This isn’t about national security. It’s about control.
According to news reports, the Trump administration is quietly collaborating with Palantir Technologies—the data-mining behemoth co-founded by billionaire Peter Thiel—to construct a centralized, government-wide surveillance system that would consolidate biometric, behavioral, and geolocation data into a single, weaponized database of Americans’ private information.
This isn’t about protecting freedom. It’s about rendering freedom obsolete.
What we’re witnessing is the transformation of America into a digital prison—one where the inmates are told we’re free while every move, every word, every thought is monitored, recorded, and used to assign a “threat score” that determines our place in the new hierarchy of obedience.
The tools enabling this all-seeing surveillance regime are not new, but under Trump’s direction, they are being fused together in unprecedented ways, with Palantir at the center of this digital dragnet.
Palantir, long criticized for its role in powering ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids and predictive policing, is now poised to become the brain of Trump’s surveillance regime.
Under the guise of “data integration” and “public safety,” this public-private partnership would deploy AI-enhanced systems to comb through everything from facial recognition feeds and license plate readers to social media posts and cellphone metadata, cross-referencing it all to assess a person’s risk to the state.
This isn’t speculative. It’s already happening.
Palantir’s Gotham platform, used by law enforcement and military agencies, has long been the backbone of real-time tracking and predictive analysis. Now, with Trump’s backing, it threatens to become the central nervous system of a digitally enforced authoritarianism.
As Palantir itself admits, its mission is to “augment human decision-making.” In practice, that means replacing probable cause with probability scores, courtrooms with code, and due process with data pipelines.
In this new regime, your innocence will be irrelevant. The algorithm will decide who you are.
To understand the full danger of this moment, we must trace the long arc of government surveillance—from secret intelligence programs like COINTELPRO and the USA PATRIOT Act to today’s AI-driven digital dragnet embodied by data fusion centers.
Building on this foundation of historical abuse, the government has evolved its tactics, replacing human informants with algorithms and wiretaps with metadata, ushering in an age where pre-crime prediction is treated as prosecution.
Every smartphone ping, GPS coordinate, facial scan, online purchase, and social media like becomes part of your “digital exhaust”—a breadcrumb trail of metadata that the government now uses to build behavioral profiles. The FBI calls it “open-source intelligence.” But make no mistake: this is dragnet surveillance, and it is fundamentally unconstitutional.
Already, government agencies are mining this data to generate “pattern of life” analyses, flag “radicalized” individuals, and preemptively investigate those who merely share anti-government views.
This is not law enforcement. This is thought-policing by machine, the logical outcome of a system that criminalizes dissent and deputizes algorithms to do the targeting.
Nor is this entirely new.
For decades, the federal government has reportedly maintained a highly classified database known as Main Core, designed to collect and store information on Americans deemed potential threats to national security.
Trump’s embrace of Palantir, and its unparalleled ability to fuse surveillance feeds, social media metadata, public records, and AI-driven predictions, marks a dangerous evolution: a modern-day resurrection of Main Core, digitized, centralized, and fully automated.
What was once covert contingency planning is now becoming active policy.
What has emerged is a surveillance model more vast than anything dreamed up by past regimes—a digital panopticon in which every citizen is watched constantly, and every move is logged in a government database—not by humans, but by machines without conscience, without compassion, and without constitutional limits.
This is not science fiction. This is America—now.
As this technological tyranny expands, the foundational safeguards of the Constitution—those supposed bulwarks against arbitrary power—are quietly being nullified and its protections rendered meaningless.
What does the Fourth Amendment mean in a world where your entire life can be searched, sorted, and scored without a warrant? What does the First Amendment mean when expressing dissent gets you flagged as an extremist? What does the presumption of innocence mean when algorithms determine guilt?
The Constitution was written for humans, not for machine rule. It cannot compete with predictive analytics trained to bypass rights, sidestep accountability, and automate tyranny.
And that is the endgame: the automation of authoritarianism. An unblinking, AI-powered surveillance regime that renders due process obsolete and dissent fatal.
Still, it is not too late to resist—but doing so requires awareness, courage, and a willingness to confront the machinery of our own captivity.
Make no mistake: the government is not your friend in this. Neither are the corporations building this digital prison. They thrive on your data, your fear, and your silence.
To resist, we must first understand the weaponized AI tools being used against us.
We must demand transparency, enforce limits on data collection, ban predictive profiling, and dismantle the fusion centers feeding this machine.
We must treat AI surveillance with the same suspicion we once reserved for secret police. Because that is what AI-powered governance has become—secret police, only smarter, faster, and less accountable.
We don’t have much time.
Trump’s alliance with Palantir is a warning sign—not just of where we are, but of where we’re headed. A place where freedom is conditional, rights are revocable, and justice is decided by code.
The question is no longer whether we’re being watched—that is now a given—but whether we will meekly accept it. Will we dismantle this electronic concentration camp, or will we continue building the infrastructure of our own enslavement?
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, if we trade liberty for convenience and privacy for security, we will find ourselves locked in a prison we helped build, and the bars won’t be made of steel. They will be made of data.
This month, President Trump announced a deal with Saudi Arabia that would provide the country with advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chips. The deal sees industry leader Nvidia provide Humain, a sovereign wealth fund-owned AI startup, with 18,000 of its new GB300 Blackwell chips. The massive deal makes Saudi Arabia a potential leader in AI data centers within the region and offers the opportunity to become a high-tech economic powerhouse.The deal comes as a reversal of former-president Biden’s policy that limited the spread of advanced AI chips out of fears of unchecked AI diffusion.
The AI market of Saudi Arabia remains unregulated in its nascency, with the authorities preferring a laissez-faire approach. Saudi Arabia has yet to pass any legislation or regulations that limit the use of AI in an effort to attract investment in its burgeoning AI economy. Instead, the country merely issued unenforceable guidelines on the topic. This, in turn, does far too little to protect citizens’ privacy rights.
The deal highlights ongoing concerns about the power of AI in the hands of authoritarians. Saudi Arabia is already known to use other digital technologies to spy on dissidents. This willingness to violate citizens’ privacy rights coupled with the possibility of a more robust understanding of AI, due to the new deal, offers Saudi authorities with more advanced means of spying on its citizens.
One such application of the technology comes in the form of facial recognition technologies. The technology allows for AI to determine an individual’s identity by simultaneously scanning an individual’s face and comparing their features to others in a database. AI performs these actions much faster and efficiently than law enforcement officers can. This technology is already being used in cities throughout the world. A greater familiarity with the technology would allow Saudi authorities to not only identify individuals through surveillance cameras but also to use the technology to be used in the digital sphere to identify individuals through other means, such as social media posts.
Saudi Arabia has proven through its pervasive surveillance of its own people that it is not a responsible actor and should not be allowed access to cutting-edge AI chips. The authorities refuse to regulate the market in an effort to attract investment into its AI market; a gamble that has apparently worked given the new US-Saudi partnership. Without proper regulations, Saudi authorities will undoubtedly use their country’s advancing expertise with the technology as a means of further suppressing dissent and violating the privacy of its citizens.
Collecting and connecting information on people enables an understanding of who a person is and in what activities they engage. Typically, such efforts have been focused on criminals and those persons seen as real or possible enemies of the government.
Over recent years, however, we have seen the U.S. Government weaponize intelligence agencies to focus on American citizens for political reasons, as you are well aware from personal experience. Many such activities are unconstitutional and violations of other law.
Congressional and judicial oversight has been ineffective. Indeed, no one in government has been prosecuted for engaging in the exploitation of information illegally collected on American citizens. No one.
Some states’ departments of corrections are outsourcing to private companies their decision-making about who can and who cannot communicate with people in their prisons. These decisions cut families and loved ones off, sometimes permanently. The Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) has said it does not maintain any records of who has been blocked from communications with people…
Despite the release of several activists and human rights defenders, transitional justice in Bahrain remains unfulfilled.
In its newly published report, Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) reveals a systematic policy by Bahraini authorities designed to restrict the freedoms of released individuals and deprive them of their basic rights.
The attached report identifies a consistent pattern of post-release violations, illustrated through four emblematic cases. These cases demonstrate how released activists continue to face restrictions on employment, housing, and movement, as well as repeated security summonses and veiled threats—rendering their freedom conditional and tightly monitored. The report documents the following cases:
Naji Fateel: A human rights defender who spent 11 years in prison and endured torture. Since his release, he has been barred from employment and travel, and has faced repeated security summonses.
Mohamed AlSankis: A former government employee and prisoner of conscience. Despite serving 11 years in prison, he has not been reinstated to his position and continues to face harassment for peacefully demanding his right to work and receive a pension.
Ali AlHajee: A human rights defender released under Bahrain’s Alternative Sentencing Law. He remains under a travel ban and was re-arrested after requesting a clearance document. He has been charged under vague legal provisions, apparently in retaliation for his activism.
Najah Yusuf: A former civil servant and activist imprisoned over Facebook posts, with confessions extracted under torture. Following her release, she received no compensation, was unjustly dismissed from her job, and remains under ongoing security surveillance.
The documented cases make clear that release does not signify freedom for Bahraini activists and human rights defenders, but rather extends the cycle of punishment. In the absence of a transitional justice process—one that guarantees accountability, redress, and compensation for past abuses—they remain subject to security targeting and restrictions on freedom of expression through summonses and harassment. These practices violate both the Bahraini Constitution and international human rights law.
Husain Abdulla, Executive Director of ADHRB: “This isn’t reintegration – it’s retaliation, just dressed up to look nice for the international community. The reality is that stripping activists of their rights post-release isn’t reform. It’s just punishment by another name.”
In concluding its report, ADHRB stresses that meaningful reform must begin with the removal of these restrictions, the full restoration of rights, and the provision of effective remedies and reparations—paving the way for real transitional justice for those released.
By removing checks on borders between European countries while hardening those on the edges of Europe, the EU has redrawn borders along civilizational lines.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – The Philippines has arrested a Chinese man for operating a surveillance device near the offices of its election commission, less than two weeks before the country’s midterm polls, adding further strain to relations between the two countries.
Tensions have been rising between Manila and Beijing, fueled by rival flag-raising displays on the disputed Sandy Cay in South China Sea.
“When we made the arrest, that was the third time he had come to Comelec,” said Philippine National Bureau of Investigation spokesman Ferdinand Lavin on Wednesday, referring to the country’s election commission.
The man, a Macau passport holder, was allegedly using an “IMSI catcher,” a device capable of mimicking a cell tower and snatching messages from the air in a 1 to 3 kilometer radius.
The arrested man also visited other locations, including the Philippine Supreme Court, the Philippine Department of Justice and the U.S. embassy, according to Lavin.
China denied any attempt to tamper with Philippine elections.
“We will not and have no interest in interfering in such internal affairs of the Philippines,” Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Wednesday when asked about the arrest at a news conference.
“We also advise individual politicians in the Philippines not to take the chance to hype up issues related to China, make something out of nothing and seize the opportunity to profit.”
On April 3, China said it had detained three Filipinos for espionage, prompting the Philippines to claim it was retaliation for Manila’s arrest of five Chinese nationals a week earlier.
The latest arrest came as Manila signed an agreement with New Zealand allowing the deployment of troops on each other’s territory, a move aimed at bolstering security in a “deteriorating” strategic environment, and one likely to further antagonize China.
New Zealand Minister of Defence Judith Collins said that the deal reflected a commitment based on understanding “the risks to the international rules-based order.”
Both countries had “a real understanding that the strategic environment that we are operating in is deteriorating,” Collins said.
“There are those who follow international law and there are those who want to redefine it,” Teodoro said, referring to China’s so-called “nine-dash line” in the South China Sea.
Beijing claims nearly the entire sea under its “nine-dash line,” a claim rejected by an international tribunal in 2016, which ruled in favor of the Philippines’ assertion that China’s claims were unlawful.
Despite the ruling, China has continued to assert its presence through patrols, island-building, and militarization, while the Philippines has sought to defend its claims through diplomatic protests and military partnerships.
“We need to deter this kind of unwanted behavior,” he said, adding that Manila and Wellington would work toward “military-to-military training.”
The agreement with New Zealand serves as the latest example of the Philippines strengthening defence and diplomatic ties with like-minded partners, as Chinese-Philippine relations continue to be tested by repeated confrontations between their coastguard vessels in the disputed South China Sea.
The Philippines and Japan pledged on Tuesday to deepen security ties, agreeing to begin talks on a defense pact and enhance intelligence sharing, while jointly opposing efforts to change the status quo in the East and South China Seas by force.
Manila is also reportedly in talks with Canada and France to establish potential defense agreements.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.
The U.S. government is activating a suite of algorithmic surveillance tools, developed in concert with major tech companies, to monitor and criminalize immigrants’ speech.
A new report from human rights experts urges the United Nations to condemn the “evaporation of fundamental rights” in the United States, where the Trump administration is using high-tech surveillance tools and a nebulous “anti-terrorism” legal framework that has ballooned since 9/11 to weaponize law enforcement against social movements that challenge state power. While the legally dubious…
Google recently announced it would acquire Israeli-American cloud security firm Wiz for $32 billion. The price tag — 65 times Wiz’s annual revenue — has raised eyebrows and further solidified the close relationship between Google and the Israeli military.
In its press release, the Silicon Valley giant claimed that the purchase will “vastly improve how security is designed, operated and automated—providing an end-to-end security platform for customers, of all types and sizes, in the AI era.”
Yet it has also raised fears about the security of user data, particularly of those who oppose Israeli actions against its neighbors, given Unit 8200’s long history of using tech to spy on opponents, gather intelligence, and use that knowledge for extortion and blackmail.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has rapidly positioned itself as a leader in artificial intelligence (AI), integrating advanced technologies across various sectors to drive economic growth and enhance governance. Central to this strategy is the deployment of AI-driven surveillance systems aimed at increasing national security and public safety. However, the extensive use of such technologies raises significant human rights concerns, particularly regarding privacy, freedom of expression, and the potential for governmental overreach.
AI Surveillance Infrastructure in the UAE
The UAE’s commitment to becoming a global AI hub is evident through substantial investments and strategic initiatives. Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed al Nahyan, the national security adviser and brother to President Mohamed bin Zayed al Nahyan, oversees assets exceeding $1.5 trillion and is leading efforts to transform Abu Dhabi into an AI superpower. Through entities like the tech conglomerate G42, the UAE aims to secure a leading role in the global AI industry, aligning more closely with U.S. technology firms to mitigate geopolitical risks associated with Chinese collaborations.
In urban centers like Dubai and Abu Dhabi, the implementation of AI-powered surveillance is extensive. Dubai’s Oyoon program integrates over 300,000 cameras with facial recognition capabilities, enabling real-time monitoring of residents and visitors. Similarly, Abu Dhabi’s Falcon Eye system provides comprehensive surveillance across the city, enhancing the government’s ability to track individuals’ movements.
Human Rights Implications
Privacy Concerns
The pervasive deployment of AI surveillance technologies in public spaces poses significant threats to individual privacy. The ability of these systems to continuously monitor and analyze personal behaviors without consent infringes upon the right to privacy as established in international human rights standards. Such extensive surveillance can lead to self-censorship, as individuals may alter their behavior due to the awareness of being constantly watched.
Freedom of Expression and Association
The UAE’s stringent cybercrime laws further exacerbate concerns related to AI surveillance. The Federal Law No. 34 of 2021 on Combatting Rumors and Cybercrime criminalizes online activities that oppose the fundamental principles of governance or offend foreign states, with penalties extending to life imprisonment. This legal framework has been utilized to suppress dissent, leading to the imprisonment of academics, journalists, and activists for peaceful online expressions deemed as undermining government authority.
Misuse of Surveillance Technologies
Reports indicate that the UAE has employed sophisticated spyware, such as the Pegasus software developed by Israel’s NSO Group, to monitor dissidents and perceived opponents both domestically and internationally. Notably, human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor was sentenced to 10 years in prison based on information extracted from his Pegasus-infected device. This misuse of surveillance tools underscores the potential for AI technologies to be leveraged in ways that violate human rights and suppress legitimate criticism.
International Scrutiny and Response
The UAE’s surveillance practices have attracted global attention, particularly in the context of international events hosted within its borders. For instance, during the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) held in Dubai, concerns were raised about the extensive surveillance measures potentially infringing upon participants’ rights to privacy and freedom of assembly. The presence of pervasive monitoring technologies was seen as a threat to open dialogue and the overall success of the conference.
Journalistic investigations have also highlighted the broader implications of such surveillance. Ronan Farrow’s documentary “Surveilled” delves into the global proliferation of spyware and its impact on democracy and freedom, emphasizing the need for international regulations to govern the use of these intrusive technologies.
Balancing Technological Advancement with Human Rights
While the UAE’s pursuit of technological advancement through AI offers potential benefits in areas like urban planning, healthcare, and security, it is imperative to balance these developments with the protection of fundamental human rights. Establishing transparent legal frameworks, ensuring accountability for misuse, and engaging with international human rights bodies are crucial steps toward mitigating the adverse effects of AI surveillance.
Conclusion
The integration of AI surveillance technologies in the UAE reflects a broader global trend where states adopt advanced tools to enhance governance and security. However, without adequate safeguards, such practices can lead to significant human rights violations, including infringements on privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of association. As the UAE continues its trajectory toward becoming a leader in AI, it holds the responsibility to implement these technologies in a manner that respects and upholds the rights of its citizens and the international community.
The law enforcement breed can be a pretty dark lot. To be paid to think suspiciously leaves its mark, fostering an incentive to identify crimes and misdemeanours with instinctive compulsion. Historically, this saw the emergence of quackery and bogus attempts to identify criminal tendencies. Craniometry and skull size was, for a time, an attractive pursuit for the aspiring crime hunter and lunatic sleuth. The crime fit the skull.
With the onset of facial recognition technologies, we are seeing the same old habits appear, with their human creators struggling to identify the best means of eliminating compromising biases.
Two people familiar with the use of technology by Elon Musk’s DOGE team told Reuters that the team has setup artificial intelligence to spy on employees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The objective, according to the two media sources, is to look for “language in communications considered hostile” to Musk or President Donald Trump.
“Trump-appointed officials who had taken up EPA posts told managers that DOGE was using AI to monitor communication apps and software, including Microsoft Teams, which is widely used for virtual calls and chats,” the sources additionally claimed.
Staff with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fear that billionaire and presidential adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is spying on them using artificial intelligence, according to reporting from Reuters, The Guardian, and Crooked Media’s newsletter What a Day. According to Reuters reporting published Tuesday, Trump administration officials told some managers at…
Long before October 7, 2023, Israel has weaponized surveillance and advanced targeting technology against Palestinians. This includes snuffing out dissent and preemptively arresting Palestinians before holding them for years without formal charges, access to legal representation, or sentencing.
Similar technologies are now being used in the United States to criminalize dissent, target marginalized communities, and suppress mutual aid efforts. This brings us to the theme of this week’s episode. Today, we’re sharing excerpts from Shareable’s Mutual Aid 101 Learning Series‘ third session.
Iranian police are using digital tools to identify and punish women who defy the Islamic state’s harsh dress code
Like many women in Iran, Darya is used to feeling under surveillance. Yet in recent months, the 25-year-old finance analyst from northern Tehran says that she never knows who could be watching her every move.
She says she has received messages from the police before warning her of suspected violations of the country’s strict hijab laws, but last November she was sent an SMS message containing her car registration plate that stated the exact time and place that she had been recorded driving without her head properly covered. Next time it happened, the SMS warned, her car would be impounded.
A joint operation between the Fiji Police Force, Republic of Fiji Military Force (RFMF), Territorial Force Brigade, Fiji Navy and National Fire Authority was staged this week to “modernise” responses to emergencies.
Called “Exercise Genesis”, the joint operation is believed to be the first of its kind in Fiji to “test combat readiness” and preparedness for facing civil unrest, counterinsurgency and humanitarian assistance scenarios.
It took place over three days and was modelled on challenges faced by a “fictitious island grappling with rising unemployment, poverty and crime”.
The exercise was described as based on three models, operated on successive days.
The block 1 scenario tackled internal security, addressing civil unrest, law enforcement challenges and crowd control operations.
Block 2 involved humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and coordinating emergency response efforts with government agencies.
Block 3 on the last day dealt with a “mid-level counterinsurgency”, engaging in stabilising the crisis, and “neutralising” a threat.
Flash flood scenario
On the second day, a “composite” company with the assistance of the Fiji Navy successfully evacuated victims from a scenario-based flash flood at Doroko village (Waila) to Nausori Town.
“The flood victims were given first aid at the village before being evacuated to an evacuation centre in Syria Park,” said the Territorial Brigade’s Facebook page.
“The flood victims were further examined by the medical team at Syria Park.”
Fiji police confront protesters during the Operation Genesis exercise in Fiji this week. Image: RFMF screenshot APR
On the final day, Thursday, Exercise Genesis culminated in a pre-dawn attack by the troops on a “rebel hideout”.
According to the Facebook page, the “hideout” had been discovered following the deployment of a joint tracker team and the K9 unit from the Fiji Corrections Service.
“Through rigorous training and realistic scenarios, the [RFMF Territorial Brigade] continues to refine its combat proficiency, adaptability, and mission effectiveness,” said a brigade statement.
Mock protesters in the Operation Genesis security services exercise in Fiji this week. Image: RFMF screenshot APR
It said that the exercise was “ensuring that [the brigade] remains a versatile and responsive force, capable of safeguarding national security and contributing to regional stability.”
However, a critic said: “Anyone who is serious about reducing crime would offer a real alternative to austerity, poverty and alienation. Invest in young people and communities.”
BANGKOK – Chinese officials escorted Thai journalists during a tightly controlled visit to Xinjiang this week, insisting on viewing their photos and deleting any they didn’t approve of before they could be sent back to Thailand, said a journalist, who was a part of delegation invited by Beijing to showcase the well-being of Uyghurs from deported from Thailand.
Thailand put 40 Uyghur men on a plane to Xinjiang on Feb. 27, saying China had given assurances that they would not be mistreated and no third country had committed to take them. Officials later admitted the U.S. and other countries had offered to give the Uyghurs a home. They were part of more than 300 Uyghurs who fled persecution in Xinjiang but were caught and jailed in Thailand for more than a decade.
The move was heavily criticized by Western governments and human rights organizations, with the United States restricting visas for unnamed Thai officials involved in the deportation process.
Amid criticism, China invited Thai Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai along with a group of journalists on a three-day trip to Kashgar, Xinjiang, from Tuesday aimed at showcasing the well-being of the deportees and others who were deported in 2015.
But a Thai journalist, who was part of the delegation, said they were watched closely by Chinese security officials during their visit.
“Thai journalists were escorted by security personnel, who also requested to vet the images before allowing them to be sent back to Thailand,” said Pranot Vilapasuwan, news director at Thai-language daily Thairath on Facebook.
Pranot added that journalists were asked to blur the faces of Uyghurs and their families as well as Chinese officials or to avoid taking pictures of Chinese officials at all.
He also said journalists were vetted before the trip in interviews with Thai authorities.
“This means security agencies were filtering the media,” said Pranot during a program on Thairath online.
Sunai Phasuk, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch said everything about the Thai government’s Xinjiang visit was “staged” and “managed” by China.
“Thailand is parroting China’s propaganda and collaborating in the crimes against Uyghurs,” Sunai lamented.
‘Living a normal life’
Thairath cited Phumtham as saying that he had video calls with six Uyghurs who had returned from Thailand, one of whom was deported in 2015.
“He explained that after returning 10 years ago, he had been living a normal life, got married, and now has a one-month-old baby,” Phumtham said. “Upon his return, the authorities helped build a house for him.”
“I came to visit and wanted answers. We know that Xinjiang has changed a lot, which should be good for them, and good for both countries that made this decision,” he said.
Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai visits one of the 40 Uyghurs at the Uyghur’s home in Kashgar, Xinjiang Autonomous Region, March 19, 2025.(Thailand Ministry of Defense)
Qi Yanjun, China’s vice minister for public security, called the cooperation between Thailand and China “normal.”
“Some countries criticize the cooperation between Thailand and China, even though it’s just normal law enforcement, saying it’s not good that both countries are taking such intensive action,” said Qi.
“Therefore, both countries, Thailand and China, must strongly oppose this criticism,” he added.
“What the U.S. and European Union claimed about inappropriate treatment of Uyghurs is not true. Truth is truth, and everyone will see it.”
Qi’s view was echoed byTawee Sodsong, Thailand’s justice minister, who said the decision to deport Uyghurs was made on Beijing’s promise they would not be tortured.
“Today, those third countries, which are large nations, may say whatever they want, but we prefer to rely on the truth. We believe both governments are sincere,” he said. “We saw that he is living with his family. He expressed gratitude to both governments for taking care of him.”
Edited by Taejun Kang and Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Kunnawut Boonreak for BenarNews and Pimuk Rakkanam for RFA.
Australia is caught in a jam, between an assertive American ally and a bold Chinese trading partner. America is accelerating its pivot to the Indo-Pacific, building up its fighting forces and expanding its military bases.
As Australia tries to navigate a pathway between America’s and Australia’s national interests, sometimes Australia’s national interest seems to submerge out of view.
Admiral David Johnston, the Chief of the Australia’s Defence Force, is steering this ship as China flexes its muscle sending a small warship flotilla south to circumnavigate the continent.
He has admitted that the first the Defence Force heard of a live-fire exercise by the three Chinese Navy ships sailing in the South Pacific east of Australia on February 21, was a phone call from the civilian Airservices Australia.
“The absence of any advance notice to Australian authorities was a concern, notably, that the limited notice provided by the PLA could have unnecessarily increased the risk to aircraft and vessels in the area,” Johnston told Senate Estimates .
Johnston was pressed to clarify how Defence first came to know of the live-fire drill: “Is it the case that Defence was only notified, via Virgin and Airservices Australia, 28 minutes [sic] after the firing window commenced?”
To this, Admiral Johnston replied: “Yes.”
If it happened as stated by the Admiral — that a live-fire exercise by the Chinese ships was undertaken and a warning notice was transmitted from the Chinese ships, all without being detected by Australian defence and surveillance assets — this is a defence failure of considerable significance.
Sources with knowledge of Defence spoken to by Declassified Australia say that this is either a failure of surveillance, or a failure of communication, or even more far-reaching, a failure of US alliance cooperation.
And from the very start the official facts became slippery.
Our latest investigation –
AUSTRALIA’S DEFENCE: NAVIGATING US-CHINA TENSIONS
We investigate a significant intelligence failure to detect live-firing by Chinese warships near Australia, has exposed Defence weaknesses, and the fact that when it counts, we are all alone.
— Declassified Australia (@DeclassifiedAus) March 7, 2025
What did they know and when did they know it The first information passed on to Defence by Airservices Australia came from the pilot of a Virgin passenger jet passing overhead the flotilla in the Tasman Sea that had picked up the Chinese Navy VHF radio notification of an impending live-fire exercise.
The radio transmission had advised the window for the live-fire drill commenced at 9.30am and would conclude at 3pm.
We know this from testimony given to Senate Estimates by the head of Airservices Australia. He said Airservices was notified at 9.58am by an aviation control tower informed by the Virgin pilot. Two minutes later Airservices issued a “hazard alert” to commercial airlines in the area.
The Headquarters of the Defence Force’s Joint Operations Command (HJOC), at Bungendore 30km east of Canberra, was then notified about the drill by Airservices at 10.08am, 38 minutes after the drill window had commenced.
When questioned a few days later, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese appeared to try to cover for Defence’s apparent failure to detect the live-fire drill or the advisory transmission.
“At around the same time, there were two areas of notification. One was from the New Zealand vessels that were tailing . .. the [Chinese] vessels in the area by both sea and air,” Albanese stated. “So that occurred and at the same time through the channels that occur when something like this is occurring, Airservices got notified as well.”
But the New Zealand Defence Force had not notified Defence “at the same time”. In fact it was not until 11.01am that an alert was received by Defence from the New Zealand Defence Force — 53 minutes after Defence HQ was told by Airservices and an hour and a half after the drill window had begun.
The Chinese Navy’s stealth guided missile destroyer Zunyi, sailing south in the Coral Sea on February 15, 2025, in a photograph taken from a RAAF P-8A Poseidon surveillance plane. Image: Royal Australian Air Force/Declassified Australia
Defence Minister Richard Marles later in a round-about way admitted on ABC Radio that it wasn’t the New Zealanders who informed Australia first: “Well, to be clear, we weren’t notified by China. I mean, we became aware of this during the course of the day.
“What China did was put out a notification that it was intending to engage in live firing. By that I mean a broadcast that was picked up by airlines or literally planes that were commercial planes that were flying across the Tasman.”
Later the Chinese Ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, told ABC that two live-fire training drills were carried out at sea on February 21 and 22, in accordance with international law and “after repeatedly issuing safety notices in advance”.
Eyes and ears on ‘every move’ It was expected the Chinese-navy flotilla would end its three week voyage around Australia on March 7, after a circumnavigation of the continent. That is not before finally passing at some distance the newly acquired US-UK nuclear submarine base at HMAS Stirling near Perth and the powerful US communications and surveillance base at North West Cape.
Just as Australia spies on China to develop intelligence and targeting for a potential US war, China responds in kind, collecting data on US military and intelligence bases and facilities in Australia, as future targets should hostilities commence.
The presence of the Chinese Navy ships that headed into the northern and eastern seas around Australia attracted the attention of the Defence Department ever since they first set off south through the Mindoro Strait in the Philippines and through the Indonesian archipelago from the South China Sea on February 3.
“We are keeping a close watch on them and we will be making sure that we watch every move,” Marles stated in the week before the live-fire incident.
“Just as they have a right to be in international waters . . . we have a right to be prudent and to make sure that we are surveilling them, which is what we are doing.”
Around 3500 km to the north, a week into the Chinese ships’ voyage, a spy flight by an RAAF P-8A Poseidon surveillance plane on February 11, in a disputed area of the South China Sea south of China’s Hainan Island, was warned off by a Chinese J-16 fighter jet.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded to Australian protests claiming the Australian aircraft “deliberately intruded” into China’s claimed territorial airspace around the Paracel Islands without China’s permission, thereby “infringing on China’s sovereignty and endangering China’s national security”.
Australia criticised the Chinese manoeuvre, defending the Australian flight saying it was “exercising the right to freedom of navigation and overflight in international waters and airspace”.
Two days after the incident, the three Chinese ships on their way to Australian waters were taking different routes in beginning their own “right to freedom of navigation” in international waters off the Australian coast. The three ships formed up their mini flotilla in the Coral Sea as they turned south paralleling the Australian eastern coastline outside of territorial waters, and sometimes within Australia’s 200-nautical-mile (370 km) Exclusive Economic Zone.
“Defence always monitors foreign military activity in proximity to Australia. This includes the Peoples Liberation Army-Navy (PLA-N) Task Group.” Admiral Johnston told Senate Estimates.
“We have been monitoring the movement of the Task Group through its transit through Southeast Asia and we have observed the Task Group as it has come south through that region.”
The Task Group was made up of a modern stealth guided missile destroyer Zunyi, the frigate Hengyang, and the Weishanhu, a 20,500 tonne supply ship carrying fuel, fresh water, cargo and ammunition. The Hengyang moved eastwards through the Torres Strait, while the Zunyi and Weishanhu passed south near Bougainville and Solomon Islands, meeting in the Coral Sea.
This map indicates the routes taken by the three Chinese Navy ships on their “right to freedom of navigation” voyage in international waters circumnavigating Australia, with dates of way points indicated — from 3 February till 6 March 2025. Distances and locations are approximate. Image: Weibo/Declassified Australia
As the Chinese ships moved near northern Australia and through the Coral Sea heading further south, the Defence Department deployed Navy and Air Force assets to watch over the ships. These included various RAN warships including the frigate HMAS Arunta and a RAAF P-8A Poseidon intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance plane.
With unconfirmed reports a Chinese nuclear submarine may also be accompanying the surface ships, the monitoring may have also included one of the RAN’s Collins-class submarines, with their active range of sonar, radar and radio monitoring – however it is uncertain whether one was able to be made available from the fleet.
“From the point of time the first of the vessels entered into our more immediate region, we have been conducting active surveillance of their activities,” the Defence chief confirmed.
As the Chinese ships moved into the southern Tasman Sea, New Zealand navy ships joined in the monitoring alongside Australia’s Navy and Air Force.
The range of signals intelligence (SIGINT) that theoretically can be intercepted emanating from a naval ship at sea includes encrypted data and voice satellite communications, ship-to-ship communications, aerial drone data and communications, as well as data of radar, gunnery, and weapon launches.
There are a number of surveillance facilities in Australia that would have been able to be directed at the Chinese ships.
Australian Signals Directorate’s (ASD) Shoal Bay Receiving Station outside of Darwin, picks up transmissions and data emanating from radio signals and satellite communications from Australia’s near north region. ASD’s Cocos Islands receiving station in the mid-Indian ocean would have been available too.
The Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) over-the-horizon radar network, spread across northern Australia, is an early warning system that monitors aircraft and ship movements across Australia’s north-western, northern, and north-eastern ocean areas — but its range off the eastern coast is not thought to presently reach further south than the sea off Mackay on the Queensland coast.
Of land-based surveillance facilities, it is the American Pine Gap base that is believed to have the best capability of intercepting the ship’s radio communications in the Tasman Sea.
Enter, Pine Gap and the Americans The US satellite surveillance base at Pine Gap in Central Australia is a US and Australian jointly-run satellite ground station. It is regarded as the most important such American satellite base outside of the USA.
The spy base – Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap (JDFPG) – showing the north-eastern corner of the huge base with some 18 of the base’s now 45 satellite dishes and covered radomes visible. Image: Felicity Ruby/Declassified Australia
The role of ASD in supporting the extensive US surveillance mission against China is increasingly valued by Australia’s large Five Eyes alliance partner.
A Top Secret ‘Information Paper’, titled “NSA Intelligence Relationship with Australia”, leaked from the National Security Agency (NSA) by Edward Snowden and published by ABC’s Background Briefing, spells out the “close collaboration” between the NSA and ASD, in particular on China:
“Increased emphasis on China will not only help ensure the security of Australia, but also synergize with the U.S. in its renewed emphasis on Asia and the Pacific . . . Australia’s overall intelligence effort on China, as a target, is already significant and will increase.”
The Pine Gap base, as further revealed in 2023 by Declassified Australia, is being used to collect signals intelligence and other data from the Israeli battlefield of Gaza, and also Ukraine and other global hotspots within view of the US spy satellites.
It’s recently had a significant expansion (reported by this author in The Saturday Paper) which has seen its total of satellite dishes and radomes rapidly increase in just a few years from 35 to 45 to accommodate new heightened-capability surveillance satellites.
Pine Gap base collects an enormous range and quantity of intelligence and data from thermal imaging satellites, photographic reconnaissance satellites, and signals intelligence (SIGINT) satellites, as expert researchers Des Ball, Bill Robinson and Richard Tanter of the Nautilus Institute have detailed.
These SIGINT satellites intercept electronic communications and signals from ground-based sources, such as radio communications, telemetry, radar signals, satellite communications, microwave emissions, mobile phone signals, and geolocation data.
Alliance priorities The US’s SIGINT satellites have a capability to detect and receive signals from VHF radio transmissions on or near the earth’s surface, but they need to be tasked to do so and appropriately targeted on the source of the transmission.
For the Pine Gap base to intercept VHF radio signals from the Chinese Navy ships, the base would have needed to specifically realign one of those SIGINT satellites to provide coverage of the VHF signals in the Tasman Sea at the time of the Chinese ships’ passage. It is not known publicly if they did this, but they certainly have that capability.
However, it is not only the VHF radio transmission that would have carried information about the live-firing exercise.
Pine Gap would be able to monitor a range of other SIGINT transmissions from the Chinese ships. Details of the planning and preparations for the live-firing exercise would almost certainly have been transmitted over data and voice satellite communications, ship-to-ship communications, and even in the data of radar and gunnery operations.
But it is here that there is another possibility for the failure.
The Pine Gap base was built and exists to serve the national interests of the United States. The tasking of the surveillance satellites in range of Pine Gap base is generally not set by Australia, but is directed by United States’ agencies, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) together with the US Defense Department, the National Security Agency (NSA), and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Australia has learnt over time that US priorities may not be the same as Australia’s.
Australian defence and intelligence services can request surveillance tasks to be added to the schedule, and would have been expected to have done so in order to target the southern leg of the Chinese Navy ships’ voyage, when the ships were out of the range of the JORN network.
The military demands for satellite time can be excessive in times of heightened global conflict, as is the case now.
Whether the Pine Gap base was devoting sufficient surveillance resources to monitoring the Chinese Navy ships, due to United States’ priorities in Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Africa, North Korea, and to our north in the South China Sea, is a relevant question.
It can only be answered now by a formal government inquiry into what went on — preferably held in public by a parliamentary committee or separately commissioned inquiry. The sovereign defence of Australia failed in this incident and lessons need to be learned.
Who knew and when did they know If the Pine Gap base had been monitoring the VHF radio band and heard the Chinese Navy live-fire alert, or had been monitoring other SIGINT transmissions to discover the live-fire drill, the normal procedure would be for the active surveillance team to inform a number of levels of senior officers, a former Defence official familiar with the process told Declassified Australia.
Inside an operations room at the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) head office at the Defence complex at Russell Hill in Canberra. Image: ADF/Declassified Australia
Expected to be included in the information chain are the Australian Deputy-Chief of Facility at the US base, NSA liaison staff at the base, the Australian Signals Directorate head office at the Defence complex at Russell Hill in Canberra, the Defence Force’s Headquarters Joint Operations Command, in Bungendore, and the Chief of the Defence Force. From there the Defence Minister’s office would need to have been informed.
As has been reported in media interviews and in testimony to the Senate Estimates hearings, it has been stated that Defence was not informed of the Chinese ships’ live-firing alert until a full 38 minutes after the drill window had commenced.
The former Defence official told Declassified Australia it is vital the reason for the failure to detect the live-firing in a timely fashion is ascertained.
Either the Australian Defence Force and US Pine Gap base were not effectively actively monitoring the Chinese flotilla at this time — and the reasons for that need to be examined — or they were, but the information gathered was somewhere stalled and not passed on to correct channels.
If the evidence so far tendered by the Defence chief and the Minister is true, and it was not informed of the drill by any of its intelligence or surveillance assets before that phone call from Airservices Australia, the implications need to be seriously addressed.
A final word In just a couple of weeks the whole Defence environment for Australia has changed, for the worse.
The US military announces a drawdown in Europe and a new pivot to the Indo-Pacific. China shows Australia it can do tit-for-tat “navigational freedom” voyages close to the Australian coast. US intelligence support is withdrawn from Ukraine during the war. Australia discovers the AUKUS submarines’ arrival looks even more remote. The prime minister confuses the limited cover provided by the ANZUS treaty.
Meanwhile, the US militarisation of Australia’s north continues at pace. At the same time a senior Pentagon official pressures Australia to massively increase defence spending. And now, the country’s defence intelligence system has experienced an unexplained major failure.
Australia, it seems, is adrift in a sea of unpredictable global events and changing alliance priorities.
Peter Cronau is an award-winning, investigative journalist, writer, and film-maker. His documentary, The Base: Pine Gap’s Role in US Warfighting, was broadcast on Australian ABC Radio National and featured on ABC News. He produced and directed the documentary film Drawing the Line, revealing details of Australian spying in East Timor, on ABC TV’s premier investigative programme Four Corners. He won the Gold Walkley Award in 2007 for a report he produced on an outbreak of political violence in East Timor. This article was first published by Declassified Australia and is republished here with the author’s permission.
Ongoing wars and conflict around the world expose how international law and norms can be co-opted. With the US pulling out again from the Paris Climate Agreement, and other international commitments, this volatility is magnified.
And with the intensifying US-China rivalry in the Pacific posing the real risk of a new “arms race”, the picture becomes unmistakable: the international global order is rapidly shifting and eroding, and the stability of the multilateral system is increasingly at risk.
In this turbulent landscape, the Pacific must move beyond mere narratives such as the “Blue Pacific” and take bold steps toward establishing a set of rules that govern and protect the Blue Pacific Continent against outside forces.
If not, the region risks being submerged by rising geopolitical tides, the existential threat of climate change and external power projections.
For years, the US and its allies have framed the Pacific within the “Indo-Pacific” strategic construct — primarily aimed at maintaining US primacy and containing a rising and more ambitious China. This frame shapes how nations in alignment with the US have chosen to interpret and apply the rules-based order.
On the other side, while China has touted its support for a “rules-based international order”, it has sought to reshape that system to reflect its own interests and its aspirations for a multipolar world, as seen in recent years through international organisations and institutions.
In addition, the Taiwan issue has framed how China sets its rules of engagement with Pacific nations — a diplomatic redline that has created tension among Pacific nations, contradicting their long-held “friends to all, enemies to none” foreign policy preference, as evidenced by recent diplomatic controversies at regional meetings.
Confusing and divisive
For Pacific nations these framings are confusing and divisive — they all sound the same but underneath the surface are contradictory values and foreign policy positions.
For centuries, external powers have framed the Pacific in ways that advance their strategic interests. Today, the Pacific faces similar challenges, as superpowers compete for influence — securitising and militarising the region according to their ambitions through a host of bilateral agreements. This frame does not always prioritise Pacific concerns.
Rather it portrays the Pacific as a theatre for the “great game” — a theatre which subsequently determines how the Pacific is ordered, through particular value-sets, processes, institutions and agreements that are put in place by the key actors in this so-called game.
But the Pacific has its own story to tell, rooted in its “lived realities” and its historical, cultural and oceanic identity. This is reflected in the Blue Pacific narrative — a vision that unites Pacific nations through shared values and long-term goals, encapsulated in the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent.
The Pacific has a proud history of crafting rules to protect its interests — whether through the Rarotonga Treaty for a nuclear-free zone, leading the charge for the Paris Climate Agreement or advocating for SDG 14 on oceans. Today, the Pacific continues to pursue “rules-based” climate initiatives (such as the Pacific Resilience Facility), maritime boundaries delimitation, support for the 2021 and 2023 Forum Leaders’ Declarations on the Permanency of Maritime Boundaries and the Continuation of Statehood in the face of sea level rise, climate litigation through the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and a host of other rules-based regional environmental, economic and social initiatives.
However, these efforts often exist in isolation, lacking a cohesive framework to bring them all together, and to maximise their strategic impact and leverage. Now must be the time to build on these successes and create an integrated, long-term, visionary, Pacific-centric “rules-based order”.
This could start by looking to consolidate existing Pacific rules: exploring opportunities to take forward the rules through concepts like the Ocean of Peace currently being developed by the Pacific Islands Forum, and expanding subsequently to include something like a “code of conduct” for how Pacific nations should interact with one another and with outside powers.
Responding as united bloc
This would enable them to respond more effectively and operate as a united bloc, in contrast to the bilateral approach preferred by many partners.
Over time this rules-based approach could be expanded to include other areas — such as the ongoing protection and preservation of the ocean, inclusive of deep-sea mining; the maintenance of regional peace and security, including in relation to the peaceful resolution of conflict and demilitarisation; and movement towards greater economic, labour and trade integration.
Such an order would not only provide stability within the Pacific but also contribute to shaping global norms. It would serve as a counterbalance to external strategic frames that look to define the rules that ought to be applied in the Pacific, while asserting the position of the Pacific nations in global conversations.
This is not about diminishing Pacific sovereignty but about enhancing it — ensuring that the region’s interests are safeguarded amid the geopolitical manoeuvring of external powers, and the growing wariness in and of US foreign policy.
The Pacific’s geopolitical challenges are mounting, driven by climate change, shifting global power dynamics and rising tensions between superpowers. But a collective, rules-based approach offers a pathway forward.
Cohesive set of standards
By building on existing frameworks and creating a cohesive set of standards, the Pacific can assert its autonomy, protect its environment and ensure a stable future in an increasingly uncertain world.
The time to act is now, as Pacific nations are increasingly being courted, and before it is too late. This implies though that Pacific nations have honest discussions with each other, and with Australia and New Zealand, about their differences and about the existing challenges to Pacific regionalism and how it can be strengthened.
By integrating regional arrangements and agreements into a more comprehensive framework, Pacific nations can strengthen their collective bargaining power on the global stage — while in the long-term putting in place rules that would over time become a critical part of customary international law.
Importantly, this rules-based approach must be guided by Pacific values, ensuring that the region’s unique cultural, environmental and strategic interests are preserved for future generations.
Sione Tekiteki is a senior lecturer at the Auckland University of Technology. He previously served at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat in three positions over nine years, most recently as director, governance and engagement. Joel Nilon is currently senior Pacific fellow at the Pacific Security College at the Australian National University. He previously served at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat for nine years as policy adviser. The article was written in close consultation with Professor Transform Aqorau, vice-chancellor of Solomon Islands National University. Republished from DevBlog with permission.
Authorities in a single district of the southwestern megacity of Chongqing have installed 27,900 surveillance cameras and 245 sensors as part of a comprehensive “grid” surveillance plan to keep tabs on residents, officials from the district said Monday.
The move offers a rare glimpse into the running of China’s “grid” system — the close-up monitoring of every aspect of its citizens’ lives to mediate disputes, influence public opinion and minimize protests and dissent.
“We in Beibei district have fully pressed the fast-forward button to promote the construction of … a digital Chongqing [and] deepened networked governance … to build a smart grassroots governance system,” Lin Xuyang, delegate to the National People’s Congress and secretary of Chongqing’s Beibei District Committee, told delegates in Beijing on March 10.
The annual gathering of delegates from across the country ends Tuesday.
“There is certainly no single way to govern, but precision is definitely one of them,” Lin said, likening the local grid monitoring and surveillance systems to “fine needlework.”
“The key to governance lies in people,” he said, adding that interconnected grids have now been extended from district to residential compound level, employing a “grid leader,” full- and part-time grid members to coordinate “more than 10,000 party member volunteers” and other volunteers.
Monitors report on residents’ activities
In July 2021, China empowered local officials at township, village and neighborhood level to enforce the law, as well as operating a vastly extended “grid management” system of social control in rural and urban areas alike.
According to directives sent out in 2018, the grid system carves up neighborhoods into a grid pattern with 15-20 households per square. Each grid has a monitor who reports back on residents’ affairs to local committees.
CCTV cameras overlook Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China September 30, 2022.(Thomas Peter/REUTERS)
China’s “red armband” brigade of state-sanctioned busybodies have been dubbed the biggest intelligence network on the planet by social media users, and have supplied information that has also led police to crack major organized crime, according to state media.
Neighborhood committees in China have long been tasked with monitoring the activities of ordinary people in urban areas, while its grid management system turbo-charges the capacity of officials even in rural areas to monitor what local people are doing, saying and thinking.
A former employee of a residential compound in Chongqing who gave only the surname Yang for fear of reprisals said the cameras are mostly used to monitor the activities of local residents.
“This kind of surveillance has existed for a long time — its official name is SkyNet,” Yang said. “In rural areas, it’s known as Project Xueliang.”
“Its purpose is to monitor what’s going on in every corner of a district,” Yang said. “People’s every move takes place under their watchful gaze.”
Aim of reducing costs
A resident of the central province of Henan who gave only the nickname Lao Wan said local governments are struggling to afford the staffing costs of the “grid” surveillance system, so are installing automated, digital equipment to monitor people instead.
“There are two main reasons for [these cameras],” Lao Wan said. “One is they can’t afford to pay their grid workers, and on the other, they want to reduce administrative costs.”
“That’s why they have mobilized civilians and volunteers to do this work, such as older men and women who have nothing else to do,” he said. “They seem to be just being friendly towards their neighbors, but in fact, they’re monitoring your every word and deed.”
The revelations about Beibei district come after the ruling Communist Party’s official newspaper, the People’s Daily, reported that authorities in the southeastern port city of Xiamen have set up “neighborhood supervision” stations in 11 streets and 144 residential communities in Tong’an district, in a bid to improve “grassroots governance.”
Legal affairs commentator Lu Chenyuan said local governments are struggling to pay wages, so are coordinating older people as volunteers to implement the government’s “stability maintenance” system.
“It’s a way to reduce administrative expenditures and maintain stability amid a sharp fall in tax revenues,” Lu said.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin.
The Green Party has called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to rule out Aotearoa New Zealand joining the AUKUS military technical pact in any capacity following the row over Ukraine in the White House over the weekend.
President Donald Trump’s “appalling treatment” of his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a “clear warning that we must avoid AUKUS at all costs”, said Green Party foreign affairs and Pacific issues spokesperson Teanau Tuiono.
“Aotearoa must stand on an independent and principled approach to foreign affairs and use that as a platform to promote peace.”
US President Donald Trump has paused all military aid for Ukraine after the “disastrous” Oval Office meeting with President Zelenskyy in another unpopular foreign affairs move that has been widely condemned by European leaders.
Oleksandr Merezhko, the chair of Ukraine’s Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, declared that Trump appeared to be trying to push Kyiv to capitulate on Russia’s terms.
He was quoted as saying that the aid pause was worse than the 1938 Munich Agreement that allowed Nazi Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia.
‘Danger of Trump leadership’
Tuiono, who is the Green Party’s first tagata moana MP, said: “What we saw in the White House at the weekend laid bare the volatility and danger of the Trump leadership — nothing good can come from deepening our links to this administration.
“Christopher Luxon should read the room and rule out joining any part of the AUKUS framework.”
Tuiono said New Zealand should steer clear of AUKUS regardless of who was in the White House “but Trump’s transactional and hyper-aggressive foreign policy makes the case to stay out stronger than ever”.
“Our country must not join a campaign that is escalating tensions in the Pacific and talking up the prospects of a war which the people of our region firmly oppose.
“Advocating for, and working towards, peaceful solutions to the world’s conflicts must be an absolute priority for our country,” Tuiono said.
Five Eyes network ‘out of control’
Meanwhile, in the 1News weekly television current affairs programme Q&A, former Prime Minister Helen Clark challenged New Zealand’s continued involvement in the Five Eyes intelligence network, describing it as “out of control”.
Her comments reflected growing concern by traditional allies and partners of the US over President Trump’s handling of long-standing relationships.
Clark said the Five Eyes had strayed beyond its original brief of being merely a coordinating group for intelligence agencies in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
“There’s been some talk in the media that Trump might want to evict Canada from it . . . Please could we follow?” she said.
“I mean, really, the problem with Five Eyes now has become a basis for policy positioning on all sorts of things.
“And to see it now as the basis for joint statements, finance minister meetings, this has got a bit out of control.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has scrapped privacy provisions which otherwise protected people from surveillance based on sexual orientation or gender identity alone, Bloomberg reported last week. The updated policy manual “removes references to those characteristics in sections that set guardrails on gathering intelligence,” according to the report.
As I approached the customs line at Dulles International Airport early on the morning of Feb. 24, a man called out to me, “Mr. Blumenthal?” He identified himself as an officer with Customs and Border Protection, and led me into a cavernous secondary screening room, where he treated me to a strange and disconcerting questioning session.
I had just returned from a leisurely trip to Nicaragua with my family during which I participated in no political activities. But the agent’s line of questioning suggested federal authorities had little interest in my visit to Nicaragua, a country that happens to be controlled by a socialist-oriented government on Washington’s hit list.
In the early days of his presidency, Donald Trump announced he would be “fighting anti-Semitism” on college campuses by prosecuting and revoking visas for certain students deemed to be “Hamas sympathizers.” In a fact sheet accompanying an executive order with “measures to combat anti-Semitism,” Trump threatens students: “Come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you.” The order itself states that the Department of Education will seek to familiarize institutions of higher education with these goals, so that universities may “monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff relevant to those grounds and for ensuring that such reports about aliens lead … to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens.”
Entering the field of robotic autonomous systems in 2019, HAVELSAN has built a platform ecosystem that includes unmanned aerial, ground, and naval vehicles. The company has now introduced another unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for use by security forces. Following the BAHA UAV, HAVELSAN has developed BULUT, a reconnaissance and surveillance UAV, in line with the […]
In the early days of his presidency, Donald Trump announced he would be “fighting anti-Semitism” on college campuses by prosecuting and revoking visas for certain students deemed to be “Hamas sympathizers.” In a fact sheet accompanying an executive order with “measures to combat anti-Semitism,” Trump threatens students: “Come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you.” The order itself states…
A United States judge dismissed a lawsuit pursued by four American attorneys and journalists, who alleged that the CIA and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo spied on them while they were visiting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in Ecuador’s London embassy.
“The subject matter of this litigation,” Judge John Koeltl determined, “is subject to the state secrets privilege in its entirety.” Any answer to the allegations against the CIA would “reveal privileged information.”
Few publications followed this case as closely as The Dissenter. It unfolded at the same time that the U.S. government pursued the extradition of Assange, making any outcome potentially significant.
… 
