China is in the process of passing a new law that would deal with Hong Kong, largely until now considered part of China, yet independent, that would be aimed at “secession, subversion, and terrorism” Beijing rejects the idea that their Central Government is somehow limiting the autonomy of the people of Hong Kong and that the bill is aimed more at subversion. Hong-Kong’s Chief Executive Lam refused to comment on the legislation stating that she would not comment on a piece of legislation until it becomes law. Analysts point out also that it lets China have a say over the judges when it comes to national security concerns.
Advertisements
Anna Corren, a CNN correspondent states that it is 1. the end of 1 country 2 systems, we’ve been expecting this law for a long time. 2. CNN stated that protesters would likely end up in jail, Anna says it’s China taking control of Hong Kong again. 3. The maximum penalty would be life in prison rather than 10 years what was originally thought. 4. Chinese officials operating in Hong Kong is new– this is the first time that it’s happened. Joshua Wong, an activist on Twitter that helped start the pro-democracy movements on Twitter tweeted that it “marks the end of Hong Kong that the world knew before.
This bill would give China much more sway over internal matters of Hong-Kong, and young people are in fear that their protest movement, that happened last year will not be able to last much longer. This changing of status with Hong Kong in terms of self-governance has lead the United States to issue a proclamation rescinding its special status with Hong Kong.
Advertisements
In the 1990s, Hong Kong was given back to China on the condition that it would respect its autonomy and that it would allow their country to be Democratic. Hong Kong maintains certain freedoms that China doesn’t have such as free-speech, a judiciary system, and the right to protest. With Hong Kong being much more involved, it’s being questioned how much longer those are likely to last, or, if they’ll still be lasting at all. With protesters being fearful of China already, the notion of China somehow becoming more involved with Hong-Kong really scares some younger protesters and makes some of them want to leave.
Hong Kong security law appears to be reasonable but upon further analysis, it targets people all over the world.
The controversial new Beijing law was just released, after it was passed. On its face, it doesn’t seem that bad, however, in practice, hundreds of protesters have been arrested on the same day that the bill was passed. But, multiple critics, point to the extra-territorial nature of the bill, stating that it covers everyone globally.
Advertisements
Looking at the text, the text seems to try to make it clear that it’s going after people who commit offenses in the region, and that they don’t have to be from the region to be punished, rather than simply just writing a text that’s anti-China, but, it’s still new, China does not have a good track record when it comes to respecting the rule of law, and already, as, we can see, the police-force were prepped with the passing of the law to take enforcement action against Hong Kong protesters.
Human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The rights and freedoms, including the freedoms of speech, of the press, of publication, of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration, which the residents of the Region enjoy under the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong, shall be protected in accordance with the law.
Beijing is claiming that they are ONLY targeting the “subversion of state power, terrorism, and collusion with foreign entities”, per NPR [1], and, each crime will have life in prison. Beijing will be operating their own national security agency and their national security forces in Hong Kong for the first time that will be only answerable to China.
Per NPR, “With this law being superior to all local law and the Basic Law (Hong Kong’s constitution) itself, there is no avenue to challenge the vague definitions of the four crimes in the law as violating basic rights,” states Michael C. Davis, who is a fellow at the Wilson Center. “Beijing is setting itself as the ultimate authority over Hong Kong giving them no resource in the final decision.”
Donald Clark, a Professor of Law at George Washington, is not alone in stating that the law would be extra-territorial in-scope. It would not just target residents of China, but, article 38 of the law would target everyone on the globe.
Advertisements
Anyone who is an official in Hong Kong has to also swear to China as well according to official text of the law. As CNN originally reported, China stated that the law will only affect a small number of people, in terms of national security. They say they are not going after the Democracy movement and they respect that Hong Kong has a plurality of political beliefs.
Chan Kin-Man, a professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who is also a co-founder of the 2014 Occupy Central protests, states that with the new law, there is no difference between Hong Kong and China, what’s not clear is the global implications that this bill will have– this bill seems more targeted at the protest movement, and protesters have already begun deleting their Twitter accounts, and preparing for the worst. So, it should be clear to anyone right now that what China says and what they do are two very different things.
If you enjoy our writing, please consider leaving a small donation. Your support helps keep the lights on and allows us to hire more writers and pay our current writers.
Some analysts believe North Korea would avoid serious negotiations with the U.S. at least until the November presidential election.
North Korea on Saturday reiterated it has no immediate plans to resume nuclear negotiations with the United States unless Washington discards what it describes as “hostile” polices toward Pyongyang.
Advertisements
The statement by North Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui came after President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, told reporters in New York Thursday that Trump might seek another summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as an “October surprise” ahead of the U.S. presidential election.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who had lobbied hard to help set up the now-stalled negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang, also expressed hope that Trump and Kim would meet again before the election in a video conference with European leaders on Tuesday.
Kim and Trump have met three times since embarking on their high-stakes nuclear diplomacy in 2018, but negotiations have faltered since their second summit in February last year in Vietnam, where the Americans rejected North Korean demands for major sanctions relief in exchange for a partial surrender of its nuclear capability.
Kim entered 2020 vowing to bolster his nuclear deterrent in face of “gangster-like” U.S. sanctions and pressure. Choe’s statement followed a series of similar declarations by the North that it would no longer gift Trump with high-profile meetings he could boast of as his foreign policy achievements unless it gets something substantial in return.
“Is it possible to hold dialogue or have any dealings with the U.S. which persists in the hostile policy toward the DPRK in disregard of the agreements already made at the past summit?” Choe said, referring to North Korea by its formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
“We do not feel any need to sit face-to-face with the U.S., as it does not consider the DPRK-U.S. dialogue as nothing more than a tool for grappling its political crisis,” she said.
North Korea possibly holding off talks until after November election
Some analysts believe North Korea would avoid serious negotiations with the United States at least until the November presidential election as there’s a chance U.S. leadership could change.
Choe said the North has already established a “detailed strategic timetable” for managing what she described as U.S. threats.
“The U.S. is mistaken if it thinks things like negotiations would still work on us,” she said.
The North in recent months have also been ramping up pressure against South Korea, blowing up an inter-Korean liaison office in its territory and threatening to abandon a bilateral military agreement aimed at reducing tensions. It follows months of frustration over Seoul’s unwillingness to defy U.S.-led sanctions and restart joint economic projects that would breathe life into the North’s broken economy.
The North’s state media on Friday said that Kim, while supervising a Politburo meeting of the ruling Workers’ Party on Thursday, discussed “import issues related to the external affairs” but didn’t specify what they were.
If you enjoy thearticles that The Washington Ledger provides you, please consider leaving a small donation. Your support helps keep the lights on and allows usto hire more writers and pay our current writers.
Intelligence officials claim to have warned Donald Trump about a Russia-Taliban bounty plot targeting American troops.
White House officials had knowledge of Russia secretly offering bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan for the death of Americans. A whole year earlier than what was previously reported.
Advertisements
The report was filed in one of President Donald Trump’s daily intel briefings at the time. Former National Security Adviser John Bolton told officials he briefed Trump on the intelligence in March 2019.
The White House has been dodging questions about Trump or other officials’ awareness of Russia’s actions in 2019. The White House is claiming Trump has not been briefed on the intelligence because it has not been fully verified.
Bolton declined to comment Monday when asked by the AP if he’d briefed Trump about the matter in 2019. On Sunday, he suggested to NBC that Trump was claiming ignorance of Russia’s provocations to justify his administration’s lack of response.
“He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it,” Bolton said.
The revelations cast new doubt on the White House’s efforts to distance Trump from the Russian intelligence assessments. The AP reported Sunday that concerns about Russian bounties also were in a second written presidential daily briefing this year and that current national security adviser Robert O’Brien had discussed the matter with Trump. O’Brien denies doing that.
On Monday, O’Brien said that while the intelligence assessments regarding Russian bounties “have not been verified,” the administration has “been preparing should the situation warrant action.”
The administration’s earlier awareness of the Russian efforts raises additional questions about why Trump didn’t take punitive action against Moscow for efforts that put the lives of American service members at risk. Trump has sought throughout his time in office to improve relations with Russia and President Vladimir Putin, moving this year to try to reinstate Russia as part of a group of world leaders it had been kicked out of.
Intel community didn’t have enough details to form a response
Officials said they didn’t consider the intelligence assessments in 2019 to be particularly urgent, given Russian meddling in Afghanistan isn’t a new occurrence. The officials with knowledge of Bolton’s apparent briefing for Trump said it contained no “actionable intelligence,” meaning the intelligence community didn’t have enough information to form a strategic plan or response. However, the classified assessment of Russian bounties was the sole purpose of the meeting.
The officials insisted on anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose the highly sensitive information.
The intelligence that surfaced in early 2019 indicated Russian operatives had become more aggressive in their desire to contract with the Taliban and members of the Haqqani Network, a militant group aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan and designated a foreign terrorist organization in 2012 during the Obama administration.
Advertisements
The National Security Council and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence held meetings regarding the intelligence. The NSC didn’t respond to questions about the meetings.
Late Monday, the Pentagon issued a statement saying it was evaluating the intelligence but so far had “no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations.”
“Regardless, we always take the safety and security of our forces in Afghanistan — and around the world — most seriously and therefore continuously adopt measures to prevent harm from potential threats,” said Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman.
Concerns about Russian bounties flared anew this year after members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000 in U.S. currency. The funds bolstered the suspicions of the American intelligence community that Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and linked associations.
The White House contends the president was unaware of this development, too. The officials told the AP that career government officials developed potential options for the White House to respond to the Russian aggression in Afghanistan, which was first reported by The New York Times. However, the Trump administration has yet to authorize any action.
Intelligence on the Russian bounties came from captured Taliban militants
The intelligence in 2019 and 2020 surrounding Russian bounties was derived in part from debriefings of captured Taliban militants. Officials with knowledge of the matter told the AP that Taliban operatives from opposite ends of the country and from separate tribes offered similar accounts.
Advertisements
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied Russian intelligence officers had offered payments to the Taliban in exchange for targeting U.S. and coalition forces.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the Taliban’s chief negotiator, a spokesman for the insurgents said Tuesday, but it was unknown whether there was any mention during their conversation of allegations about Russian bounties. Pompeo pressed the insurgents to reduce violence in Afghanistan and discussed ways of advancing a U.S.-Taliban peace deal signed in February, the Taliban spokesman tweeted.
The U.S. is investigating whether Americans died because of the Russian bounties. Officials are focused on an April 2019 attack on an American convoy. Three U.S. Marines were killed after a car rigged with explosives detonated near their armored vehicles as they returned to Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan.
The Defense Department identified them as Marine Staff Sgt. Christopher Slutman, 43, of Newark, Delaware; Sgt. Benjamin Hines, 31, of York, Pennsylvania; and Cpl. Robert Hendriks, 25, of Locust Valley, New York. They were infantrymen assigned to 2nd Battalion, 25th Marines, a reserve infantry unit headquartered out of Garden City, New York.
Hendriks’ father told the AP that even a rumor of Russian bounties should have been immediately addressed.
“If this was kind of swept under the carpet as to not make it a bigger issue with Russia, and one ounce of blood was spilled when they knew this, I lost all respect for this administration and everything,” Erik Hendriks said.
Three other service members and an Afghan contractor were wounded in the attack. As of April 2019, the attack was under a separate investigation, unrelated to the Russian bounties.
The officials who spoke to the AP also said they were looking closely at insider attacks from 2019 to determine if they were linked to Russian bounties.
If you enjoy thearticles that The Washington Ledger provides you, please consider leaving a small donation. Your support helps keep the lights on and allows usto hire more writers and pay our current writers.
In the 1970s, after Martial Law was established by Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s, she fled to the United States where she got her education. She learned at Princeton University and she later returned to the Philippines to “find roots” as this article suggests. She came back to the Philippines around the time the 1986 People Power Revolution occurred at the same time, “I realized ‘oh my God, somebody could pay me to write a story'”.
She’s been the bureau chief for CNN in the Philippines and Indonesia, and headed the news division TV channel ABS-CBN for Philippines as well. Her recent endeavor, Rappler, was called that as a throwback to rap, so as to make ripples. Observers have remarked that she’s been essential to Rappler’s success, as well, due to her international connections. Due to her Government criticism, especially with that on the War on Drugs, human rights, and corruption, has gotten the attention of Duterte.
“If you are trying to throw garbage at us, then the least that we can do is explain – how about you? Are you also clean?”
Last year, the President revoked the websites operating license and they banned their reporters from covering his official activities. It’s seen as a political bludgeon by her supporters. But, it should be noted, that BBC says that while she’s perceived very popularly on social-media, Duterte’s high popularity has other people viewing her in the lenses of an elite. She’s out-of-touch to the rest of the Philippines other than those who like her.
The charges against her were that she repeated an article in 2012 , and updated the page, and that the judge ruled that updating the page was republication despite the cease-and-desist order. The Committee to Protect Journalists rejected the move, saying, “it deprived the public of crucial news and information when they needed it most”. The group is also saying that a recent law, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, needs to be modified so that journalists won’t be targeted. Section 9 of this law makes incitement of terrorism illegal and lists a wide variety of categories, such as speeches and proclamations, writings, that if could be construed as pro-terrorism, could be problematic under the law.
Advertisements
Duterte has made off-the-cuff comments that have drawn much criticism from those who dislike him in the Philippines, whom, acts tough, as the author of this BBC piece suggests. He’s said he would be “happy to slaughter them” when it came to drug addicts. He’s been cracking down on addicts and users. He’s threatened to end his partnership with the UN, joke about rape and sexual abuse, and, called US Obama and the Pope a “Son of a —–” (had to censor because it would be too vulgar), and, that God was “stupid”, and another item which is too obscene to really repeat in print.
Advertisements
His authoritarian tendencies tend to frighten opponents. It should be mentioned that he sees himself as a reformer, he wants to change the Philippines to a more parliamentarian system from a more centralized system which is where it is right now. His huge victory in 2019 gave him a majority in their upper house, enough to the point where he can push those reforms. He can also use his power to push for more controversial policies– which might be why the Philippines are where they are with the Rappler news site. When it comes to comparisons with Trump, he would like people to think there is no comparison.
If you enjoy thearticles that The Washington Ledger provides you, please consider leaving a small donation. Your support helps keep the lights on and allows usto hire more writers and pay our current writers.
The Washington Ledger 