of military intelligence. Another son, Prime Minister Hun Manet, was previously the army chief.
But, as despots are now realizing, all that now means a lot less in the age of the drone.
David Hutt is a research fellow at the Central European Institute of Asian Studies (CEIAS) and the Southeast Asia Columnist at the Diplomat. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of RFA.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by commentator David Hutt.
![The Able U.S. nuclear test at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, pictured July 1, 1946. [U.S. National Archives]](https://media.rnztools.nz/rnz/image/upload/s--qg602gCG--/ar_16:10,c_fill,f_auto,g_auto,q_auto,w_1050/v1728597147/4KIHF8M_marshalls_un_1_jpeg?_a=BACCd2AD)
_02.jpg%2F440px-Debates_of_Petro_Poroshenko_and_Vladimir_Zelensky_(2019-04-19)_02.jpg){kind=link}