This content originally appeared on Laura Flanders & Friends and was authored by Laura Flanders & Friends.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Laura Flanders & Friends and was authored by Laura Flanders & Friends.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Just Stop Oil and was authored by Just Stop Oil.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Ralph and the team invite cofounder of RootsAction, Norman Solomon, to autopsy the carcass of the Democratic Party after Donald Trump’s decisive defeat of Kamala Harris in the presidential election. They dissect what happened on November 5th and report what needs to be done about it.
Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of War Made Easy, Made Love, Got War, and his newest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine.
The Democrats couldn’t even get their base vote out that they got out in 2020. And what are they looking at? Are they looking at themselves in the mirror for introspection? Are they cleaning house? Do they have any plan whatsoever— other than collect more and more money from corporate PACS? This is a spectacular decline.
Ralph Nader
We kept being told that party loyalty über alles, we had to stay in line with Biden. And…that lost precious months, even a year or a year and a half, when there could have been a sorting out in vigorous primaries. We were told that, “Oh, it would be terrible to have an inside-the-party primary system.” Well, in 2020, there were 17 candidates, so there wasn’t space on one stage on one night to hold them all—the debates would have to be in half. Well, it didn’t really debilitate the party. Debate is a good thing. But what happened was this party loyalty, this obsequious kissing-the-presidential-feet dynamic allowed Biden to amble along until it became incontrovertible that he wasn’t capable.
Norman Solomon
A lot of people on that committee—and of course, running the DNC—they and their pals had this pass-through of literally millions of dollars of consultant fees. Win, lose, or draw. It’s like General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, they never lose a war. And so, these corporate donors, they never lose a presidential race. They didn’t lose what happened with Harris and Trump. They cashed in, they made out like the corporate bandits that they are.
Norman Solomon
One reality as an activist that I’ve come to the conclusion on in the last couple of decades is that progressives tend to be way too nice to Democrats in Congress, especially those that they consider to be allies. Because they like what some of the Democrats do…and so they give too many benefits of the doubt. It’s like grading them on a curve. We can’t afford to grade them on a curve.
Norman Solomon
In Case You Haven’t Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 11/6/24
1. As of now, Donald Trump is projected to win the 2024 presidential election by a greater margin than 2016. In addition to winning back Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona, Trump also appears to have flipped Nevada – which went for both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Most shocking of all, Trump has won the national popular vote, something he failed to do in 2016 and 2020 and which no Republican has done in 20 years. Democrats also faced a bloodbath in the Senate elections, with Republicans on track to win a 54 seat majority in the upper chamber.
2. Bucking tremendous party pressure, Representative Rashida Tlaib declined to endorse Kamala Harris at a United Autoworkers rally in Michigan just days before the election, POLITICO reports. Tlaib urged attendees to turn out but “kept her speech focused on down-ballot races.” Tlaib is the only member of “the Squad” to withhold her support for Harris and the only Palestinian member of Congress. She has been a staunch critic of the Biden Administration’s blind support for Israel’s campaign of genocide in Palestine and voted Uncommitted in the Michigan Democratic primary.
3. Along similar lines, the Uncommitted Movement issued a fiery statement on the eve of the election. According to the group, “Middle East Eye ran a story…[which] contains unfounded and absurd claims, suggesting that Uncommitted made a secret agreement with the Democratic Party to not endorse a third-party candidate.” The statement goes on to say that “this baseless story…is misguided at best and a dishonest malicious attack at worst.” Uncommitted maintains that “leaders and delegates are voting in different ways, yet remain untied in their mission to stop the endless flow of American weapons fueling Israel’s militarism.” In September, Uncommitted publicly stated that they would not endorse Kamala Harris, citing her continued support for the Biden Administration policy toward Israel, but urged supporters to vote against Donald Trump.
4. Progressive International reports that over 50 sovereign nations have called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel, calling it “a legal, humanitarian and moral imperative to put an end to grave human suffering.” This letter cites the “staggering toll of civilian casualties, the majority of them children and women, due to ongoing breaches of international law by Israel, the occupying Power,” and warns of “regional destabilization that risks the outbreak of an all-out war in the region.” Signatories on this letter include Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Norway, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, Cuba, Bolivia, and China among many others.
5. Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush have sent a letter to President Biden accusing him of illegally involving the American armed forces in Israel’s war without proper Congressional authorization. Per the accompanying statement, “The Biden administration has deepened U.S. involvement in the Israeli government’s devastating regional war through comprehensive intelligence sharing and operational coordination, and now even the direct deployment of U.S. servicemembers to Israel. Not only do these actions encourage further escalation and violence, but they are unauthorized by Congress, in violation of Article I of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.” The letter concludes “The Executive Branch cannot continue to ignore the law…In the absence of an immediate ceasefire and end of hostilities, Congress retains the right and ability to exercise its Constitutional authority to direct the removal of any and all unauthorized Armed Forces from the region pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution.” This letter was endorsed by an array of groups ranging from the Quincy Institute to Jewish Voice for Peace to the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, and signed by other pro-Palestine members of Congress including Ilhan Omar, Summer Lee, and André Carson – though notably not AOC.
6. In a story that touches on both the election and labor issues, the New York Times Tech Guild voted to go on strike Monday morning. The Times Tech Guild, which represents “workers like software developers and data analysts,” at the Times negotiated until late Sunday night, particularly regarding “whether the workers could get a ‘just cause’ provision in their contract…pay increases and pay equity; and return-to-office policies,” per the New York Times. The Guardian reports “The Tech Guild’s roughly 600 members are in charge of operating the back-end systems that power the paper’s…[coverage of] the presidential election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – but also the hundreds of House and dozens of Senate races across the US that will determine who will secure control of Washington in 2025.” Kathy Zhang, the guild’s unit chair, said in a statement “[The Times] have left us no choice but to demonstrate the power of our labor on the picket line…we stand ready to bargain and get this contract across the finish line.”
7. In more labor news, AP reports the striking Boeing machinists have “voted to accept a contract offer and end their strike after more than seven weeks, clearing the way for the aerospace giant to resume production.” The deal reportedly includes “a 38% wage increase over four years, [as well as] ratification and productivity bonuses.” That said, Boeing apparently “refused to meet strikers’ demand to restore a company pension plan that was frozen nearly a decade ago.” According to a Bank of America analysis, Boeing was losing approximately $50 million per day during the strike, a startling number by any measure. The union’s District 751 President Jon Holden told members “You stood strong and you stood tall and you won,” yet calibration specialist Eep Bolaño said the outcome was “most certainly not a victory…We were threatened by a company that was crippled, dying, bleeding on the ground, and us as one of the biggest unions in the country couldn’t even extract two-thirds of our demands from them. This is humiliating.”
8. Huffington Post Labor Reporter Dave Jamieson reports “The [National Labor Relations Board] has filed a complaint against Grindr alleging the dating app used a new return-to-office policy to fire dozens of workers who were organizing.” He further reports that NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo is seeking a “Cemex order” which would “force the company to bargain with the [Communications Workers of America].” In a statement, CWA wrote “We hope this NLRB filing sends a clear message to Grindr that…we are committed to negotiating fair working conditions in good faith. As we continue to build and expand worker power at Grindr, this win…is a positive step toward ensuring that Grindr remains a safe, inclusive, and thriving place for users and workers alike.”
9. In further positive news from federal regulators, NBC’s Today reports “On Oct. 25, the United States Copyright Office granted a copyright exemption that gives restaurants like McDonald’s the “right to repair” broken machines by circumventing digital locks that prevent them from being fixed by anyone other than its manufacturer.” As this piece explains, all of McDonald’s ice cream machines – which have become a punchline for how frequently they are out of service – are owned and operated by the Taylor Company since 1956. Moreover “The…company holds a copyright on its machines…[meaning] if one broke, only [Taylor Company] repair people were legally allowed to fix it…due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act…a 1998 law that criminalizes making or using technology, devices or services that circumvent the control access of copyrighted works.” This move from the Copyright Office reflects a larger pattern of regulators recognizing the issues with giving companies like Taylor monopolistic free reign over sectors of the economy and blocking consumers – in this case fast food franchisees – from repairing machines themselves. With backing from public interest groups like U.S. PIRG, the Right to Repair movement continues to pick up steam. We hope Congress will realize that this is a political slam dunk.
10. Finally, in an astounding story of vindication, Michael and Robert Meeropol – sons of Ethel Rosenberg, who was convicted of and executed for passing secrets to the Soviet Union – claim that long-sought records have definitively cleared their mother’s name. Per Bloomberg, “A few months ago, the National Security Agency sent the Meeropols a box of records the spy agency declassified…Inside was a seven-page handwritten memo…The relevant passage…is just eight words: ‘she did not engage in the work herself.’” Put simply, Rosenberg was wrongfully convicted and put to death for a crime she did not commit. The article paints the picture of the men uncovering this key piece of evidence. “After he read it, Robert said his eyes welled up. “Michael and I looked at it and our reaction was, ‘We did it.’”
This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven’t Heard.
This content originally appeared on Ralph Nader Radio Hour and was authored by Ralph Nader.
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.
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.
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 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.
War never changes. The circumstances, participants, causes and locations may vary, but the essence remains unchanged: war is always a tragedy, since it is waged by people against people. And the suffering of the most vulnerable, silent victims of any conflict – children – always remains unnoticed. While activists and volunteers sound the alarm and try to organize humanitarian aid, the kings of the information field – media corporations – prefer to discuss the main actors of the conflict and cover politics and economics, as the most effective way of attracting an audience.
Under the current circumstances, it would not go amiss to once again pay attention to such problems caused by war as child trafficking, destruction of families, lack of education and medical care, as well as the constant threat to life and health. Thus, according to the Council of Europe report, Ukrainian children forced to leave their homes continue to face serious danger. The influx of refugees into EU countries immediately led to an increase in the number of cases of kidnapping, illegal adoption and exploitation. As the Council of Europe representatives state, officials do not always manage to detect and prevent the threat in time, which is why the number of victims continues to grow inexorably.
At the same time, it is important to take into account that serious problems are still remain in Ukraine as well. According to the USAID report, since the early 1990s, the country has been “a source, transit, and destination country for human trafficking”. Despite the gravity of the situation, the government has not been able to eradicate the problem, which has only worsened since the Covid-19 pandemic and with the outbreak of the war. Now, when all the attention of the Ukrainian authorities is focused on the war, new waves of mobilization are coming one after another, and officials are discussing the possibility of women conscription, there is almost no hope left for preserving families and ensuring the proper level of safety for children.
Reading such reports and news, one cannot help but wonder: is the continuation of the conflict worth such a threat to future generations? Soon it will be three years since the US and the EU have been spending enormous sums on militarization and maintaining the war, instead of thinking about peace and looking for ways to achieve it through negotiations. The decision of the outgoing US administration to urgently transfer several billion dollars to Ukraine before Trump’s inauguration is particularly worrying, since it does not seem to even assume proper control over the spending of funds. Why does no one even try to think about how such decisions affect the lives of civilians and their future?
The post A Silent Cry in the Fog of War first appeared on Dissident Voice.
This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Martin Averick.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Top U.N. officials are again warning that the entire Palestinian population in north Gaza is “at imminent risk of dying from disease, famine and violence.” At least 1,800 Palestinians have been killed, many of them children, since October, when Israel imposed a draconian siege and began an intensified campaign of ethnic cleansing on northern Gaza. Jan Egeland of the Norwegian Refugee Council recently spent several days in Gaza. He describes what he saw as “devastation beyond belief,” as Palestinians face “the most intense and most indiscriminate bombardment anywhere in the world in recent memory,” coupled with the utter depletion of aid. Egeland pleads for the United States, the largest supplier of military funding and equipment to Israel, to condition its weapons to Israel, enforce the provision of aid and commit to ending Israel’s assault. “It’s not in Israel’s interest to destroy its neighborhood in Gaza and in Lebanon. It will create new generations of hatred,” Egeland says.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
In the wake of the reelection of Donald Trump, some of the richest people in the world saw their net worths soar as stock prices rapidly shot up. “What was different about this election was how central billionaires were in the entire political discourse,” says The Lever's David Sirota, who joins Democracy Now! to discuss the outsized role of the super-rich in U.S politics, pointing out that both Trump and Kamala Harris campaigned heavily with billionaires, including Elon Musk and Mark Cuban. “These people are not giving money simply out of the goodness of their hearts. They want things. They have policy demands,” Sirota says. “The investors, the donors, like billionaires, are looking for a return on their investment.” Sirota, who previously worked as a communications adviser and speechwriter for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, also explains how Elon Musk's influence on Trump’s campaign is a preview of the power he could wield if he ends up appointed to the Trump administration.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
While the Vietnamese public watched the U.S. election with curiosity, the leadership in Hanoi probably looked at the results with trepidation.
While Hanoi’s “bamboo diplomacy” of building balanced strategic relationships with major global powers gives it a measure of comfort, Vietnam is far more vulnerable to changes in U.S. economic and trade policies, not to mention security policy, than almost any other country in Southeast Asia.
Vietnam’s chronic and growing trade surpluses with the United States are now likely to be at the forefront of the bilateral relationship.
In 2017, the first full year of the Trump presidency, Vietnam had a $38.3 billion trade surplus with the United States. By 2020, Trump’s last full year in office, that trade surplus had ballooned to $69.7 billion, according to the U.S. Census data.
That prompted the Trump administration to label Vietnam a “currency manipulator”. The Biden administration quickly resolved the currency dispute with Hanoi, but the trade deficit continued to balloon.
In 2023, the United States ran a $104.6 billion bilateral trade deficit with Vietnam and in the first nine months of this year, the trade deficit already reached $96 billion.
What is so surprising about all of this – something that will have the attention of the incoming administration – is the flat line in Vietnamese imports from the United States.
In 2017, the United States exported $8.1 billion in goods to Vietnam. Exports in 2022 were $11.3 billion, but have since fallen, totaling only $9.8 billion in 2023. The U.S. exports plenty of services to Vietnam to partly offset bilateral deficits, but nonetheless, Hanoi was unwise to have allowed that trade deficit to grow.
On Aug. 2, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided not to award Vietnam with “market economy status.”
This was a top priority for Hanoi and their embassy in Washington, which hired a white toe law firm to lobby on its behalf. U.S. allies Japan, Australia and Canada all classify Vietnam as a market economy.
Expect no progress
Hanoi was “disappointed” with the decision, and yet it was naïve to think that in an election year that came down to a handful of battleground states in the industrial midwest that Washington was going to classify it as a market economy, when so much of the Vietnamese economy remains protected or state-owned.
The Economist Intelligence Unit ranks Vietnam as the fourth most exposed to trade policy changes under the Trump administration, with the third largest trade surplus with the U.S. behind China and Mexico.
While market economy status remains a Vietnamese diplomatic priority, Hanoi should expect absolutely no progress towards this in the coming years.
Vietnam will want to continue to pursue a bilateral trade agreement with the United States.
Free trade agreements have been one of their key policy agendas, having joined four multilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTA), including the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, the ASEAN-EU FTA, RCEP, as well as bilateral FTAs with the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Japan.
And yet, Hanoi should not have high expectations here, either.
When the Trump administration withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2017, they dangled the prospect of a bilateral trade agreement, but it has never been concluded.
That, in part explains why the United States is only the 11th largest foreign investor in the country – though some U.S. investment goes through Singapore. If firms are concerned about the imposition of high tariffs, as Trump has promised, that will further dampen direct investment in Vietnam.
The importance to Vietnam of trade with the United States cannot be overstated. Exports to the United States account for 22.1% of GDP in Vietnam, whose total exports account for over 80% of GDP, making Vietnam highly vulnerable to externalities.
That trade surplus with the United States is important for another reason: it cancels out Vietnam’s enormous annual trade deficit with China.
While trade is going to be an irritant in the bilateral relationship, Hanoi has reached out to the incoming administration.
In September, the Trump Corporation reached a deal for a $1 billion investment in a golf course and hotel in Hung Yen province, outside of Hanoi. Hung Yen is the home province of Communist Party General Secretary To Lắm and key figures in his inner circle.
Pass on human rights
Traditional irritants in the bilateral relationship – including human rights, labor rights, freedom of religion – are non-issues for the Trump administration.
Hanoi will be elated to get another four-year pass on human rights, which are already highly curtailed and are expected to worsen in the run up to the 14th Communist Party Congress in January 2026.
Perhaps the one exception to this could be in the high-tech sector.
Vietnam’s data, localization requirements and myriad of laws governing social media are not welcome by the U.S. tech behemoths. If there is any pushback against Hanoi, it will be here, and driven largely by corporate interests.
On the energy and environmental front, Vietnam will have a mixed relationship with the new administration, which both denies climate change and doesn’t want to be bound by multilateral agreements on CO2 reduction.
For a country like Vietnam that is being battered by an increasing number of named typhoons, and whose food security is imperiled by saltwater intrusion into the Mekong Delta, this should be troubling.
But Vietnam has backpedaled on its own climate transition plans and continues to build coal-fired power plants. Hanoi should expect a significant decline in U.S. financial support for the energy transition.
Perhaps the one area of cooperation could be in the field of critical minerals.
Following the 2010 collision between a Chinese trawler and Japanese Coast Guard patrol boats near the Senkaku Islands, China temporarily cut off the export of rare earth minerals to Japan.
While this led to the development of mining in a host of other countries, China continues to have a near monopoly on mineral reprocessing.
Vietnam has the second largest reserves of rare earth minerals after China, an estimated 22 million tons. And yet the country has very limited reprocessing capabilities. Right now, investment conditions in this sector are very poor.
Geopolitical shift
The Vietnamese public tends to like Trump for his tough stance on China, which has led to supply chain diversification to countries like Vietnam and India.
But the reality is that Vietnam is deeply tied to China’s supply chain, and any larger trade or military confrontation would be bad for Vietnam’s economy.
With little in the way of security cooperation between the United States and Vietnam, Hanoi is unlikely to feel an immediate impact from abrupt U.S. policy changes. Vietnam will quietly continue its defense modernization and supply chain diversification.
And while Hanoi’s adept multipolar diplomacy means the Vietnamese are not overly dependent on Washington, no one has maintained regional peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region more than the United States.
Vietnam will also have to adapt to any new regional security architecture that develops in the absence of U.S. leadership under Trump, who has made no secret of his disdain for alliances and partnerships.
A U.S. pullback could embolden aggression from China, which is too large and capable to deter unilaterally.
Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are going to have to reassess their relationship with Washington and should expect to be far more responsible for their own security. But they will also have to step up their security cooperation with countries like Vietnam.
The Trump administration will accelerate the multi-polar world order, something that Hanoi, with its recent partnership with the BRICS group of developing countries, wants to see.
At the same time, Vietnam is cognizant that the rules-based international order will be weakened in coming years.
Zachary Abuza is a professor at the National War College in Washington and an adjunct at Georgetown University. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Defense, the National War College, Georgetown University or Radio Free Asia.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Zachary Abuza.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on The Progressive — A voice for peace, social justice, and the common good and was authored by Melania Murphy.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Laura Flanders & Friends and was authored by Laura Flanders & Friends.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.
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.
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.
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 Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This story was reported with the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. Read their story here
On an early morning in late July, a luxury expedition cruise ship, boasting the latest in high-end Arctic travel, made a slow approach to the docks of Ny-Ålesund, a remote settlement in Norway’s Svalbard Islands.
At 79 degrees north latitude, Ny-Ålesund is the northernmost inhabited outpost on Earth. Isolated in the Arctic’s desolate winter, it hosts just 30 year-round residents.
Newayer, a Chinese travel agency, chartered the vessel for 183 tourists from Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing. Each passenger paid at least $13,000 for a two-week “Three Arctic Islands” tour, marketed as an exclusive opportunity to reach the “top of the Earth,” complete with “the luxury of Chinese hospitality.”
Clad in matching red jackets bearing a polar bear logo, the travelers disembarked at their first stop: China’s Yellow River Research Station in Ny-Ålesund.
There they marked the 20th anniversary of the station – one of several research facilities established on Svalbard by different nations. More than 100 Chinese tourists waved national flags beneath a Chinese Communist Party-style banner hung on the research station’s door. The travel agency’s blog likened the celebration to “raising the Chinese national flag during the Olympics.”
Among the participants, a woman in a People’s Liberation Army, or PLA, uniform was seen saluting and posing for photos. A PLA Ground Force patch is visible on her right arm, two professional cameras are slung over her shoulders.
The episode has raised serious alarm in Norway, according to experts and government discussions reviewed by RFA and NRK. Military function and symbolism on Svalbard is highly restricted, and a treaty that governs foreign presence on the island forbids military activity.
Yet Chinese interests have blatantly disregarded these prohibitions, in what experts say is a prime example of China’s increasing willingness to push the bounds of legal acceptability to exert its influence and power.
Indeed, RFA and NRK can reveal that at least eight tourists on the cruise were PLA veterans, with at least one still appearing to hold an on-going (though not active duty) role with the Chinese armed forces. The PLA-linked tourists participated in a co-ordinated display of nationalism in the Arctic while on board their cruise ship and on Svalbard.
The jingoistic displays align with what experts regard as “gray zone” tactics employed by Beijing, in which blurry lines between civilian and military actions are exploited to exert influence.
It comes as China-watchers warn that the West is ill-prepared to address the geopolitical consequences of this flexing of power.
“The big picture of China’s ambitions in the Arctic is that it reflects a clear, long-term strategic goal: China wants to be a significant presence in the Arctic,” says Isaac Kardon, a senior fellow for China Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington D.C. think tank.
Since declaring itself a “near-Arctic state” in 2018—despite lacking territorial claims—China has steadily built its presence through legal, military, commercial, and individual channels.
Svalbard has become the latest frontline.
An Arctic Battleground for Great Powers
A remote Norwegian archipelago roughly twice the size of Hawaii, Svalbard lies less than 1,000 kilometers from the North Pole, some 650 kilometers north of mainland Norway.
A land of dramatic peaks and glaciers, its location is of strategic as well as scientific importance. Its proximity to Russia’s Kola Peninsula—home to the Russian Northern Fleet and nuclear submarines—positions it as a critical focal point for military and resource interests.
Radar data collected from Svalbard can aid in missile trajectory calculations and satellite calibration. Experts caution that, in the event of a war, missile routes could increasingly traverse the Arctic skies—covering the shortest distance from Beijing to Washington.
“The role Svalbard might play in a large-scale conflict involving the Arctic cannot be ignored,” warns a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
RELATED STORIES
Beijing‘s ’gray zone’ tactics in the South China Sea
‘Secret’ New York police station mere of Beijing’s harassment push
Chinese agents hatched brazen plot to kidnap RFA cartoonist
“If tensions with the United States continue to worsen, the Arctic becomes the only other viable route (for China) to Europe for significant volumes of energy,” says Kardon.
As melting ice opens up new shipping lanes, the waters around Svalbard are set to become even more pivotal in global trade and shifting geopolitical dynamics.
In the face of these changes, governance of Svalbard– until now a sleepy affair– has come into focus.
A 1920 treaty granted Norway sovereignty over the archipelago while allowing signatory nations to engage in peaceful scientific and economic activities. The treaty prohibits any “warlike purposes,” and gives Norway authority to enforce these restrictions on the islands.
Russia has had a decades-long presence, first with mining operations during the Cold War. Today, there is still an active mining town, Barentsburg, and a Russian research station.
China joined the Svalbard Treaty in 1925 but didn’t establish a scientific presence until 2004; the founding of the Yellow River Research Station marked a significant step forward in its Arctic ambitions.
According to China’s official website, the station supports scientific observation, monitoring, and research in glaciology, and conducts research in ecology, space physics, atmospheric studies, and geographic information. Its goal is to “contribute to global efforts in addressing climate change and other challenges,” the website says.
Not everyone is convinced that it is all benign.
“The fact is, when we’re talking about Russia and China, we are talking about authoritarian states. There’s no such thing really as a completely civilian, independent agency, especially one with very strong strategic implications,” says Marc Lanteigne, a Political Science professor at The Arctic University of Norway.
“Any activity, regardless of how civilian in nature it is, will produce information which will get back to the Chinese military.”
Last year, Russia held what Norwegian officials described as a militaristic parade in Barentsburg—something never before seen on Svalbard—in support of Moscow’s troops in Ukraine. Dozens of trucks, tractors, and snowmobiles moved through the town waving Russian flags. A Russian company was fined for unauthorized use of a Mi-8 helicopter that flew overhead.
Norway is concerned about the rise of Russian—and now Chinese—nationalist displays on the island, says Lanteigne.
An internal report from the Norwegian Polar Institute, the governing authority on Svalbard Island, sounded alarm over the high-profile July celebration staged by the cruise ship tourists in front of the Chinese research station.
The report, seen by RFA and NRK, found the activities “particularly problematic” as they showed a clear disregard for regulations. A month before the event, Norwegian authorities had explicitly denied the station permission to hang a celebratory banner given its nationalistic nature– but the station displayed it anyway, with Chinese scientists photographed posing in front of it.
The Institute noted that tourists appeared “well-prepared” with Chinese flags and stickers, and that photographs were organized in such a way that “it is likely that the photos will be used by the Chinese authorities.”
It made specific mention of the woman in the military fatigues, which they identified as PLA garb. The report noted that the authority was unsure what to do.
Camilla Brekke, Director of the Norwegian Polar Institute later told RFA and NRK: “New Ålesund is a Norwegian research station, and we do not see it as useful for the various institutions that rent premises there to hang banners, as we want a unified research nation.”
“It would not be a successful practice if various research institutions in Ny-Ålesund start hanging such banners on the houses they rent.”
Some experts fear the government has been caught on the back foot.
“I get the feeling that the Norwegian government is still playing catch-up on this,” says Lanteigne.
The government’s overall silence about its geopolitics has consequences according to Andreas Østhagen, a Senior Fellow at The Arctic Institute think tank. “When it comes to Svalbard and foreign and security policy, Norway’s strategy has been to sit quietly and do nothing,” he wrote.
“The less frank and transparent Norway is about issues pertaining to Svalbard, the more misunderstandings and conspiracy theories are likely to emerge, even among close allies.”
Following its internal report, the Norwegian government said its representatives had met with the Chinese embassy in Oslo and reiterated the expectations for international guests, emphasizing that “all activities in Ny-Ålesund must be civil.”
They requested an explanation of the person in military dress and were told that the person “was a private citizen or cruise tourist wearing military-style clothing deemed appropriate for the Arctic wilderness,” they told RFA and NRK.
The Chinese embassy in Norway said that the cruise passengers were private tourists visiting Svalbard independently. “The Chinese scientific team in Ny-Ålesund did not invite any tourists to participate in the relevant celebration activities,” the embassy told RFA and NRK.
“China has always actively participated in Arctic affairs in accordance with international law,” it said.
It did not directly address the questions of why banners and flags were displayed despite prior warnings and why military dress was allowed.
Entering the ‘gray zone’
Fan Li, the CEO of Newayer, the tour agency, told RFA and NRK that their tour group informed the research station of its plans to stage a celebration at Yellow River, and to hang banners and wave Chinese flags outside the station. The station never objected or even raised it as an issue.
“The staff at the Yellow River Station came out to engage with us, and everyone was quite happy about that,” Li told RFA and NRK.
A video of the tour group’s celebration was posted to Newayer’s social media account. It further features eight guests telling the camera that they are PLA veterans and perform coordinated military salutes to China while a patriotic song plays as a soundtrack. Afterward, passengers gathered to share their stories of service in the PLA.
Li said that the presence of veterans on board was merely a “coincidence” and that when Newayer realized the connection, the company organized a ceremony and incorporated the clip into its video.
According to Li, all of those featured were retired, as it’s difficult for active military members in China to travel abroad.
However, one cruise participant, who identifies herself in the video as Yin Liu, was photographed wearing military garb bearing the insignia of the PLA on Svalbard. On camera, Liu says she enlisted in 1976 and fought in Vietnam in 1984 and gave the name of her unit.
Ying Yu Lin, an expert on the PLA at Tamkang University in Taiwan, identified Liu’s fatigues as a “Type 21” training uniform issued by China’s Ministry of Defense in 2023. It is restricted to military personnel and would not be accessible to civilians, Lin said. The “Type 21” uniform can be seen on the Chinese Defense Department website.
Lin added that based on her age, the uniform, and other descriptions, it was likely that Liu was a member of a local militia unit. Militia units are one of three branches of the Chinese armed forces, the other two being the PLA and the People’s Armed Police, or PAP.
Attempts to reach Liu were unanswered by press time.
But regardless of her status or those of other PLA-linked tourists, “the sight of Chinese veterans waving national flags and performing salutes in the Arctic serves as an effective piece of internal propaganda,” says Lin. “While foreign observers may overlook it, within China, it symbolizes the assertion of influence in a geopolitically significant region.”
He added: “It’s about operating within legal ambiguities—pushing boundaries without directly violating laws. This time, we see veterans in PLA uniform; next time, it could be active-duty soldiers without the uniform, gradually testing international responses and how far they can go.”
These displays represent “classic ‘gray zone’ activity—conduct that doesn’t overtly breach regulations but pushes boundaries,” according to Kardon. “On one hand, it may appear as patriotic tourists expressing national pride; on the other, it subtly normalizes a more visible Chinese presence, legitimizing scientific activities that can serve dual purposes, like gathering environmental data and military intelligence.”
Such incidents can serve to gauge reactions, particularly from Norway and other Arctic nations, helping China understand which behaviors are tolerated, he said. “Given the strategic importance of the Arctic to the U.S., Russia, and increasingly China, there is little doubt that this expanding presence is deliberate.”
Questions of diplomacy
But sources familiar with diplomatic discussions say that Norway is unlikely to take a leading role in pushing back against China.
“Like many countries, Norway just doesn’t have a lot of equities in its dealings with China,” says Kardon. Overt criticism or perceived slights can cause notable damage, like in 2010, when Beijing banned imports of Norwegian salmon after its Nobel committee awarded the Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.
But as long as that’s the case, room for more muscular tactics in the Arctic will grow. Last month as China celebrated the 75th anniversary of the People’s Republic, the Chinese Coast Guard engaged in joint operations with Russian forces in the Arctic. This was preceded in September by a meeting of Russian and Chinese officials in Beijing to discuss economic development and resource extraction in the region, and earlier, a Chinese and Russian meeting in Svalbard to explore opening a joint research center in Pyramiden, a former Soviet mining hub on the islands.
“So if you’re looking for a pattern here, I would say this is the latest version of what China and Russia are trying to do—find a way to get to the red line without crossing it,” says Lanteigne, referring to the Yellow River celebration incident. “It is a very subtle signal, one that really demonstrates that China is now starting to deviate more directly from Norway regarding what is and is not proper activity on Svalbard.”
Lanteigne views this as a pressing challenge that the Norwegian government must confront head-on.
“I think there needs to be the understanding that with the Arctic beginning to militarize as a whole, Svalbard is caught in it, whether it likes it or not.”
Edited by Boer Deng
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Jane Tang for RFA Investigative.
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.
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
This article is co-published with The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief Weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues.
Texas Democrats have long viewed the state’s growing Latino population as their ticket to eventually breaking through the Republican Party’s dominance. Tuesday night, however, showed that the GOP has made significant gains in peeling away those voters, and nowhere was that more apparent than along the border.
After years of losing the statewide Latino vote by double digits, Republicans set a high-water mark with Donald Trump capturing 55% of the critical voting bloc, besting Vice President Kamala Harris’ 44% share, according to exit polls.
In the traditionally Democratic strongholds along the border, Trump managed a near sweep.
He won 14 out of the 18 counties within 20 miles of the border, a number that doubled his attention-grabbing 2020 performance in the Latino-majority region. He carried all four counties in the Rio Grande Valley just eight years after drawing a mere 29% in the region — a feat that included delivering 97% Latino Starr County to Republicans for the first time since 1896. And, though he lost El Paso, one of the border’s most populous counties, he narrowed margins there in ways not seen in decades.
Counties Along the Border Continue to FlipTrump was the top vote-getter in a majority of the counties along the Texas-Mexico border in 2024. This continues the trend of border counties voting more conservatively in presidential races. Shown is how many counties have voted for each party’s candidate in each race since 1996.
Note: Unofficial results for 2024. (Source: Texas Secretary of State. Map: Dan Keemahill/ProPublica and The Texas Tribune.)His gains along the border were the most for a Republican presidential candidate in at least 30 years, exceeding even the inroads made by native Texan George W. Bush in 2004.
Trump’s success in appealing to heavily Latino communities was evident throughout the country as he became the first Republican presidential candidate to win Miami-Dade County in more than three decades and nearly doubled his share of the Latino vote in Pennsylvania, even after a comedian at one of his rallies called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage.” But Trump’s performance is particularly striking in Texas, where Democrats have all but tied their fate to the idea that, as long as the state’s Latino electorate continued to grow and stayed reliably blue, Republicans would one day cease to win statewide elections.
In addition to dominating the presidential race, Republicans saw other gains along the border. U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, a Republican from Edinburg, held onto a key GOP seat anchored in the Rio Grande Valley, and Republicans picked up a state Senate seat and two state House districts in South Texas that were previously held by Democrats. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who won reelection by carrying a majority of Latino voters, said the results amounted to “generational change.”
Democrats saw their own bright spots. Eddie Morales Jr., a state representative for a sprawling border district that stretches from Eagle Pass to El Paso, held onto his seat on Tuesday, though he narrowly eked out a victory two years after winning by a more comfortable 12-point margin. U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo, also won by an unexpectedly narrow margin of about 5 percentage points against a GOP challenger whom he vastly outspent.
Joshua Blank, research director for the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, said it’s too early to tell if Republican gains will hold or extend beyond Trump himself. But, Blank said, Democrats would be wise to worry about the possibility that this shift endures.
Trump’s success among Latino voters seemed to stem from an understanding that, in places like Texas, many Latinos “think of themselves as multiracial” and have grown up in communities where race and ethnicity are not top of mind, Blank said. Trump targeted Hispanic men who rarely vote by appealing “to their pocketbooks, to their masculinity, to their place in culture and society, but not directly to an identity as a racial and ethnic minority.”
“Does that mean that these voters are going to stay in the Republican column? We don’t know. Does it mean that they’re going to support somebody who’s not named Donald Trump? Unclear,” Blank said. “But he has changed the terms of the debate in a way that I think Democrats are uncomfortable with.”
Border Counties Making Rightward Shift Toward TrumpNine counties within 20 miles of the Texas-Mexico border flipped from supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 to Republican Donald Trump in 2024.
Note: Unofficial results for 2024. (Source: Texas Secretary of State. Chart: Dan Keemahill/ProPublica and The Texas Tribune)Not unlike his appeal among other constituencies, Trump won over Latino voters by hammering Harris on economic challenges that many of them — rightly and wrongly — blame on President Joe Biden.
University of Houston political science professor Jeronimo Cortina said Trump’s challenge now would be to deliver on his promises to improve voters’ economic fortunes. And he said he’d expect voters to hold Trump accountable if he doesn’t. Cortina noted that many Latinos supported Bush’s 2004 reelection, only to desert the Republican Party in favor of Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 amid a flailing economy.
“Realignments occur when there’s a sustainable change, and right now, it’s not clear we have that,” Cortina said.
He also said it would be premature to say whether Trump’s appeal — to say nothing of the Republican Party’s — was anything other than fleeting because, in local races, Latinos still tended to prefer Democrats.
One such example is the race for sheriff in Val Verde County, nearly three hours west of San Antonio.
In that race, Democrat Joe Frank Martinez held onto his seat, beating his Republican challenger after receiving 57% of the vote, even as Trump won the county with 63% of the vote.
According to Martinez, Project Red TX, a GOP-backed PAC, initially tried to get him to switch parties. When he declined, the PAC backed his opponent, who ran a campaign centered around the issue of immigration, even though that is not part of the sheriff’s job.
This year, the group supported more than 50 local candidates, primarily in border counties. The three candidates it backed in Val Verde County lost, though Wayne Hamilton, a veteran GOP operative who heads the group, noted that he also supported a number of local candidates who won their races with Trump carrying the county atop the ballot. One such case was in Jim Wells County, where Trump received 57% and the Democratic sheriff was narrowly ousted by a Republican challenger.
Hamilton said Latino voters living at or near the border flocked to Trump over what they see as the Biden administration’s “collapse in border enforcement and failing to do their job” by preventing more migrants from crossing into Texas.
Record numbers of arrivals overwhelmed border infrastructure in numerous communities. In Val Verde, some 20,000 mostly Haitian migrants arrived almost at once in 2021, forcing officials to shut the international port of entry while they figured out how to respond to the situation.
Public outcry was most acute, Hamilton said, in counties with high poverty rates where residents were more likely to feel that their community was “being overrun by people that are even poorer, with even greater needs.”
Hamilton celebrated that Trump flipped Starr by 16 points this year, a 76-point swing from his 60-point deficit there in 2016.
Down the ballot, though, Democrats, including the incumbent sheriff, managed to hold on to their positions despite aggressive campaigns on the Republican side. “All of those candidates that ran as Democrats, all won, so the Trump presidency is basically an isolated seat,” Starr County Democratic Chair Jessica Vera said.
Still, she said, if national and statewide Democrats want to keep the county blue, they need to work together with local leaders to connect with voters there.
Hamilton said some newly converted Trump voters might feel less inclined to vote against their local Democratic officials, especially in the smaller border counties, because they tend to be known in the community.
“The further down the ballot you go, it all becomes more personal,” Hamilton said. “It’s not a guy I see on TV, right? It’s the guy I go to Mass with.”
Local Democratic Party officials, including Sylvia Bruni in Webb County, a longtime Democratic stronghold, said they had warned their state and national headquarters about the advances Republicans were making in their districts. But she said she had gotten little support and instead had to rely almost entirely on whatever funds her group could raise on its own.
That’s not going to be good enough in the future, Bruni said. “We need help.”
This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by .
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 VICE News and was authored by VICE News.
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.
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.
Hello, and welcome to our special Election Day edition of State of Emergency. I’m Zoya Teirstein, and today I’m reporting from rainy Buncombe County, North Carolina. I spent the morning talking to voters at the Fairview Public Library — one of 17 temporary polling sites in the county established after Hurricane Helene caused widespread damage in late September.
North Carolina is one of many states that saw record-breaking early voting in the weeks leading up to Election Day — about 50 percent of registered voters in Buncombe, more than 115,000 people, voted early, and local election officials expect a huge turnout today as well.
“The last four years have been brutal for small business. You come out of the grocery store with a couple bags and it costs you $140 and you’re going, ‘What did I get? I got taken is what I got.’”
—Robert Lund, a home remodeler in his 50s, who said he was going to vote for Donald Trump.
Polls opened at 6:30 a.m. at Fairview Public Library, with dozens of people streaming in throughout the morning. While most are in the right place, a few voters have accidentally landed in the wrong spot. “This isn’t my location,” one man called to me as he got back into his truck.
Sean Miller, a 26-year-old Democrat who lives in Fairview, lost nearly all of her worldly possessions in Helene, and the road leading out of her community was destroyed. “We were trapped for a week,” she said, stopping to talk to me after she cast her ballot. “And there was a tree in my house.” Miller was able to find her new polling location online once her power came back on.
The storm didn’t change who she planned to vote for, Miller said, but it did deepen her conviction. “I would really like to be able to keep the National Weather Service free and accessible to everyone,” she said, referencing a Project 2025 initiative to privatize federal weather data collection. “Helene didn’t change my opinion, but it made me feel more encouraged to vote to keep basic things like that.”
Robert Lund, a home remodeler in his 50s, said he was initially concerned that the hurricane would affect his ability to vote, but he soon received information about this new polling location from the county. But like Miller, one thing the storm didn’t change was Lund’s politics. “The last four years have been brutal for small business,” he said on his way into the library. “You come out of the grocery store with a couple bags and it costs you $140 and you’re going, ‘What did I get? I got taken is what I got.’” Lund said he was going to vote for Donald Trump.
Joining me out in the field today are my colleagues Katie Myers, Grist’s reporter embedded at Blue Ridge Public Radio in western North Carolina, and Ayurella Horn-Muller, who is reporting from Florida in communities devastated by both Helene and Hurricane Milton. Check back with Grist later today for our Election Day dispatches on how voters are feeling post-hurricane and the hurdles they’ve faced while trying to vote in the wake of a disaster.
Hi everyone, this is Jake. I’m on the opposite side of the country from Zoya, in California’s agriculture-rich Central Valley, but extreme weather is affecting a critical election on this coast as well. This morning at Grist, I profiled David Valadao, a longtime congressman representing California’s 22nd District and one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House of Representatives, where the GOP has a razor-thin margin of control. Valadao is a former dairy farmer who has staked his political career on support for policies that provide more water for the agricultural industry — even when that means dismissing environmental rules. Valadao’s district has suffered historic drought in the decade since he entered Congress, and local farmers are once again staunchly supporting him this election cycle.
“Whoever’s perceived as being more likely to protect agriculture, or secure existing water deliveries and identify new ones, is going to be rewarded at the ballot box.”
—Tal Eslick, political consultant and former staffer to David Valadao
But the Central Valley is also home to numerous rural communities that don’t have reliable access to clean drinking water, and groups supporting his Democratic opponent, Rudy Salas, are trying to rally these low-income Hispanic communities to vote Valadao out. They’ve knocked on tens of thousands of doors in a district that elected Valadao by just over 3,000 votes last time around. The complex tangle of California water politics rarely makes national headlines, but this year it could decide who ends up in control of Congress.
Read my full story on Valadao here.
Are climate voters showing up?: The presidential election will likely come down to a few thousand votes in critical battleground states like Georgia. Our Grist colleagues Kate Yoder and Sachi Kitajima Mulkey look at the up-to-the-wire effort by advocacy groups and campaign volunteers to contact registered voters who care about climate change but seldom show up at the polls, urging them to cast their ballots this week. Read more
Big downballot energy races: Just 200 public officials have outsize control over the fate of the nation’s clean energy transition — and many of them are on your ballot this November. Grist reporters Emily Jones and Gautama Mehta present a rundown on the role that state public service commissions play in regulating utilities, and the critical political races voters are deciding this year that could affect clean power deployment.Read more
What the election means for plastic: The United States is one of the world’s top producers of plastic, and the next president could play a make-or-break role in addressing this crisis, according to my Grist colleague Joseph Winters. It will be up to the next administration to decide whether to push for limits on plastic production, as Biden promised to do, or to renege on that commitment and let the industry produce as much as it wants.Read more
Rafael approaches: A tropical storm system called Rafael is forming in the Caribbean Sea and may become a hurricane by later today, Election Day. The storm won’t disrupt the voting process, but it will likely make landfall somewhere around Louisiana this weekend, presenting the lame-duck Biden administration with yet another disaster challenge.Read more
Fury over floods in Spain: Protestors hurled mud at the king and queen of Spain over the weekend during their royal visit to the site of unprecedented flooding in the Valencia region. The disaster killed more than 200 people and sparked outrage from residents, who accused the government of waiting too long to send out emergency alerts.Read more
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Election Day in the disaster zone on Nov 5, 2024.
This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Zoya Teirstein.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.