Meng Wanzhou: US prosecutors reach deal in case of Huawei executive at center of diplomatic row


The agreement with Wanzhou clears a topic of dispute between US and China and could bring release of two Canadians

Meng Wanzhou has reached an agreement with US prosecutors. 

Photograph: Jennifer Gauthier/Reuters

Julian Borger in Washington and Vincent Ni
Fri 24 Sep 2021 

A senior Chinese executive from Huawei, held in Canada since 2018 on US charges of bank and wire fraud, will be allowed to leave after a deal with prosecutors, removing a major irritant from US-China relations.

Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer and daughter of the giant corporation’s founder, appeared virtually on Friday at a hearing in New York federal court from Vancouver where she was arrested in December 2018 on a US warrant. She has been under house arrest in the city since then, monitored by a private security company she pays for as part of her bail agreement.

Meng Wanzhou: ‘princess of Huawei’ who became the face of a high-stakes dispute

The Department of Justice sent a letter to the judge asking for a hearing “to address with this court a resolution of the charges against the defendant in this matter”.

The resolution of the Meng case raises hopes that China will free two Canadians, Michael Kovrig, a former diplomat, and Michael Spavor, a businessman, who were arrested days after Meng and charged, without evidence, of spying.

The arrests have significantly worsened Chinese-Canadian relations and have been one of many sources of friction in the US-China relationship. That has been made more fraught in the past few days by the formation of a new security agreement, Aukus, between Australia, the UK and the US, and a White House summit on Friday of the Quad group: the US, India, Japan and Australia.
Advertisement

The Biden administration has been insistent it is looking for areas where the US and China can work together.

Meng was indicted on bank and wire fraud charges for allegedly misleading HSBC bank on Huawei’s activities in Iran. Meng denied the charges and has been fighting extradition but as part of the plea deal unveiled on Friday, she admitted to some wrongdoing, and in return federal prosecutors agreed to defer and eventually drop the charges.

According to news reports by Reuters in 2012 and 2013, which were referred to in the US case against her, Meng and Huawei were linked to a scheme to sell computer equipment to Iran, in violation of sanctions.

“First, from the China side, China has put much pressure on the US side regarding Meng’s case. Since the beginning, China sees the Meng saga as a response to the US scheme to suppress China’s leading tech industry and regards Washington’s extradition request politically-motivated,” said Ma Ji, a senior lecturer at Peking University’s School of Transnational Law.

“And China had given Meng’s case particular weight. For instance, Beijing’s response to the Meng’s arrest in Canada – by taking two Canadian citizens in return – signals that one would play with the fire if they follow the US to undermine China’s core interests,” Ma said, adding that the US justice department may not have been sure of its evidence against Meng to be sufficiently confident in its case.

Huawei CFO strikes agreement with U.S. over fraud charges, allowing her to leave Canada

Karen Freifeld and Kenneth Li
Fri, September 24, 2021, 

1/4

Huawei CFO strikes agreement with U.S. over fraud charges, allowing her to leave Canada
Huawei Technologies Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou arrives to attend court in Vancouver

2/4

Huawei CFO strikes agreement with U.S. over fraud charges, allowing her to leave Canada
Huawei Technologies Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou arrives to attend court in Vancouver

3/4

Huawei CFO strikes agreement with U.S. over fraud charges, allowing her to leave Canada
General view of the Brooklyn Federal Courthouse in New York City



4/4

Huawei CFO strikes agreement with U.S. over fraud charges, allowing her to leave Canada
Assistant United States Attorneys arrive for a hearing for Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou CFO at the Brooklyn Federal District Courthouse in Brooklyn, New York


By Karen Freifeld and Kenneth Li

(Reuters) - Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou has reached an agreement with U.S. prosecutors to end the bank fraud case against her, officials said on Friday, a move that should allow her to leave Canada and relieve a point of tension between China and the United States.

Meng was arrested at Vancouver International Airport in December 2018 on a U.S. warrant, and was indicted on bank and wire fraud charges for allegedly misleading HSBC in 2013 about the telecommunications equipment giant’s business dealings in Iran. The bank questioned her following stories by Reuters in 2012 and 2013 about those dealings.


Her arrest sparked a political storm between the two countries, and drew Canada into the fray when China arrested a Canadian businessman and a former diplomat shortly after Meng was taken into custody.

In an exclusive on Friday, Reuters reported that the United States had reached a deferred prosecution agreement with Meng. Nicole Boeckmann, the acting U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, said that in entering into the agreement, "Meng has taken responsibility for her principal role in perpetrating a scheme to defraud a global financial institution.”

The agreement pertains only to Meng, and the U.S. Justice Department said it is preparing for trial against Huawei and looks forward to proving its case in court.

A spokeswoman for Huawei declined to comment.

At a hearing in Brooklyn federal court on Friday, which Meng attended virtually from Canada, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Kessler said the government will move to dismiss the charges against her if she complies with all of her obligations under the agreement, which ends in December 2022. He added that Meng will be released on a personal recognizance bond, and that the United States plans to withdraw its request to Canada for her extradition.

Meng - the daughter of Huawei founder, Ren Zhengfei - pleaded not guilty to the charges in the hearing. William Taylor III, an attorney representing Meng, said he was "very pleased" with the agreement, adding "we fully expect the indictment will be dismissed with prejudice after fourteen months. Now, she will be free to return home to be with her family."

Beyond solving a dispute between the United States and China, the agreement could also pave the way for the release of the two Canadians, businessman Michael Spavor and former diplomat Michael Kovrig, who have been held in China. In August, a Chinese court sentenced Spavor to 11 years in prison for espionage.

Meng, who has also used the English first names "Cathy" and "Sabrina," is confined to Vancouver and monitored 24/7 by private security that she pays for as part of her bail agreement.

"HUAWEI CONFIDENTIAL"

Articles published by Reuters in 2012 and 2013 about Huawei, Hong Kong-registered company Skycom and Meng figured prominently in the U.S. criminal case against her. Reuters reported that Skycom had offered to sell at least 1.3 million euros worth of embargoed Hewlett-Packard computer equipment to Iran's largest mobile-phone operator in 2010. At least 13 pages of the proposal were marked "Huawei confidential" and carried Huawei's logo.

Reuters also reported numerous financial and personnel links between Huawei and Skycom, including that Meng had served on Skycom’s board of directors between February 2008 and April 2009. The stories prompted HSBC to question Meng about Reuters findings.

Huawei was placed on a U.S. trade blacklist in 2019 that restricts sales to the company for activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. The restrictions have hobbled the company, which suffered its biggest ever revenue drop in the first half of 2021, after the U.S. supply restrictions drove it to sell a chunk of its once-dominant handset business and before new growth areas have matured.

The criminal case against Meng and Huawei is cited in the blacklisting. Huawei is charged with operating as a criminal enterprise, stealing trade secrets and defrauding financial institutions. It has pleaded not guilty.

Judicial hearings in her extradition case in Vancouver wrapped up in August, with the date for a ruling to be set on Oct. 21.

A Canadian government official said Ottawa would be making no comments until the U.S. court proceedings were over. ​Kovrig’s wife declined to comment. Representatives for Spavor could not be reached immediately for comment.

CHINA VS USA

Huawei has become a dirty word in Washington, with a knee-jerk reaction by China hawks in Congress to any news that could be construed as the United States as being soft despite Huawei's struggles under the trade restrictions.

Then-President Donald Trump politicized the case when he told Reuters soon after her 2018 arrest that he would intervene if it would serve national security or help secure a trade deal. Meng's lawyers have said she was a pawn in the political battle between the two super powers.

Senior U.S. officials have said that Meng's case was being handled solely by the Justice Department and the case had no bearing on the U.S. approach to ties with China.

During U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s July trip to China, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng insisted that the United States drop its extradition case against Meng.

U.S. officials have acknowledged that Beijing had linked Meng's case to the case of the two detained Canadians, but insisted that Washington would not be draw into viewing them as bargaining chips.

(Reporting by Karen Freifeld, Kenneth Li, Jonathan Stempel, David Shpardson and Michael Martina; editing by Chris Sanders and Edward Tobin)

House Democrats, galvanized by Texas ban, vote to legalize abortion nationwide

JENNIFER HABERKORN LOS ANGELES TIMES

SEPTEMBER 24, 2021 9:59 AM

• 
  

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday voted to legalize abortion nationwide until fetal viability, and even though the legislation is almost certain to fail in the Senate, it marks a historic victory for abortion rights supporters following a decades-long fight.

The 218-211 vote on the Women's Health Protection Act is the first the House has ever held to set a federal legal standard on abortion, and the first time in nearly 30 years that the House has approved what advocates consider a major proactive abortion rights bill.

Texas' recent ban on abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy has galvanized Democrats to be more forceful in their support for abortion rights and confident in the political upside of the issue.

It is a tide that has been slowly turning over the last decade, amid the election of more Democratic women to Congress, the decline of centrist Democrats who oppose abortion and the proliferation of GOP-led abortion restrictions at the state level.

"We've long been supporters of Roe vs. Wade," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "We haven't been able to codify it because we never had a Democratic, pro-choice majority [in the House] with a Democratic president, and now we do."

The Texas law — which bans the procedure only two weeks after a person could typically know of a pregnancy — allows any civilian to sue anyone who helps someone access an abortion. It has served as a wake-up call to even Congress' most ardent supporters of abortion rights, spurring the House vote to get the right to abortion enshrined into federal law.

"We cannot rely on [Supreme Court Justices] Amy Coney Barrett or Brett Kavanaugh to confirm our rights for us," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., who authored the bill. "Congress must protect the rights of women and pregnant people in every ZIP Code, putting an end to an attack on abortion once and for all."

Since the Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect, several Democrats, including moderates, rushed to join the bill, Chu said.

Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., who is personally opposed to abortion and over his career has had a mixed voting record on the issue, said the court's decision to allow Texas' law to go into effect prompted him to "evolve" on abortion rights.

"No issue has confounded me more than abortion throughout my years of public service," he wrote in the Providence Journal. "Faced with the reality that Roe might no longer be the law of the land in a few months, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support a reality where extremist state legislators can dictate women's medical decisions."

Even when Democrats have controlled the House in recent decades, there were still dozens of rank-and-file Democrats who opposed abortion, discouraging Democratic leaders from holding votes on the issue. The 2018 election marked a noticeable increase in the number of Democrats from politically contentious swing districts who leaned into abortion in their campaigns.

"It's not a coincidence that we've seen more Democrats being comfortable discussing abortion rights as we've seen more women be elected," said Kristen Hernandez, a spokeswoman for EMILY's List, a group that supports Democratic women who back abortion rights.

Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, D-Texas, who represents the Houston-area seat once held by former President George H.W. Bush, started her 2018 campaign with an ad featuring the Planned Parenthood facility where she, as a high school volunteer, tried to block antiabortion protesters.

"I'm very comfortable talking about it because I feel like our voice has not been heard," Fletcher said in an interview. "Abortion has become a wedge issue that's used to win elections instead of to govern responsibility and to acknowledge the real and fundamental rights of every person in this country to define our own destiny."

Abortion rights supporters expect the drumbeat to get only louder ahead of the 2022 midterm election, especially if the Supreme Court issues a high-profile abortion decision next summer.

"Younger generations have just taken for granted that birth control and abortion were part of the continuation of women's healthcare," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo. "This is so stark and egregious that my daughter's generation has woken up and realized that the freedoms they have enjoyed are now going to be taken away from them by a bunch of politicians."

Although abortion rights supporters have been raising alarm bells about the growing threat to access for years, particularly as former President Donald Trump's appointees were confirmed to the Supreme Court, the Texas decision startled them — a sentiment that could carry over to the ballot box next year.

"This is something that women see happening to them right now and are willing to get engaged to make sure that they're protected," said Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., another potentially vulnerable Democrat who sees no political downside to the vote.

A small number of Republicans, including Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin, have distanced themselves from the private citizens' role of Texas' law, as well as the lack of an exception for cases of rape and incest, raising questions of whether the law will be a political liability for some Republican candidates in the midterm.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an advocacy group that opposes abortion, argues that Texas' law will be forgotten as soon as the Supreme Court rules on a separate abortion case out of Mississippi over a 15-week abortion ban. In December, the court will hear arguments in the case, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and a ruling would be expected by June.

"No one will remember this bill after the Dobbs decision comes down when there will be more direct and traditional approaches in the law that reflect the will of the people," Dannenfelser said. "Even in a few months leading up to the Dobbs decision and after oral arguments, we'll be seeing what states actually want to do" if the court grants states the opportunity to set their own abortion laws.

As recently as 2009, despite a sizable Democratic majority in the House, the chamber did not have a majority of abortion rights supporters. There were 19 Democrats so adamant in their opposition to abortion that they signed a public letter saying any government health plan they supported would need to exclude abortion. Only one remains in Congress.

Since then, abortion has become starkly partisan, The political parties and outside political groups have grown more militant in excluding members who don't take the party's position on abortion.

The last House Republicans who supported abortion rights even occasionally, Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, left Congress in 2018. There are two Republicans in the Senate who have supported abortion rights, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

Democrats have similarly closed ranks. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, is thought to be the last Democrat in the House who opposes abortion.

Former Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., lost a hotly contested primary in 2020 and even lost the support of some of his fellow Democrats over his abortion position. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., who represented a very Republican district, lost his election in 2020 as well. In the Senate, Democratic Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia identify as opposing abortion.

The Women's Health Protection Act would prohibit states from enacting prohibitions on abortion until fetal viability, which is typically 24 weeks. Abortion would be legal after that point if the patient's life or health were at stake. The bill's supporters say it would "codify" the Supreme Court's Roe decision legalizing abortion.

The bill would also preempt hundreds of state abortion restrictions that advocates say have unduly hindered access, such as requirements that physicians hold credentials at a local hospital or conduct abortions in surgical facilities.

Opponents of the bill say it would threaten existing protections for healthcare workers who oppose abortion and do not want to take part in performing them, as well as limits on government funding of abortion.

"The Women's Health Protection Act is designed to remove all legal protections for unborn children on both the federal and state levels," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life.

In the Senate, leadership has not yet determined whether the bill will come up for a vote. Democrats narrowly control the 50-50 chamber because of the tiebreaking vote of the vice president, but there are only 48 public supporters.

Two Democrats, Casey and Manchin, have not signed on to the bill. Collins said she opposes the bill because it goes too far but added she is discussing drafting an alternative to codify the Roe decision. Murkowski has not taken a public position.

AUKUS: After the sugar rush

The initial high of announcing AUKUS has faded for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has returned from the United States to face a less congenial domestic agenda

Nick Witney

 24 September 2021

 
Prime Minister Boris Johnson joins US President Joe Biden and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison to announce the launch of the new AUKUS Partnership
Image byNumber 10

The British remain deeply divided about their country’s proper place in the post-Brexit world. Yet there are certain underlying attitudes towards foreigners that they have all imbibed with their mothers’ milk. One is their fondness for Australia (so many family ties; Ashes cricket; all those seductive soap operas). Another is the desire for the Americans, no matter what they think of them, to treat the United Kingdom with respect – and recognise that it still counts. And, of course, there is the pleasure the British always take in getting one over on the French (That Sweet Enemy, as an excellent history of the bilateral relationship is entitled).

No surprise, then, that last week’s announcement of the new AUKUS defence partnership, ticking all the above boxes, should have been generally well-received in the UK. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was happy to hold out to Parliament the prospect of “hundreds of highly skilled jobs”. The right-wing press was relieved to celebrate the apparent injection of some real substance to the so-far nebulous concept of Global Britain. For the prime minister, it was also a welcome chance to move on from post-mortems of the inglorious end to Britain’s Afghan misadventure. As Johnson headed to the White House, British officials were happy to imply that America’s reopening to European travellers, and President Joe Biden’s (underwhelming) pledge of new money to help poorer nations fight the climate crisis, were evidence of the restored efficacy of what they are now at pains not to call the “special relationship”.

Alas, the sugar rush did not last long. The main story coming out of the White House meeting was Biden’s reminder that the Brexiteers could forget their dream of an early trade deal with the United States, at least whilst Johnson persists in his reckless efforts to nullify the Northern Ireland Protocol – a foundation stone of his own Brexit deal. And AUKUS itself is raising awkward questions. As ex-prime minister Theresa May asked in Parliament, what would be the implications of the deal for British involvement if China attacked Taiwan? The nineteenth century British Empire, with its unrivalled naval might and domination of world trade, may have felt free to intervene in conflicts wherever it wished. But does it really make sense for a medium-sized power with a faltering economy to attempt to reprise that role today, on the far side of the globe?

Moreover, as brutal as China’s recent repression of Hong Kong and bullying of Australia has been, can the British really afford to antagonise the Chinese in their own backyard when, not so long ago, their markets and investment were cited as reasons for uncoupling from Europe with high confidence? And can the UK really expect an infuriated France to exert itself to block the cross-Channel illegal migration flows that have occasioned so much hyperventilation by the government in London this summer? Or the European Union, humiliated by AUKUS torpedoing the launch of its Indo-Pacific Strategy, to hold back from trade sanctions if Johnson persists in playing fast and loose with the Northern Ireland Protocol?

What are the British expected to bring to the party – or, to put it another way, what slice of the pie may the Americans allow them?

Then, of course, there is the question of what the British will actually get out of the new partnership. Clearly, the UK is not going to be building the submarines, after the unholy mess it has made of its latest Astute-class hunter-killer boats. There have been vague references to wider cooperation in areas such as artificial intelligence, but the only specific programmes mentioned – such as those to supply the Australians with Tomahawks, Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles, and Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles – concern American weapons systems. Is the UK, then, as the French have disobligingly suggested, just a fifth wheel on the carriage? What are the British expected to bring to the party – or, to put it another way, what slice of the pie may the Americans allow them?

The answer may lie in the Americans’ profound aversion to sharing their nuclear propulsion technology with any ally, no matter how close. They have done so only once, in 1958, to get the British started – and only after an almighty internal row to overcome the opposition of the almost-sovereign Office of Naval Reactors, under the legendary Admiral Hyman Rickover. After that, the shutters came down again; the British have been expected to manage on their own ever since. After 60 years, it is a fair bet that the once-common technology has evolved in significantly different ways. So, perhaps the Americans would feel more comfortable allowing the British to supply the nuclear propulsion plants, and to keep their own, almost certainly more advanced, technology under wraps? Or perhaps this is all still to be decided: a future submarine task force is to be allowed up to 18 months to determine the best way to acquire the boats.

For now, then, the initial high of being able to announce this surprise new partnership has faded for Johnson, who has returned from the US to face a less congenial domestic agenda – growing supply-chain difficulties, and a mounting cost-of-living crisis as energy prices skyrocket, the tax burden increases to its highest level for 70 years to keep the health service from collapse, and millions of the poorest families prepare to lose a critical £20-per-week welfare supplement. Winter is coming, and the palm-fringed shores of the Indo-Pacific will seem a very long way away.

The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of its individual authors.

AUTHOR

Nick Witney
Senior Policy Fellow

 

AUKUS: Winners And Losers – Analysis

 September 23, 2021  

By Lim Teck Ghee*

Western hypocrisy over nuclear proliferation and the key role of its armament industry in determining foreign policy is again exposed  

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his colleagues are today basking in the flag waving congratulations from patriotic and red-blooded Australians for his success in pulling off the AUKUS agreement to intensify military cooperation between Australia and its two western allies against what the trio have identified as their common enemy – China.

So how big and momentous a deal is it exactly? 

According to former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott:

“This is a historic and important decision made by the Australian government. Historic because it overturns decades of strategic caution and announces to the world that we take national security seriously.  Important because it acknowledges the scale of the strategic challenge from China and declares that Australia will play our part in meeting it.”

Hugh White, an academic from Canberra’s Australian National University, similarly noted that “the new agreement will make Australia the only non-nuclear armed country in the world to operate nuclear-powered submarines”.

“That is a very big deal indeed…In the escalating rivalry between America and China, we’re siding with the United States and we’re betting they’re going to win this one.”

More critical Australians have denounced it as a big mistake with former Prime Minister, Paul Keating arguing that Australia’s sycophancy to the US was only damaging its own interests.

Weeks earlier Keating had chastised the government for leading Australia into a “Cold War” with China.

“Australia is a continent sharing a border with no other state. It has no territorial disputes with China. Indeed, China is 12 flying hours away from the Australian coast. Yet the government, both through its foreign policy incompetence and fawning compulsion to please America, effectively has us in a cold war with China.”

Clearly this advice is being ignored by Morrison who is committed to winning a coming kaki election where according to one Australian wag, he can show off to the electorate the new hair on his chest grown with US and British assistance.   

Winners

Is Joe Biden the big winner? With the US tail between its legs from the Taliban inflicted ignominious Kabul retreat and numerous domestic challenges to overcome, he now can show off one achievement with the assistance of “that fella from down under”. 

But is it such a big victory for the US?  Available data confirms that the US has an overwhelming military superiority over China in the Indo Pacific and South China Sea regions. Although the number of US military bases in these two regions has not been publicly disclosed, what is known is that there is a very large number of US military bases ringing China. Around the world the US maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries with several hundred thousands of land, sea and air troops and other military personnel ready to take out any enemy. 

The latest addition of Australian nuclear submarines and another military base does show that Biden is more macho than Trump in foreign policy. But it will not count at all in the US’s troubled national politics or enhance America’s national security. Rather the exercise smacks of nuclear overkill. The US has presently 400 intercontinental missiles. The warheads on the ICBMs only represent one quarter of deployed US strategic warheads. More than half of deployed US strategic warheads are mounted on submarine-launched missiles. The remainder are nuclear bombs and warheads on cruise missiles bunkers that can reach Beijing, Pyongyang and Moscow and nuke them into oblivion – several times over. 

China, on the other hand, has one military base – not in Latin America or the Indo Pacific region but in Djibouti, Africa! Not only is China’s military power in land, sea and air much less than the US but its military budget is considerably smaller (see table).

Boris Johnson appears to be the bigger winner. This latest flying of the British flag in a region where it has been reduced from colonial giant to post-colonial third tier status may provide gratification and a sense of self-importance for the domestic audience. But more significant to the British power elite is the mouth watering US $90 billion contract that Morrison tore up and which the British armament industry and mass media are drooling over. The fact that it is Macron and France that this Anglophone initiative has killed off makes this perhaps the most important English victory over the French since the Battle Of Agincourt. To sooth French outrage but scarcely believable and more hypocritical to anyone who has followed British politics since Brexit is the British Prime Minister’s most recent declaration that “Our love of France is ineradicable.”

Losers

Notwithstanding the British PM’s “forever” love declaration and reminders from Australian leaders of how tens of thousands of Australians have died to defend France in past wars, France – as the big loser – will be looking for revenge. Gerard Araud, a former French ambassador to the United States, noted on twitter that the deal blind-sided France. “The world is a jungle,”  “France has just been reminded of this bitter truth by the way the US and the UK have stabbed her in the back in Australia. C’est la vie.” Harsher words have come from France’s top officials.  “There has been duplicity, contempt and lies,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian declared on France 2 television, adding relations with Australia and the United States were in “crisis”.”You can’t play that way in an alliance.”

The loss of the “contract of the century” submarine deal is not just a massive economic blow. It is also a huge political setback for French President Emmanuel Macron who is running for re-election next year. Further comments by Morrison and his cabinet members on the need for Australia to replace the ‘obsolete’ French designed Shortfin Barracuda program with a technologically superior British submarine have rubbed more salt into the open wound.  Meanwhile, the French outrage has been greeted with disapproving and contemptuous feedback from the British and Australia public. A satirist commentator has pointed out that the major problem of the French design is that it could only go into neutral or reverse drive! These and similar comments in social media may yet come back to haunt the AUKUS partners. Expect interesting times ahead for British-French relations.  

Beware the Unintended Consequences

Lord Peter Ricketts, former British ambassador to France has warned that the recall of ambassadors from the US and Australia by the French government is just “the tip of the iceberg”. According to him, “there is a deep sense of betrayal in France because this wasn’t just an arms contract. This was France setting up a strategic partnership with Australia and the Australians have now thrown that away and negotiated behind the backs of France with two Nato allies, the US and UK, to replace it with a completely different contract. I think for the French, this looks like a complete failure of trust between allies. Therefore, causing them to doubt, what is Nato for?”

This may yet turn out to be a case study for an introductory course on “Classic Foreign Policy Bungling and Disasters”.  

Away from Nato, China has warned the three countries to “abandon the obsolete cold war zero sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical concepts and respect regional people’s aspiration and do more that is conducive to regional peace and stability and development – otherwise they will only end up hurting their own interests”.

Also shattered for now and for good is the campaign for a nuclear-free Pacific backed by New Zealand and countries of the Indo-Pacific region. Australian disregard and disdain for its “little brother” and the Pacific island nations has never been more obvious.

And in the contested South China Sea region, Indonesia and Malaysia in immediate responses have expressed deep concern over the arms race being intensified by the new tripartite military pact; and called on nations to avoid provoking a nuclear arms race as well as meet their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. 

Key takeaways for now

Western hypocrisy over nuclear proliferation and the key role of its armament merchants and supporting politicians in determining foreign policy is not only again exposed from this new military pact. North Korea, Iran, Turkey and a host of other countries wanting to join the nuclear weaponry club will have greater justification for crossing what the west has set up as an elastic red line. 

As for Australian PM Morrison, he has instigated a new round of the cold war which has him pinning the target on his own country’s back as well as the backs of Asia and Pacific neighbours.

*Lim Teck Ghee, a former graduate of the Australian National University, is a political analyst in Malaysia. He has a regular column, ‘Another Take’ in The Sun, one of the nation’s print media.

US President Joe Biden with Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison (left) and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Photo Credit: White House video screenshot

SEE

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

French luxury brand Saint Laurent goes fur-free
Issued on: 24/09/2021 - 

The end of fur at Saint Laurent 

ALAIN JOCARD AFP/File

Paris (AFP)

French high-end fashion brand Saint Laurent will stop using fur in its collections from next year, its parent company Kering said on Friday, joining a growing list of global companies.

Kering brand Brioni will also forsake fur, the company said, making all the fashion group's houses fur-free.

Animal rights groups have long lobbied the global fashion industry to give up fur and several, including Versace, Chanel and Michael Kors, had already stopped using it.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) took the lead in protesting against Saint Laurent, demonstrating outside its store in the fashionable Avenue Montaigne in Paris this year after supermodel Kate Moss appeared in an advertising campaign for the brand wearing a fox coat.

"There is nothing glamorous about fur," PETA told Saint Laurent.

Within the Kering group, Gucci was the first to drop fur in 2017, followed by Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta et Alexander McQueen.

"The world has changed, along with our clients, and luxury naturally needs to adapt to that," Kering CEO François-Henri Pinault said in a statement.

Kering would be entirely fur-free from the Fall 2022 collections.

On Friday, among the fur items still available in Saint Laurent's webstore were a rabbit coat priced at 5,500 euros ($6,450), a sleeveless fox vest for the same price, and a pair of mink mules for 995 euros.

"We believe that killing animals not to eat them but only for their fur doesn't correspond to modern luxury which must be ethical, in sync with its times and the questions of our societies," Marie-Claire Daveu, head of sustainable development at Kering, told AFP.

Animal rights activists targeted Saint Laurent this year ALAIN JOCARD AFP

LVMH, the world's largest luxury group and Kering rival, meanwhile told AFP that it continued to allow its brands to meet customer demand for fur products.

These were being made "in the most ethical and responsible way possible", LVMH said, adding that it had banned all fur from endangered species.

According to PETA, 85 percent of fur sold in the world originates from animals who live their entire lives in captivity, often in conditions "of misery" and "extreme suffering".

They are usually killed by poison gas, electrocution or beaten to death with clubs, it said.

The international fur trade is estimated to be worth several tens of billions of dollars annually, employing around one million people worldwide.

© 2021 AFP 

Luxury group Kering to ditch fur completely

France’s Kering will stop using animal furs in all its collections, joining a growing list of luxury fashion houses to respond to customer demands for ethical and sustainable clothing and accessories. The decision comes four years after its star label Gucci announced it would forego fur. A number of fashion houses followed suit, including Italy's Prada, Burberry and outerwear specialist Canada Goose, which had come under fire for its use of coyote fur.

OIL WAR
Over 140 killed in clashes for Yemen's Marib: military sources

Issued on: 24/09/2021 - 

Yemen AFP/File
NG

Dubai (AFP)

More than 140 rebels and pro-government troops have been killed this week as fighting intensifies for Yemen's strategic northern city of Marib, military and medical sources told AFP Friday.

At least 51 loyalists were killed in the past four days, most of them in clashes in the province of Shabwa and the neighbouring governorate of Marib, multiple military sources said.

They added that at least 93 Iran-backed Huthi rebels also died in the fighting and from air strikes by the Saudi-led military coalition backing the government.

The Huthis rarely report casualty numbers, but figures were confirmed by medical sources.

The Huthis in February escalated their efforts to seize Marib, the government's last northern stronghold, and the fighting has killed hundreds on both sides.

Control of the oil-rich region would strengthen the Huthis' bargaining position in peace talks.

According to the military sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the Huthis have made advances and seized four districts -- one in Marib and three in Shabwa.

"Three districts in Shabwa have fallen in limited clashes and within hours," one official told AFP.

- Humanitarian crisis -

Yemen's conflict flared in 2014 when the Huthis seized the capital Sanaa, prompting Saudi-led intervention to prop up the internationally recognised government the following year.

This month marks seven years since the rebels took control of Sanaa, with some analysts saying the balance has tilted in favour of the insurgents against the coalition.

Earlier this week, Swedish diplomat Hans Grundberg, the United Nations's new envoy for Yemen, was in Oman, which has played a mediating role in the Yemen conflict.

He met with Omani and Huthi officials, including top rebel negotiator Mohammed Abdulsalam.

"Sustainable peace can only be achieved through a peacefully negotiated settlement," said Grundberg, according to a statement on Tuesday.

"It is imperative that all efforts are directed towards revitalising a political process that can produce lasting solutions that meet the aspirations of Yemeni women and men."

While the UN and Washington are pushing for an end to the war, the Huthis have demanded the re-opening of Sanaa airport, closed under a Saudi blockade since 2016, before any ceasefire or negotiations.

The last talks took place in Sweden in 2018, when the opposing sides agreed to a mass prisoner swap and to spare the city of Hodeida, where the port serves as the country's lifeline.

But despite agreeing to a ceasefire in Hodeida, violent clashes have since broken out between the rebels and pro-government troops around the strategic city.

Fighting across the country has killed tens of thousands and left about 80 percent of Yemenis dependent on aid, in what the UN calls the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

© 2021 AFP

Dozens of climate activists arrested at UK port protest

Issued on: 24/09/2021 -

The UK government has promised to get tough with the climate protesters, who have repeatedly blocked London's busy M25 orbital motorway in recent weeks 

Ben STANSALL AFP/File

London (AFP)

British police arrested 39 people Friday after dozens of climate protesters temporarily blocked access to the port of Dover, Europe's busiest ferry hub, demanding the government step up action insulating homes.

The civil disobedience demonstration is the latest by Insulate Britain, a new group whose activists have repeatedly blocked traffic on London's busy M25 orbital motorway.

Police in Kent, southeast England, said the 39 people were detained on suspicion of causing a public nuisance and obstructing a highway, after officers were alerted to people blocking roads near the port on Friday morning.

Insulate Britain said that more than 40 activists had obstructed the approaches to the eastern and western docks at Dover.

The port, which sits on the Channel coast less than 30 miles (50 kilometres) from France, handles around 17 percent of Britain's goods trade.

Traffic was brought to a standstill, but officials said the port itself remained open.

Kent police chief superintendent Simon Thompson said his officers were working with other forces, prosecutors and partner agencies "to gather evidence and ensure there are consequences for those who break the law".

Insulate Britain earlier apologised for the disruption but said it was "the only way to keep the issue of insulation on the agenda".

"We are blocking Dover this morning to highlight that fuel poverty is killing people in Dover and across the UK," a spokesperson said.

"We must tell the truth about the urgent horror of the Climate Emergency. Change at the necessary speed and scale requires economic disruption. We wish it wasn't true, but it is."

Dover, on the Channel coast in southeast England, is Europe's busiest ferry port 

JUSTIN TALLIS AFP/File

Mirroring the disruptive tactics adopted by the global Extinction Rebellion grouping in recent years, Insulate Britain has blocked motorway traffic five times since mid-September.

On Wednesday, the government won a court injunction over the M25 protests, meaning activists could be imprisoned if they block Britain's busiest motorway.

Political leaders including interior minister Priti Patel and Transport Secretary Grant Shapps have decried their tactics, warning they risk lives.

The protests come as Britain prepares to host the UN climate change conference COP26 in Glasgow in November, with hopes of firmer commitments to prevent runaway global warming.

© 2021 AFP

 

Greta Thunberg Joins Fridays for Future Rally in Berlin

2 hours ago

CC BY 4.0 / Anders Hellberg / Greta Thunberg

Thunberg's school strike inspired a series of protests against climate change around the globe, called Fridays for Future. In December 2020, she was named Time magazine's Person of the Year.

Sputnik is live from Berlin, Germany, as environmental activist Greta Thunberg is participating in a Fridays for Future youth march to call on the authorities to take political action on climate change.

To date, more than 400 events have been planned across Germany, with the Swedish activist expected to speak outside the parliament, the Bundestag.

The Fridays for Future movement is known for launching school strikes around the globe more than two years ago arguing that time was running out to stop irreversible damage from global warning.

SPUTNIK TV LIVE STREAMING

Greta Thunberg Joins Fridays for Future Rally in Berlin - 24.09.2021, Sputnik International (sputniknews.com)

Thunberg spearheads German climate protests to pressure candidates before polls

Issued on: 24/09/2021 - 1

Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg attends the Global Climate Strike 

of the movement Fridays for Future in Berlin, Germany, September 24, 2021. 

© Christian Mang, Reuters
Text by: NEWS WIRES

Tens of thousands of climate activists including Greta Thunberg began descending on German cities Friday to crank up the pressure on candidates competing to succeed Angela Merkel at this weekend's general election.

As Germany's top parties hold final rallies ahead of Sunday's vote, the Fridays for Future youth marches will make the case that the political class has let down the younger generation.

"The political parties haven't taken the climate catastrophe seriously enough," Luisa Neubauer, who runs the group's German chapter, told AFP.

She said Germany, as one of the world's top emitters of greenhouse gases, had an outsize responsibility to set an example, with time running out to reverse destructive trends.

"That is why we are calling this the election of a century," she said.

The race has boiled down to a two-way contest between Social Democrat Olaf Scholz, the moderate finance minister, and Armin Laschet from Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats.

Polls give Scholz a small lead of about 26 percent over Laschet at around 22 percent, with the candidate from the ecologist Greens, Annalena Baerbock, trailing in the mid-teens.

Despite the urgency of the climate issue for a majority of Germans, particularly in the aftermath of deadly floods in western Germany in July, this has failed to translate into strong support for the relatively inexperienced Baerbock.

She told Die Welt newspaper that she hoped Friday's rally would give her party "tailwinds" heading into the vote. "The next government has to be a climate government -- that will only work with a strong Green party."

'Unfair burden'

More than 400 "climate strikes" are planned across Germany, with the Swedish Thunberg, who inspired the movement, expected to speak outside the Reichstag parliament building.

Gathering under the banners "We are young and need the world!" and "Everything for the climate", the activists will argue the "climate crisis is this century's biggest problem".

The German protests will be part of a global climate strike in more than 1,000 communities around the world, Fridays for Future said.

Their central demand is to limit the warming of the Earth to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) as laid out in the 2015 Paris climate accord.

The Paris agreement set a goal of reducing global warming by two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels with an aspiration to go further and cap the rise to 1.5 Celsius.

Despite Merkel's vocal support of climate protection measures, Germany has repeatedly failed to meet its emission reduction targets under the pact.

In a landmark ruling in April, Germany's constitutional court found the government's plans to curb CO2 emissions "insufficient" to meet the targets of the Paris agreement and placed an "unfair burden" on future generations.

The Fridays for Future movement launched global school strikes more than two years ago arguing that time was running out to stop irreversible damage from the warming of the planet.

Greens as junior partner?

In September 2019, it drew huge crowds in cities and towns around the world including 1.4 million protesters in Germany, according to organisers.

"The climate crisis cannot be solved through party politics alone," Thunberg told reporters ahead of her appearance in Berlin.

"We can't just vote for change we also have to be active democratic citizens and go out on the streets and demand action."

Around 60.4 million Germans are called to the polls on Sunday and most voters cite climate protection among their top priorities.

All three leading parties have said they aim to implement a climate protection agenda if elected, with the Greens presenting the most ambitious package of measures.

However, the Fridays for Future activists have said even the Greens' official programme falls short of what is needed to stick to the 1.5 degree Celsius temperature rise.

The Greens want to end coal energy use by 2030 instead of the current 2038 and end the production of combustion engine cars the same year.

While the party is expected to fall far short of its ambition to win the election Sunday and place Baerbock in the chancellery, polls indicate it has a good chance of joining a ruling coalition as a junior partner under Scholz or Laschet.

(AFP)

Thunberg tells Germans 'no party' doing enough on climate

Issued on: 24/09/2021 -

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg told cheering supporters they need to keep the pressure on Germany's politicians after the election too

 Tobias SCHWARZ AFP

Berlin (AFP)

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg told thousands of demonstrators in Berlin ahead of Germany's general election on Sunday that "no political party" was doing even nearly enough to fight the climate crisis.

Speaking at a rally on Friday in front of the Reichstag parliament building, Thunberg told cheering supporters they needed to keep up the pressure on Germany's political leaders past election day.

"It is clearer than ever that no political party is doing close to enough. But it's even worse than that. Not even their proposed commitments are close to being in line with what would be needed to fulfil the Paris Agreement" on curbing climate change, she said.

"Yes, we must vote, you must vote, but remember that voting only will not be enough. We must keep going into the streets."

As Germany's top parties were set to hold final rallies, the Fridays for Future youth movement said it was holding strikes in more than 400 German cities and towns.

  

Thunberg's Fridays for Future youth movement said it was holding strikes in more than 400 German cities and towns 

Tobias SCHWARZ AFP

At the largest event in Berlin, Thunberg said the political class was failing younger generations.

"We need to become climate activists and demand real change because remember: change is now not only possible, it is also urgently necessary," she said.

"When enough people demand change, then change will come on election day."

The race has boiled down to a two-way contest between Social Democrat Olaf Scholz, the centrist finance minister, and Armin Laschet from Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats. They were set to address crowds later Friday, in Cologne and Munich respectively.

Polls give Scholz a small lead with about 26 percent over Laschet at 22 percent. The candidate from the ecologist Greens, Annalena Baerbock, trails in the mid-teens.

Thunberg stopped short of endorsing the Green party, whose programme Fridays for Future activists argue falls short of what is needed to effectively curb global warming.

© 2021 AFP

German youth returns to the streets to fight climate change

Issued on: 24/09/2021 -

Young people around the world began taking to the streets on Friday to demand urgent action to avert disastrous climate change, in their largest protest since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. FRANCE 24's Emmanuele Chaze reports from the streets of Berlin, Germany.

In German election, young hunger strikers seek climate promises

Issued on: 24/09/2021 - 

Video by:Douglas HERBERT

In one of the world's most aged countries, some young people are resorting to drastic measures to voice their frustration at politicians' failure to tackle climate change. Outside Germany's parliament, a group of activists have been on hunger strike since Aug. 30, bringing their demands for more action on climate change in person to the three candidates to succeed Angela Merkel.

   

Thunberg rallies climate activists for German vote 'of a century'

Issued on: 24/09/2021 -

Tens of thousands of climate activists, including Greta Thunberg, rallied in cities across Germany Friday ahead of the weekend general election to crank up the pressure on the candidates to succeed Angela Merkel. Speaking at a rally in front of the Reichstag parliament building in the run-up to Sunday's poll, Thunberg told cheering Fridays for Future youth supporters that they needed to hold Germany's political leaders to account past election day.

Indian state hit by protests after two killed in eviction drive

Issued on: 24/09/2021 - 

Students in New Delhi took to the streets to protest the eviction

 of Muslims and police tactics in Assam state Sajjad HUSSAIN AFP

New Delhi (AFP)

Thousands staged protests in India's Assam state on Friday, a day after two people were killed when hundreds clashed with police over the state government's eviction of Muslim families from their homes.

Assam's government has faced widespread condemnation over the tactics used to eject the families, with critics pointing to them as the latest example of discrimination against Muslims under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi called the police use of guns against protesters "state-sponsored fire". Police said they were attacked with machetes and bamboo sticks.

Assam's chief minister Himanta Biswas Sarma, a BJP member, said the police were only doing their duty, but halted the evictions on Friday.

Other rallies were organised by student groups, with some burning an effigy of the chief minister.

In New Delhi, a dozen students were detained by police as they too protested against the incident.

The viral video from Thursday showed police in riot gear beating a protestor who had fallen to the ground seconds after gunshots were heard.

A photographer, hired by district officials to film the evictions, jumped on the man and was seen punching the body multiple times.

The photographer has since been arrested, according to police.

Leaders of India's 170 million Muslims say they have been unfairly targeted since Modi's party came to power in 2014.

They say a controversial nationality law that sparked riots in Delhi in 2020, and hate crimes including lynchings, have all increased fear in their community.

© 2021 AFP