Category: PLAN


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg2 state of talks wide

    Broadcasting from Baku, Azerbaijan, on the final official day of this year’s finance-themed United Nations climate summit, we look at how climate justice activists are outraged at how little money is being offered by the most polluting nations to countries most severely affected by climate change. We speak with Mohamed Adow, founding director of Power Shift Africa, and Claudio Angelo, head of international policy at the Brazilian Observatório do Clima (Climate Observatory), who describe the latest text as “a great swindle” and “totally unacceptable.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • India is poised to further expand its defense budget over the next decade to sustain readiness for a potential two-front conflict with regional adversaries China and Pakistan, while enhancing its regional and global stature. Total defense spending, inclusive of pensions, is projected to reach $415.9 billion from 2025 to 2029, marking a compound annual growth […]

    The post India to spend $415.9 billion on defense between 2025 and 2029, forecasts GlobalData appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Western publics are being subjected to a campaign of psychological warfare, where genocide is classed as ‘self-defence’ and opposition to it ‘terrorism’. Jonathan Cook reports as the world marked the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists at the weekend.

    ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Cook

    Israel knew that, if it could stop foreign correspondents from reporting directly from Gaza, those journalists would end up covering events in ways far more to its liking.

    They would hedge every report of a new Israeli atrocity – if they covered them at all – with a “Hamas claims” or “Gaza family members allege”. Everything would be presented in terms of conflicting narratives rather than witnessed facts. Audiences would feel uncertain, hesitant, detached.

    Israel could shroud its slaughter in a fog of confusion and disputation. The natural revulsion evoked by a genocide would be tempered and attenuated.

    For a year, the networks’ most experienced war reporters have stayed put in their hotels in Israel, watching Gaza from afar. Their human-interest stories, always at the heart of war reporting, have focused on the far more limited suffering of Israelis than the vast catastrophe unfolding for Palestinians.

    That is why Western audiences have been forced to relive a single day of horror for Israel, on October 7, 2023, as intensely as they have a year of greater horrors in Gaza — in what the World Court has judged to be a “plausible” genocide by Israel.

    That is why the media have immersed their audiences in the agonies of the families of some 250 Israelis — civilians taken hostage and soldiers taken captive — as much as they have the agonies of 2.3 million Palestinians bombed and starved to death week after week, month after month.

    That is why audiences have been subjected to gaslighting narratives that frame Gaza’s destruction as a “humanitarian crisis” rather than the canvas on which Israel is erasing all the known rules of war.

    Vast catastrophe unfolding for Palestinians
    Western media’s human-interest stories, always at the heart of war reporting, have focused on the far more limited suffering of Israelis than the vast catastrophe unfolding for Palestinians. Image: www.jonathan-cook.net

    While foreign correspondents sit obediently in their hotel rooms, Palestinian journalists have been picked off one by one — in the greatest massacre of journalists in history.

    Israel is now repeating that process in Lebanon. On the night of October 24, it struck a residence in south Lebanon where three journalists were staying. All were killed.

    In an indication of how deliberate and cynical Israel’s actions are, it put its military’s crosshairs on six Al Jazeera reporters last month, smearing them as “terrorists” working for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They are reportedly the last surviving Palestinian journalists in northern Gaza, which Israel has sealed off while it carries out the so-called “General’s Plan”.

    Israel wants no one reporting its final push to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza by starving out the 400,000 Palestinians still there and executing anyone who remains as a “terrorist”.

    These six join a long list of professionals defamed by Israel in the interests of advancing its genocide — from doctors and aid workers to UN peacekeepers.

    Sympathy for Israel
    Perhaps the nadir of Israel’s domestication of foreign journalists was reached last month in a report by CNN. Back in February whistleblowing staff there revealed that the network’s executives have been actively obscuring Israeli atrocities to portray Israel in a more sympathetic light.

    In a story whose framing should have been unthinkable — but sadly was all too predictable — CNN reported on the psychological trauma some Israeli soldiers are suffering from time spent in Gaza, in some cases leading to suicide.

    Committing a genocide can be bad for your mental health, it seems. Or as CNN explained, its interviews “provide a window into the psychological burden that the war is casting on Israeli society”.

    In its lengthy piece, titled “He got out of Gaza, but Gaza did not get out of him”, the atrocities the soldiers admit committing are little more than the backdrop as CNN finds yet another angle on Israeli suffering. Israeli soldiers are the real victims — even as they perpetrate a genocide on the Palestinian people.

    One bulldozer driver, Guy Zaken, told CNN he could not sleep and had become vegetarian because of the “very, very difficult things” he had seen and had to do in Gaza.

    What things? Zaken had earlier told a hearing of the Israeli Parliament that his unit’s job was to drive over many hundreds of Palestinians, some of them alive.

    CNN reported: “Zaken says he can no longer eat meat, as it reminds him of the gruesome scenes he witnessed from his bulldozer in Gaza.”

    Doubtless some Nazi concentration camp guards committed suicide in the 1940s after witnessing the horrors there — because they were responsible for them. Only in some weird parallel news universe, would their “psychological burden” be the story.

    After a huge online backlash, CNN amended an editor’s note at the start of the article that originally read: “This story includes details about suicide that some readers may find upsetting.”

    Readers, it was assumed, would find the suicide of Israeli soldiers upsetting, but apparently not the revelation that those soldiers were routinely driving over Palestinians so that, as Zaken explained, “everything squirts out”.

    Banned from Gaza
    Finally, a year into Israel’s genocidal war, now rapidly spreading into Lebanon, some voices are being raised very belatedly to demand the entry of foreign journalists into Gaza.

    This week — in a move presumably designed, as November’s elections loom, to ingratiate themselves with voters angry at the party’s complicity in genocide — dozens of Democratic members of the US Congress wrote to President Joe Biden asking him to pressure Israel to give journalists “unimpeded access” to the enclave.

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Western media have done very little themselves to protest their exclusion from Gaza over the past year — for a number of reasons.

    Given the utterly indiscriminate nature of Israel’s bombardment, major outlets have not wanted their journalists getting hit by a 2000lb bomb for being in the wrong place.

    That may in part be out of concern for their welfare. But there are likely to be more cynical concerns.

    Having foreign journalists in Gaza blown up or executed by snipers would drag media organisations into direct confrontation with Israel and its well-oiled lobby machine.

    The response would be entirely predictable, insinuating that the journalists died because they were colluding with “the terrorists” or that they were being used as “human shields” — the excuse Israel has rolled out time and again to justify its targeting of doctors in Gaza and UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.

    But there’s a bigger problem. The establishment media have not wanted to be in a position where their journalists are so close to the “action” that they are in danger of providing a clearer picture of Israel’s war crimes and its genocide.

    The media’s current distance from the crime scene offers them plausible deniability as they both-sides every Israeli atrocity.

    In previous conflicts, western reporters have served as witnesses, assisting in the prosecution of foreign leaders for war crimes. That happened in the wars that attended the break-up of Yugoslavia, and will doubtless happen once again if Russian President Valdimir Putin is ever delivered to The Hague.

    But those journalistic testimonies were harnessed to put the West’s enemies behind bars, not its closest ally.

    The media do not want their reporters to become chief witnesses for the prosecution in the future trials of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, at the International Criminal Court. The ICC’s Prosecutor, Karim Khan, is seeking arrest warrants for them both.

    After all, any such testimony from journalists would not stop at Israel’s door. They would implicate Western capitals too, and put establishment media organisations on a collision course with their own governments.

    The Western media does not see its job as holding power to account when the West is the one committing the crimes.

    Censoring Palestinians
    Journalist whistleblowers have gradually been coming forward to explain how establishment news organisations — including the BBC and the supposedly liberal Guardian — are sidelining Palestinian voices and minimising the genocide.

    An investigation by Novara Media recently revealed mounting unhappiness in parts of The Guardian newsroom at its double standards on Israel and Palestine.

    Its editors recently censored a commentary by preeminent Palestinian author Susan Abulhawa after she insisted on being allowed to refer to the slaughter in Gaza as “the holocaust of our times”.

    Senior Guardian columnists such as Jonathan Freedland made much during Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader of the Labour party that Jews, and Jews alone, had the right to define and name their own oppression.

    That right, however, does not appear to extend to Palestinians.

    As staff who spoke to Novara noted, The Guardian’s Sunday sister paper, The Observer, had no problem opening its pages to British Jewish writer Howard Jacobson to smear as a “blood libel” any reporting of the provable fact that Israel has killed many, many thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza.

    One veteran journalist there said: “Is The Guardian more worried about the reaction to what is said about Israel than Palestine? Absolutely.”

    Another staff member admitted it would be inconceivable for the paper to be seen censoring a Jewish writer. But censoring a Palestinian one is fine, it seems.

    Other journalists report being under “suffocating control” from senior editors, and say this pressure exists “only if you’re publishing something critical of Israel”.

    According to staff there, the word “genocide” is all but banned in the paper except in coverage of the International Court of Justice, whose judges ruled nine months ago that a “plausible” case had been made that Israel was committing genocide. Things have got far worse since.

    Whistleblowing journalists
    Similarly, “Sara”, a whistleblower who recently resigned from the BBC newsroom and spoke of her experiences to Al Jazeera’s Listening Post, said Palestinians and their supporters were routinely kept off air or subjected to humiliating and insensitive lines of questioning.

    Some producers have reportedly grown increasingly reluctant to bring on air vulnerable Palestinians, some of whom have lost family members in Gaza, because of concerns about the effect on their mental health from the aggressive interrogations they were being subjected to from anchors.

    According to Sara, BBC vetting of potential guests overwhelmingly targets Palestinians, as well as those sympathetic to their cause and human rights organisations. Background checks are rarely done of Israelis or Jewish guests.

    She added that a search showing that a guest had used the word “Zionism” — Israel’s state ideology — in a social media post could be enough to get them disqualified from a programme.

    Even officials from one of the biggest rights group in the world, the New York-based Human Rights Watch, became persona non grata at the BBC for their criticisms of Israel, even though the corporation had previously relied on their reports in covering Ukraine and other global conflicts.

    Israeli guests, by contrast, “were given free rein to say whatever they wanted with very little pushback”, including lies about Hamas burning or beheading babies and committing mass rape.

    An email cited by Al Jazeera from more than 20 BBC journalists sent last February to Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, warned that the corporation’s coverage risked “aiding and abetting genocide through story suppression”.

    Upside-down values
    These biases have been only too evident in the BBC’s coverage, first of Gaza and now, as media interest wanes in the genocide, of Lebanon.

    Headlines — the mood music of journalism, and the only part of a story many of the audience read — have been uniformly dire.

    For example, Netanyahu’s threats of a Gaza-style genocide against the Lebanese people last month if they did not overthrow their leaders were soft-soaped by the BBC headline: “Netanyahu’s appeal to Lebanese people falls on deaf ears in Beirut.”

    Reasonable readers would have wrongly inferred both that Netanyahu was trying to do the Lebanese people a favour (by preparing to murder them), and that they were being ungrateful in not taking up his offer.

    It has been the same story everywhere in the establishment media. In another extraordinary, revealing moment, Kay Burley of Sky News announced last month the deaths of four Israeli soldiers from a Hezbollah drone strike on a military base inside Israel.

    With a solemnity usually reserved for the passing of a member of the British royal family, she slowly named the four soldiers, with a photo of each shown on screen. She stressed twice that all four were only 19 years old.

    Sky News seemed not to understand that these were not British soldiers, and that there was no reason for a British audience to be especially disturbed by their deaths. Soldiers are killed in wars all the time — it is an occupational hazard.

    And further, if Israel considered them old enough to fight in Gaza and Lebanon, then they were old enough to die too without their age being treated as particularly noteworthy.

    But more significantly still, Israel’s Golani Brigade to which these soldiers belonged has been centrally involved in the slaughter of Palestinians over the past year. Its troops have been responsible for many of the tens of thousands of children killed and maimed in Gaza.

    Each of the four soldiers was far, far less deserving of Burley’s sympathy and concern than the thousands of children who have been slaughtered at the hands of their brigade. Those children are almost never named and their pictures are rarely shown, not least because their injuries are usually too horrifying to be seen.

    It was yet more evidence of the upside-down world the establishment media has been trying to normalise for its audiences.

    It is why statistics from the United States, where the coverage of Gaza and Lebanon may be even more unhinged, show faith in the media is at rock bottom. Fewer than one in three respondents — 31 percent — said they still had a “great deal or fair amount of trust in mass media”.

    Crushing dissent
    Israel is the one dictating the coverage of its genocide. First by murdering the Palestinian journalists reporting it on the ground, and then by making sure house-trained foreign correspondents stay well clear of the slaughter, out of harm’s way in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

    And as ever, Israel has been able to rely on the complicity of its Western patrons in crushing dissent at home.

    Last week, a British investigative journalist, Asa Winstanley, an outspoken critic of Israel and its lobbyists in the UK, had his home in London raided at dawn by counter-terrorism police.

    Though the police have not arrested or charged him — at least not yet — they snatched his electronic devices. He was warned that he is being investigated for “encouragement of terrorism” in his social media posts.

    Police told Middle East Eye that his devices had been seized as part of an investigation into suspected terrorism offences of “support for a proscribed organisation” and “dissemination of terrorist documents”.

    The police can act only because of Britain’s draconian, anti-speech Terrorism Act.

    Section 12, for example, makes the expression of an opinion that could be interpreted as sympathetic to armed Palestinian resistance to Israel’s illegal occupation — a right enshrined in international law but sweepingly dismissed as “terrorism” in the West — itself a terrorism offence.

    Those journalists who haven’t been house-trained in the establishment media, as well as solidarity activists, must now chart a treacherous path across intentionally ill-defined legal terrain when talking about Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

    Winstanley is not the first journalist to be accused of falling foul of the Terrorism Act. In recent weeks, Richard Medhurst, a freelance journalist, was arrested at Heathrow airport on his return from a trip abroad. Another journalist-activist, Sarah Wilkinson, was briefly arrested after her home was ransacked by police.

    Their electronic devices were seized too.

    Meanwhile, Richard Barnard, co-founder of Palestine Action, which seeks to disrupt the UK’s supply of weapons to Israel’s genocide, has been charged over speeches he has made against the genocide.

    It now appears that all these actions are part of a specific police campaign targeting journalists and Palestinian solidarity activists: “Operation Incessantness”.

    The message this clumsy title is presumably supposed to convey is that the British state is coming after anyone who speaks out too loudly against the British government’s continuing arming and complicity in Israel’s genocide.

    Notably, the establishment media have failed to cover this latest assault on journalism and the role of a free press — supposedly the very things they are there to protect.

    The raid on Winstanley’s home and the arrests are intended to intimidate others, including independent journalists, into silence for fear of the consequences of speaking up.

    This has nothing to do with terrorism. Rather, it is terrorism by the British state.

    Once again the world is being turned upside down.

    Echoes from history
    The West is waging a campaign of psychological warfare on its populations: it is gaslighting and disorientating them, classing genocide as “self-defence” and opposition to it a form of “terrorism”.

    This is an expansion of the persecution suffered by Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who spent years locked up in London’s Belmarsh high-security prison.

    His unprecedented journalism — revealing the darkest secrets of Western states — was redefined as espionage. His “offence” was revealing that Britain and the US had committed systematic war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Now, on the back of that precedent, the British state is coming after journalists simply for embarrassing it.

    Late last month I attended a meeting in Bristol against the genocide in Gaza at which the main speaker was physically absent after the British state failed to issue him an entry visa.

    The missing guest — he had to join us by zoom — was Mandla Mandela, the grandson of Nelson Mandela, who was locked up for decades as a terrorist before becoming the first leader of post-apartheid South Africa and a feted, international statesman.

    Mandla Mandela was until recently a member of the South African Parliament.

    A Home Office spokesperson told Middle East Eye that the UK only issued visas “to those who we want to welcome to our country”.

    Media reports suggest Britain was determined to exclude Mandela because, like his grandfather, he views the Palestinian struggle against Israeli apartheid as intimately linked to the earlier struggle against South Africa’s apartheid.

    The echoes from history are apparently entirely lost on officials: the UK is once again associating the Mandela family with terrorism. Before it was to protect South Africa’s apartheid regime. Now it is to protect Israel’s even worse apartheid and genocidal regime.

    The world is indeed turned on its head. And the West’s supposedly “free media” is playing a critical role in trying to make our upside-down world seem normal.

    That can only be achieved by failing to report the Gaza genocide as a genocide. Instead, Western journalists are serving as little more than stenographers. Their job: to take dictation from Israel.

    Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist. He was based in Nazareth, Israel, for 20 years and returned to the UK in 2021. He is the author of three books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (2008). In 2011, Cook was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism for his work on Palestine and Israel. This article was first published in Middle East Eye and is republished with the author’s permission.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by The Real News Network.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg3 ellie johnson trump

    With just days to go before the November 5 presidential election, fears are growing that Republicans intend to interfere with the official results in order to install Donald Trump as president. At Sunday’s Madison Square Garden rally, Trump said he had a “little secret” with House Speaker Mike Johnson that would have a “big impact” on the outcome, though neither he nor Johnson elaborated on what that entailed. Elie Mystal, the justice correspondent for The Nation, says the secret is almost certainly a plan to force a contingent election, whereby no candidate wins a majority of the Electoral College and the president is instead chosen by the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a slim majority. Mystal notes that even if Democrats challenge such an outcome, the case would still end up before a Supreme Court with a conservative supermajority that is likely to side with Trump.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by ProPublica.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by ProPublica.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky used a speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday to forcefully reject China and Brazil’s renewed push for a peace plan for Russia and Ukraine, questioning their “true” motivations in making the proposal.

    In his speech at the opening of the assembly on Tuesday, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva said Brazil and China wished to revive their six-point proposal to end the conflict, which was originally released in May. The two countries are reportedly set to host an event on the plan in New York on Friday with at least 20 other countries.

    But Zelensky said the only acceptable peace plan was for Russia to withdraw its forces from his country and end the invasion, in line with the U.N. Charter’s principles of independence and territorial integrity.

    “If someone in the world seeks alternatives to any of these points or tries to ignore any of them, it likely means they themselves want to do a part of what [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is doing,” Zelensky said, slamming China and Brazil for suggesting a brokered peace.

    “When the Chinese-Brazilian duo tries to grow into a choir of voices – with someone in Europe, with someone in Africa – saying something alternative to a full and just peace, the question arises: What is the true interest?” he said. “You will not boost your power at Ukraine’s expense.”

    Zelensky previously rejected the Chinese-Brazilian plan as “destructive” given that it would require Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, which the Ukrainian president said would be tantamount to defeat.

    Questionable source

    It’s not the first time questions have been raised about China and Brazil’s motivations in pushing for a negotiated peace.

    China has been repeatedly accused by the United States of materially aiding Putin’s war effort, with officials in Washington going as far as to say the invasion would not be sustainable without Beijing’s help.

    Outside commentators have suggested that China is closely watching the situation between Russia and Ukraine given its own aspirations to invade Taiwan, which it similarly regards as a renegade province.

    Chinese officials have rejected the claims, defended China’s right to continue trading with Russia and said Washington is the only power sending munitions into the conflict through its support for Ukraine.

    000_362L9KQ.jpg
    In this pool photograph distributed by the Russian state agency Sputnik, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin meets with China’s President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) member states leaders’ summit in Astana on July 3, 2024. (Sergei GUNEYEV / POOL / AFP)

    Brazil’s president, meanwhile, has also been accused of being too close with Putin, with whom he regularly speaks by telephone.

    During his campaign to return to the Brazilian presidency, Lula called Zelensky “a bit weird.” He also accused him of not wanting to negotiate with Putin so the conflict could be prolonged and the former television star could spend more time in the global media speaking about it.

    Further irking Zelensky, in April Lula also said that there was “no use” in talking about “who is right” or “who is wrong” in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and that all that mattered was finding a peaceful outcome.

    In his speech Wednesday, Zelensky said Putin was trying to use Russia’s power to return to a period of colonialism, and that previous victims of the practice should be the most outspoken critics.

    “The world has already been through colonial wars and conspiracies of great powers at the expense of those who are smaller,” he said. “Every country – including China, Brazil, European nations, African nations, the Middle East – all understand why this must remain in the past.”

    “Ukrainians will never accept – will never accept – why anyone in the world believes that such a brutal colonial past, which suits no one today can be imposed on Ukraine now instead of a normal, peaceful life.”

    Edited by Joshua Lipes.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on VICE News and was authored by VICE News.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg5 master plan

    Investigative journalist David Sirota, founder and editor-in-chief of The Lever, is the host of a new podcast series exploring how extremist ideologues and wealthy oligarchs have developed a system of legalized corruption in the U.S. Master Plan traces the decadeslong conservative-led plan to increase the role of money in politics. “This was a plan, a specific plan, to deregulate the campaign finance laws,” says Sirota.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

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

    • The Supreme Court today kept on hold the Biden administration’s latest multibillion-dollar plan to lower payments for millions of borrowers while lawsuits proceed in lower courts.
    • Typhoon Shenshen dumped rain on Japan, leaving one dead and several injured before landfall; highest-level warnings issued for the country’s south.
    • The FBI shared new details of its investigation into the man who tried to assassinate Donald Trump in July, stating that a motive for the shooting remains unclear.
    • Santa Clara County supervisors voted to advance a new plan to buy Regional Medical Center Hospital, restoring health access to vulnerable south bay residents.
    • The state agency responsible for health care affordability and accessibility in California met outside Sacramento for the first time today in Monterey County to discuss high prices at the area’s three major hospitals that patients cannot afford.

    The post Supreme Court keeps Biden administration’s multibillion-dollar payment relief plan on hold as lawsuits proceed – August 28, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

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

    The post Harris unveils economic plan in first policy speech, proposes measures to tackle high prices and medical debt – August 16, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.

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

  • A leaked internal draft document from the municipal health authority in the southeastern Chinese city of Quanzhou floating measures to encourage officials and government employees to have three children to boost flagging birth rates has sparked heated debate on social media.

    The document, which circulated online in the form of a screenshot before being identified as a leaked draft by the Quanzhou Municipal Health Commission, lists a number of ways being considered by city officials to “organize and implement the three-child policy.”

    China scrapped its policy limiting most couples to just one child in 2015, following decades of human rights abuses, including forced late-term abortions and sterilizations, as well as widespread monitoring of women’s fertility by officials.

    Couples were then limited to two children, but by 2020, the fertility rate stood at around 1.3 children per woman in 2020, compared with the 2.1 children per woman needed for the population to replace itself, and the limit was raised to three in May 2021.

    Yet the people who do most of the mental, physical and emotional work of child-bearing and childcare — China’s women — have been reluctant to step up to solve the government’s population problems despite claims from Communist Party leader Xi Jinping that they have an “irreplaceable” role to play in the “rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

    Principal Li Xiuling washes her hands in a wash room once used by children at a kindergarten-turned-elderly centre in Taiyuan, in China's northern Shanxi province, July 1, 2024. Senior citizens sway to old-time tunes in the classroom of a former kindergarten in northern China, as educators turn their sights away from children in the face of a rapidly aging population and a baby bust. (Adek Berry/AFP)
    Principal Li Xiuling washes her hands in a wash room once used by children at a kindergarten-turned-elderly centre in Taiyuan, in China’s northern Shanxi province, July 1, 2024. Senior citizens sway to old-time tunes in the classroom of a former kindergarten in northern China, as educators turn their sights away from children in the face of a rapidly aging population and a baby bust. (Adek Berry/AFP)

    The leaked Quanzhou document, which was confirmed by health officials as a genuine leak by “negligent” staff in comments reported by Jiemian News, goes a little further than sloganeering, calling on officials lead by example and have more children themselves, while proposing an array of support services to help them.

    “Party members and cadres at all levels and cadres of state-owned enterprises benefiting from [connections to government] business units should take the lead in implementing the three-child policy,” the document says in a section titled “key tasks and measures.”

    That would include the families of officials and employees working throughout the municipal government and party committee system, as well as state-owned enterprises with connections to Quanzhou or the counties under its jurisdiction, according to a screenshot from the document circulating widely on social media this week.

    It also calls for “eugenics” and post-natal care. While eugenics originated as a socialist, progressive movement, it has become closely linked in some countries to discrimination against minority groups, often based on ethnicity or disability, using “scientific” rationales, according to a 2020 article by Leo Lucassen in the International Review of Social History.

    Heated online discussion

    In Nazi Germany, women deemed “fit” to have children by the authorities were banned from having abortions, according to Lisa Pine’s 1997 book Nazi Family Policy, 1933–1945.

    While no overt plan to force people to have children has yet been tabled in China, the screenshot sparked heated online discussion, according to Jiemian News, because “some people feared it was a veiled reference to forcing people to have three children.”

    Blogger Tuzao Ershan commented that if the policy is implemented, officials who don’t have three kids “can forget about getting promoted or getting rich,” while blogger Xiao Lu Jie said there are two main ways for Chinese people to demonstrate their patriotism: spend money and have kids.

    “Nothing wrong with party members and officials taking the lead by having kids, because it’s an important way to demonstrate patriotism,” the blogger wrote. “They should just set up a birth-promotion bureau.”

    Another blog post seen by RFA Mandarin said that the families of officials who responded to the call to have a second child in 2015 are already struggling.

    “It reminds me of what happened to a lot of my classmates … who are now couples with four elderly parents and two kids who have to make loan payments, raise their kids and also take care of medical treatment and health issues for their elders,” blogger Chuanfu Buhuo wrote. “It really doesn’t bear thinking about.”

    Xi Jinping told the All-China Women’s Federation in 2023 that Chinese women should be mobilized “to contribute to China’s modernization.”

    “The role of women in the … great cause of national rejuvenation … is irreplaceable,” he said.

    Children are seen inside a Xiaomi SU7 electric vehicle on display during the World Intelligence Expo in Tianjin, June 23, 2024. (Pedro Padro/AFP)
    Children are seen inside a Xiaomi SU7 electric vehicle on display during the World Intelligence Expo in Tianjin, June 23, 2024. (Pedro Padro/AFP)

    The pressure to boost births comes as young people in China are increasingly avoiding marriage, having children and buying a home amid a tanking economy and rampant youth unemployment.

    The number of Chinese couples getting married for the first time tumbled 8.3% in the first quarter of 2024, while first marriages have plummeted by nearly 56% over the past nine years, according to the 2023 China Statistical Yearbook.

    That’s contributing to a sharp decline in birthrates and a shrinking, aging population – a trend that the United Nations projects will lead China’s population to contract from 1.4 billion to 800 million by 2100.


    RELATED STORIES

    Culture, conflict and cost weigh on childbearing choices

    Analysis: For women in Asia, motherhood is a complicated investment

    Chinese women unimpressed by government’s plan to make more babies

    Wuhan sculpture spawns two more kids, sparking ridicule

    China deletes leaked stats showing plunging birth rate for 2023


    Passive resistance

    Current affairs commentator Fang Yuan said the official pressure to have more children is part of the planned economy and social control system being implemented by Xi.

    But he said it wouldn’t bear fruit for at least another couple of decades.

    “You need at least 20 years to raise a generation,” Fang said. “Their expectation that the population structure will be optimized immediately, and that major long-term problems like low productivity and an aging population will be solved immediately … is wishful thinking and unrealistic.”

    He said such a scheme is unlikely to succeed in the absence of huge subsidies from the government, because of the sheer cost of raising children in today’s China.

    Without substantial financial help, it’ll be a case of passive resistance to top-down policy from further down the ranks, Fang said.

    A woman shares ice-cream with a man as children play at a commercial complex in Beijing, July 15, 2024. (Ng Han Guan/AP)
    A woman shares ice-cream with a man as children play at a commercial complex in Beijing, July 15, 2024. (Ng Han Guan/AP)

    Economist Si Ling said party members and government officials make up around 7% of China’s population, which is likely not enough to solve China’s population problem, even if all of them complied.

    “Short of financial resources, the Chinese government has discovered that it still needs to rely on foreign investment to drive economic growth,” Si said. “But it no longer has the ability to make concessions in terms of administrative fees and taxation rates.”

    He said that any attempt to put pressure on officials to have more children will fail if the cost of subsidizing those children isn’t fully worked out in advance.

    “All it can offer is cheap labor … so the Chinese government needs people to have more children to attract foreign investment, but this is a false proposition, as it’s almost impossible to achieve in the short term,” he said.

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The triennial meeting of the Japanese Prime Minister with the leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum  – referred to as PALM – is normally not much of an attention grabber. But this year’s meeting, which has just concluded in Tokyo, makes it clear that Japan is looking to significantly ramp up its presence in the region.

    This comes on the back of increased bilateral engagement – think new embassies in Kiribati and Vanuatu – and a reinvigorated QUAD with a focus on resource and burden sharing among the membership of the strategic security partnership (Australia, India, Japan, USA).

    The joint declaration from this their tenth meeting, known as PALM10, with its associated action plan sets out what we can expect from Japanese engagement with the Pacific over the next three years. The use of the seven pillars of the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent as a structure for future engagement is notable.

    The Blue Pacific concept was developed by Pacific nations as a home-grown framing to address their challenges.

    Other partners have inserted the term Blue Pacific into announcements and documents. However, this takes the recognition of the Pacific’s own framework to another level. It is particularly significant given that Japan’s former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe coined the term Indo-Pacific, which many in the Pacific islands region have resisted. 

    PHOTO TWO 000_364F6WV.jpg
    Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum Baron Waqa (L) and Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida shake hands during the opening session of the 10th Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting (PALM10) in Tokyo on July 18, 2024. (AFP)

    PALM10 sees a move to an “All Japan” approach to working with Pacific partners. Whilst several Japanese agencies are referenced in the outcome documents, the most notable is the prominence of the Japanese Self-Defense Force in future engagement.

    Japan’s military impacts in the Pacific islands region are well known and loom large in the regional memory. While the PALM10 action plan references the continuation of activities related to World War II, such as retrieval of remains and clearance of unexploded ordnance, new activities will see the Japanese presence in the region take on a markedly military aspect.

    This will add to what is an already crowded environment in which defense diplomacy has been increasing in recent years. However, Japan’s use of this strategy has been relatively limited until now.

    The PALM10 action plan refers to increased defense “exchanges” to consist of port calls by Japanese Defense Force aircraft and vessels. This may not be as easy to achieve as Tokyo officials might like. 

    At the same time as PALM10 was in session in Tokyo, Vanuatu’s National Security Advisory Board refused a request for a Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force vessel to dock in Port Vila. The reasons for the refusal remain unclear.

    PHOTO THREE 000_364F7CU.jpg
    Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida (C) speaks during the opening session of the 10th Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting (PALM10) in Tokyo on July 18, 2024. (AFP)

    Other examples of increased use of the JSDF are the provision of capacity building to Pacific personnel for participation in peace-keeping operations and inclusion of a Self-Defense Unit in disaster relief teams to be deployed to Pacific island countries at their governments’ request.

    At the end of the Action Plan are items for “clarification.” Included in the list (of three) for Japan to clarify are two that continue this push for increased defense diplomacy. 

    They are: a proposal to accept Pacific cadets into the National Defense Academy of Japan and to use the Japan Pacific Islands Defence Dialogue to foster “mutual understanding and confidence building.” The JPIDD has met twice, most recently earlier this year.

    We are now into the Pacific meeting season and in six weeks the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting will convene in Nuku’alofa, Tonga. Japan is a longstanding dialogue partner of the forum. 

    The ongoing review of regional architecture includes revisions to how dialogue partners are selected and accommodated. What was discussed and agreed at PALM10 will play a role in determining where at the Blue Pacific table Japan will sit. 

    Tess Newton Cain has worked as an independent consultant and researcher in the Pacific islands region for more than 25 years. She is a former Lecturer in Law at the University of the South Pacific and an adjunct associate professor at Griffith University, Australia. The views expressed here are her own and do not reflect the position of BenarNews.

    BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Commentary by Tess Newton Cain.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • 1920 1080 max

    Democratic New York Governor Kathy Hochul has shocked constituents this month with a surprise decision to cancel New York City’s congestion program plan just weeks before it was set to start. Hochul had previously supported the plan, which would have charged drivers $15 to enter parts of Manhattan in order to fund the city’s public transportation budget. New York City’s public transportation system, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), is used daily by millions of city residents but has long been plagued by underfunding for necessary expansions and repairs. Congestion pricing has been championed by a wide coalition that includes disability rights advocates, low-income residents and climate activists. The program was expected to dramatically reduce air pollution and fossil fuel emissions in the third-highest emitting city in the world. We hear from two New Yorkers: David Jones, an MTA board member and the president and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York, and Keanu Arpels-Josiah, a young climate activist with Fridays for Future NYC who has just graduated high school. “We’re at a dire point in the climate crisis,” and Governor Hochul is “failing on this issue,” says Arpels-Josiah.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg1 bidennetan

    U.S. President Joe Biden on Friday outlined what he described as an Israeli ceasefire proposal to end the war in Gaza, nearly eight months after Israel began its invasion in response to the October 7 attack by Hamas. Biden described three phases to release captives held by both sides, allow residents to return to the north of the Gaza Strip and begin reconstruction of the devastated territory after the full withdrawal of Israeli troops. Hamas said it looked positively on the proposal and previously accepted similar terms, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to agree to it publicly amid pressure from far-right members of his governing coalition to continue the war indefinitely. Former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy says Biden may have employed “constructive ambiguity” about Israel’s position in order to bring the two sides closer to a deal, but that the most important goal is to end the “horrors” in Gaza with a permanent ceasefire. “What are the maximal guarantees that can be given that this is not just a 42-day hiatus followed by yet further death, killing, destruction that we still now see every day?” asks Levy, who is now president of the U.S./Middle East Project.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.