Family of black Frenchman who died in police custody call for protests

PARIS (Reuters) - The family of a black Frenchman who died in police custody in circumstances similar to the killing of George Floyd in the United States spurned talks with the justice minister and called on Tuesday for more street protests instead.

Adama Traore was celebrating his 24th birthday on July 19, 2016, when three police officers used their weight to restrain him. By the time he arrived at the police station, he was unconscious and could not be revived.

Medical experts differ on whether Traore died because of the restraint or because of an underlying medical condition.

His family demands that the officers involved be held to account and thousands marched in their support in Paris last Saturday. No one has ever been charged with Traore’s death.

“We’re demanding acts of justice, not discussions” Assa Traore, Adama’s sister, told a press conference.”We’ll protest in the streets, every week, if necessary.”

The family and ‘Truth for Adama’ campaign group called for a mass protest in central Paris on Saturday.

Worldwide anger over the killing of Floyd, including in France, has given new momentum to the Traore family’s campaign. Accusations of brutality and racism against French police remain largely unaddressed, rights groups say.


FILE PHOTO: Assa Traore, sister of Adama Traore, a 24-year-old black Frenchman who died in a 2016 police operation, poses during an interview with Reuters in Beaumont-sur-Oise, near Paris, June 7, 2020. REUTERS/Lucien Libert

France has at times fallen short in treating all people equally, a founding principle of the Republic, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe said after meeting police officers in a Paris suburb. The police must also be shown respect, he added.

Describing the conditions in which Floyd died as “monstrous”, Philippe acknowledged that the worldwide outpouring of emotion “resonated with the fears and feelings of a part of the French population”.

“Collectively, we have not always necessarily been up to the challenge of the Republic’s principles.”

The government said on Monday it was banning a chokehold used to detain suspects and it promised zero tolerance for racism among police.

Reporting by Lucien Libert and Matthieu Protard; writing by Richard Lough; editing by Nick Macfie and Gareth Jones

London's statues from 'bygone' imperial past to be reviewed, mayor says

LONDON (Reuters) - London mayor Sadiq Khan has ordered a review of the capital’s statues and street names after the toppling of the statue of an English slave trader by anti-racism protesters triggered a debate about the demons of Britain’s imperial past.

A statue of Edward Colston, who made a fortune in the 17th century from trading West African slaves, was torn down and thrown into Bristol harbour on Sunday by a group of demonstrators taking part in a wave of protests following the death of George Floyd in the United States.

Khan said a commission would review statues, plaques and street names which largely reflect the rapid expansion of London’s wealth and power at the height of Britain’s empire in the reign of Queen Victoria.

“Our capital’s diversity is our greatest strength, yet our statues, road names and public spaces reflect a bygone era,” Khan said. He said some statues would be removed.

“It is an uncomfortable truth that our nation and city owes a large part of its wealth to its role in the slave trade and while this is reflected in our public realm, the contribution of many of our communities to life in our capital has been wilfully ignored.”

In the biggest deportation in known history, weapons and gunpowder from Europe were swapped for millions of African slaves who were then shipped across the Atlantic to the Americas. Ships returned to Europe with sugar, cotton and tobacco.

As many as 17 million African men, women and children were torn from their homes and shackled into one of the world’s most brutal globalized trades between the 15th and 19th centuries. Many died in merciless conditions.

Those who survived endured a life of subjugation on sugar, tobacco and cotton plantations. Britain abolished the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1807 although the full abolition of slavery did not follow for another generation.

Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Nick Macfie

Protesters gather to mark 'million-people' march anniversary in Hong Kong

Jessie Pang, Yoyo Chow

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hundreds of protesters gathered in central Hong Kong on Tuesday to mark a year of sustained pro-democracy rallies as fears over looming national security legislation have reignited unrest in the global financial hub.

The crowd defied a government ban on gatherings of more than eight people due to the coronavirus, as well as a heavy riot police presence on the streets, with officers repeatedly seen conducting searches on those passing through the area.

Earlier on Tuesday, protesters gathered in several shopping malls to chant pro-democracy slogans, dispersing peacefully after an hour.

Some held placards reading “We can’t breathe! Free HK” and “Young lives matter”, nods to U.S. protests against police brutality sparked by the death of black American George Floyd.

“I am scared but I need to protest against national security laws. It’s important to continue to fight for freedom,” said 25-year-old Tai, who declined to give his full name.

Last year on June 9, an estimated more than one million protesters took to the streets against proposed legislation to allow extraditions to mainland China, where the courts are controlled by the Communist Party.
Pro-democracy demonstrators march holding their phones with flashlights on during a protest to mark the first anniversary of a mass rally against the now-withdrawn extradition bill, in Hong Kong, China June 9, 2020. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu

The government later withdrew the bill but widespread concern lingered that Beijing was stifling freedoms in the former British colony, sparking months of often-violent unrest.

Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam warned on Tuesday that the city, which has enjoyed a high degree of autonomy since returning to Chinese rule in 1997, cannot afford further “chaos.”

“All of us can see the difficulty we have been through in the past year, and due to such serious situations we have more problems to deal with,” Lam told a weekly news conference.

“We need to learn from mistakes, I wish all lawmakers can learn from mistakes - that Hong Kong cannot bear such chaos.”

Almost 9,000 people, aged between 11 and 84, were arrested in protests over the past year, police said late on Monday. More than 600 were charged with rioting.

Activists, as well as many diplomats and business leaders fear national security laws targeting subversion, secession, treason and foreign interference will further undermine Hong Kong freedoms, including its independent legal system. The laws could also see mainland intelligence agencies set up shop.

“The crackdown is getting more and more severe,” said gym trainer Lee, 32.

More protests are planned in coming days and union leaders have said they intend to hold a referendum among their members on Sunday on whether to launch a city-wide strike.

Authorities have insisted the laws will focus on small numbers of “troublemakers” who pose a threat to national security and will not curb freedoms or hurt investors. Lam cautioned against the strike plans.

Prominent pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong said the world had witnessed “the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong, with Beijing tightening its grip over the city’s liberties”.

“I have strong confidence in Hongkongers that we will have ways to resist and defy,” Wong posted on Twitter. “Moreover, I hope the world can stand with Hong Kong and protect the city from falling.”

Washington has said it would remove Hong Kong’s special treatment in U.S. laws as it deemed the city to no longer be sufficiently autonomous. The European Union, Britain and others have expressed concerns about the proposed legislation, while Beijing hit back against foreign meddling in its affairs.

Reporting by Jessie Pang, Carol Mang, Yanni Chow, Donny Kwok, Clare Jim and Noah Sin; Writing by Anne Marie Roantree and Marius Zaharia; Editing by Tom Hogue, Jane Wardell and Nick Macfie

A year on, Hong Kong democracy protesters torn between hope and fear

Yanni Chow, Carol Mang

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Medical sector worker Tana has attended peaceful lunchtime rallies in Hong Kong regularly for months along with thousands of others protesting Beijing’s influence and calling for greater democracy in the global financial hub.

Now, a year on from a mass rally that kicked off a large scale and often violent anti-government movement, 37-year-old Tana and her husband fear not enough has changed.

The protests succeeded in forcing a backdown by the Hong Kong government on proposed legislation that would have allowed extradition to mainland China. But a year later, authorities in Beijing are drafting national security laws that activists fear would further curb freedoms.

For Tana and her family, including a son born just before the protests began, pragmatism is beginning to trump idealism.

“I am most worried about my child,” Tana told Reuters, requesting her surname be withheld for security reasons. The family has already shifted their savings abroad, she said, and “emigration might be an option.”

Among supporters of the protest movement, feelings range from slim hope to acute fear of oppression. After a relative respite during the coronavirus outbreak, protesters are again taking to the streets against the proposed security laws. Officials have said the laws would target a small number of “troublemakers” with provisions against secession, subversion, terrorism and foreign interference.

Ng, a retired 63-year-old woman is among those looking back at the past year with pride and pledges to keep demonstrating.

“A single spark can start a huge blaze,” she said, also requesting she be identified by one name only. “The more the government suppresses us, the more resisting we become.”
Pro-democracy demonstrators stage a rally for the first anniversary of a mass rally against the now-withdrawn extradition bill, at a shopping mall in Hong Kong, China June 9, 2020. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu

David, 22, who works in insurance and declined to give his surname, said a mix of violent and peaceful tactics was needed for international attention.

David said he “sometimes felt overwhelmed with fear” when he helped at rallies by mixing petrol bombs and disabling tear gas canisters, but he felt compelled to continue.

Demonstrations have often turned violent, with protesters blocking roads, vandalising shops perceived to have pro-Beijing links and throwing bricks and molotovs at the police, who have responded with tear gas and rubber bullets.

Isaiah Choy, who studies in Britain but came back last year to take part in peaceful protests, said violent tactics should be abandoned. The 21-year-old said he is frustrated with Hong Kong being treated as a “pawn” in U.S.- China conflicts.

Washington, which has traded barbs with Beijing over trade, the coronavirus pandemic and other issues, says China has quashed the high degree of autonomy that Hong Kong was promised for at least 50 years when it returned from British to Chinese rule in 1997. Beijing has dismissed the claim and urged Washington not to meddle.

MUTUAL DESTRUCTION

The protests have strong support among Hong Kong’s 7.5 million people, according to opinion polls, with about one third of the population opposed.

Keung, 50, said he supported national security laws and hoped the pro-democracy movement “will end soon because evil can never prevail over good.”

“It is normal for the government to set up laws to tighten its grip when people are violating the previous ones,” Keung, who also gave one name only, told Reuters.

Others vow to continue to protest for as long as it takes.

Sixty-four-year-old retiree Fu has embraced the often chanted slogan “if we burn, you burn with us,” referring to the belief that as a magnet for global capital, Hong Kong is the goose that lays the golden eggs for the mainland economy.

Fu said he has lost many childhood friends because of his position, but he has no regrets: “I am a die hard fan of mutual destruction and Hong Kong independence.”

Writing by Marius Zaharia; editing by Jane Wardell

WHITE RIGHT WING EVANGELICALS VS SOCIAL JUSTICE CHRISTIANITY

After George Floyd's death, a groundswell of religious activism

Andrea Shalal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - George Floyd’s death has triggered a groundswell of outrage and activism by religious leaders and faith-based groups across the United States, reminiscent of what occurred during the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Protesters march past St. John's Church during a rally against the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd, near the White House in Washington, U.S., June 7, 2020. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Conservative and mainstream religious leaders are joining with Black churches, progressive Catholics and Protestants, Jewish synagogues and other faith groups in calling for police reforms and efforts to dismantle racism.

Floyd, a 46-year-old African-American man, died after a white Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes on May 25. The officer has been fired and charged with second-degree murder, but protesters and activists around the world are pushing for deeper change.

“We’re seeing it at the grassroots level. We’re seeing rabbis walking alongside Muslim leaders, walking alongside Catholic priests and religious sisters,” said Johnny Zokovitch, executive director of Pax Christi USA, a national Catholic peace and justice group. “We are seeing that race cuts across all religious denominations.”

More than 1,000 rabbis, pastors, imams and other religious leaders held an online conference last week to brainstorm ways to address systemic violence against African Americans.

There is a new “breadth and depth” in the faith-based response, said one participant, Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, citing a great hunger for connection after months of social distancing and lockdown because of the coronavirus pandemic.

“Folks are just so angry. They’re angry about enduring racism, they’re angry about the incompetent response to COVID, they’re angry about bigotry and racism, about anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and white supremacy,” he said.

Progressive religious groups had an important role in shaping the emerging movement, much as they did in the civil rights movement, but today’s actions are attracting a more diverse set of participants, Pesner said.

ELECTION ISSUERepublican Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election with strong support from evangelical Christians and Catholics. But Floyd’s death and Trump’s criticism of protesters may be a factor when members of those religious groups go to the polls in November.


While federal tax rules prevent houses of worship from taking an overt partisan stance, clergy are not banned from expressing their personal opinions.

Trump was sharply criticized by mainstream Catholic and Episcopal leaders after protesters were forcibly cleared for a staged photo of him last week in front of Washington’s historic St. John’s Episcopal Church across from the White House.

Some right-leaning religious leaders have since called him out or joined protests, unlike in the 1960s when some white evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Billy Graham, did not here take part in the civil rights movement.

Televangelist Pat Robertson chided the president last week for threatening to send in military troops if governors did not quell violent protests. “He spoke of them as being jerks. You just don’t do that, Mr. President. It isn’t cool!”

Joel Osteen, the senior pastor from Texas megachurch Lakewood, marched with protesters last week in Houston. “We need to stand against injustice and stand with our Black brothers and sisters,” said Osteen.

Republican Senator Mitt Romney, a Mormon, joined hundreds of Christian evangelicals at a march in Washington on Sunday, and tweeted here out "Black Lives Matter."



FILE PHOTO: U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) marches during a protest against racial inequality in the aftermath of the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd, in Washington, U.S., June 7, 2020. Mitt Romney/Social Media via REUTERS


Some churches have also stepped up efforts to boost voter registration in recent weeks, much as churches did in the 1960s.

Data collected after Floyd's death from the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute showed here 37% of white Catholics held favorable views of Trump, down from 49% in 2019, and a drop from the 60% who voted here for Trump in 2016.

POOR PEOPLE’S CAMPAIGN

Data collected after Floyd's death from the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute showed https://www.prri.org/research/trump-favorability-white-catholic-and-non-college-americans-national-unrest-protests 37% of white Catholics held favorable views of Trump, down from 49% in 2019, and a drop from the 60% who voted https://www.prri.org/spotlight/religion-vote-presidential-election-2004-2016 for Trump in 2016.

Religious leaders held an online eulogy for Floyd and interfaith service on Sun A June 20 onlinday, https://www.facebook.com/events/2154673621324315 staged a day of fasting on Monday, and observed eight minutes and 46 seconds of silence to mark the exact amount of time Floyd was held down as he pleaded: "Please, I can't breathe."e "assembly" including 16 religious denominations seeks to revive the "Poor People's Campaign" launched after the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. Subtitled "A National Call for Moral Revival," it will also focus on Floyd, organizers say.

“We are in a deep moral crisis,” said the Rev. William Barber, pastor of Greenleaf Christian Church in Goldsboro, North Carolina, who is one of the key organizers.

“What we have to do at this moment is not only address what happened to George Floyd, but the interlocking problems of systemic racism, police brutality, the lack of healthcare, poverty and militarism,” he said.

Najuma Smith-Pollard, a Black pastor and community activist in Los Angeles, said the protests had already triggered action that once seemed impossible - the Los Angeles mayor yanked $150 million from the police department’s budget and diverted it to programs for youth jobs, healthcare and trauma recovery.

“I don’t think it’s a blip,” she said. “Too many things are at stake and too many people are engaged. This is no longer a local matter - it’s national, it’s global.”


Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Peter Cooney

Japan's NHK removes video about U.S. protests after online outrage

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japanese public broadcaster NHK apologised on Tuesday and deleted from its Twitter account an animated video aimed at explaining the background behind U.S. protests for police reform, but which instead sparked online outrage for its depiction of African Americans.

Women gesture during a protest outside of City Hall against racial inequality in the aftermath of the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd in Los Angeles, California, U.S. June 6, 2020. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

The 1:21 minute clip, which NHK had also broadcast on its Sunday evening programme “Sekai no Ima” (“The World Now”), featured a tough-talking black narrator citing the wealth disparity between black and white Americans and the economic impact from the coronavirus.

But it made no mention of police brutality or the death of George Floyd, a black man who died on May 25 after being pinned by the neck for nine minutes by a white officer’s knee, which sparked the latest protests.

In the clip, the narrator’s bodybuilder-like muscles were bursting out of a white tank top, while other African-American characters included a man with an afro and mutton chop sideburns, and a muscular man in a sleeveless purple suit, fedora-style hat and sandals strumming a guitar.

“While we understand @NHK’s intent to address complex racial issues in the United States, it’s unfortunate that more thought and care didn’t go into this video,” the interim head of the U.S. embassy in Tokyo, Joseph M. Young, said on Twitter. “The caricatures used are offensive and insensitive.”


NHK said it had decided to take down the tweet after receiving a lot of criticism and that it had posted the video with a “lack of consideration”.

“We apologise to those who were made to feel uncomfortable,” the broadcaster said on Twitter.

The video had been viewed more than one million times as of midday Tuesday on the programme’s @nhk_sekaima Twitter account.

Tennis star Naomi Osaka retweeted the video with a GIF expressing bewilderment.

“This is awful. I’m embarrassed to say I’m Japanese when I see this,” tweeted another user, @emiliharatatani. “Do you know what is happening in America now?!”


@CheetosOnToast called it “racist” and “discriminatory”.

Baye McNeil, a Japan-based African-American author and activist, said the clip showed the need for local broadcasters to educate themselves.

“Any child who looks at that video will walk away from it feeling, ‘Yeah, maybe these people have been treated unfairly ... but they’re big and awful and scary!’” he told Reuters before the video was removed. “How can they (NHK) think people are going to be sympathetic to the people being oppressed after watching that video?”


Reporting by Chris Gallagher and Chang-Ran Kim; Writing by Chris Gallagher; Editing by Lincoln Feast.

Philippines hesitates to boot US troops
Manila delays planned abrogation of US Visiting Forces Agreement as China ups strategic ante in nearby waters

By RICHARD JAVAD HEYDARIAN JUNE 3, 2020

US and Philippine troops arm and arm in a joint military exercise. Photo: AFP

MANILA – In a major policy reversal with sweeping strategic implications, the Philippine government suspended on Tuesday its earlier decision to abrogate its decades-long Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the United States.

“The abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement has been suspended upon the President’s [Rodrigo Duterte] instruction,” tweeted Philippine Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin without elaborating on the reason for the reversal.

In a formal letter to the US Embassy in Manila, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs vaguely mentioned “political and other developments in the region” as the basis for a six-month suspension of the impending abrogation of the vital defense agreement.

The suspension is extendable for another six months, meaning the VFA will likely remain in effect well into 2021, and with Duterte entering his final years in office, the agreement seems secure for the foreseeable future, analysts and observers say.

In a statement, the US Embassy welcomed the reversal and highlighted how “[o]ur long-standing alliance has benefited both countries, and we look forward to continued close security and defense cooperation with the Philippines.”

The VFA, negotiated soon after the closure of American military bases in the Philippines in the early 1990s, provides the legal framework for US soldiers to enter the Philippines.

It also provides the the legal framework for the Philippine-US defense alliance, enshrined in the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, which at any given time sees US troops stationed in the country on a rotating basis, including in terrorism-prone southern regions.

US and Philippine Marines at the formal opening of annual Philippine-US Amphibious Landing Exercises at ex-US Subic naval base. Photo: AFP/Jay Directo

Without the VFA, the US would not be able to sustain its significant military presence in the Philippines, a turn that would have major ramifications for America’s strategic position in the Western Pacific, particularly vis-à-vis China.

It would also impact on joint military activities and exercises, of which nearly 300 were held last year, and effectively neuter the two countries’ longstanding alliance.

Since his election in mid-2016, the China-leaning Duterte has threatened to sever security cooperation with the US. His threat to cancel the VFA came in angry response in January to travel bans imposed by the US on Filipino officials involved in alleged rights abuses, including in prosecuting his drug war.


Experts and insiders believe Duterte’s reversal was likely motivated by China’s rising maritime assertiveness in the South China Sea, including in Philippine waters, as well as his government’s desperate need for sustained humanitarian assistance amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

There are reasons for the Philippines to be concerned. News reports suggest that China may soon move ahead with plan to establish an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) across the South China Sea, including over islands, features and waters claimed by the Philippines.

For the past two decades, the VFA has been a linchpin of the Philippine-US alliance, facilitating large-scale entry of American troops for counter-terrorism and maritime security exercises, as well as billions of dollars in humanitarian assistance during major humanitarian crises.

The VFA allowed the Pentagon to deploy thousands of troops during the Haiyan super typhoon in 2013, which devastated much of the central Philippines, as well as US Special Forces and drones during the months-long siege of southern city of Marawi by Islamic State-backed militants in 2017.

During a high-profile Senate hearing earlier this year, Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana underscored the centrality of the agreement to Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief operations (HADR) since “the US forces are always there in times of calamities.”
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte (L) talks to US President Donald Trump (R) before the 31st ASEAN Summit, Manila, November 13, 2017. – Photo: AFP/Pool/Mark R Cristino

Duterte initiated the agreement’s abrogation on February 11 this year. Because it is a bilateral agreement, the two sides had 180 days to finalize the agreement’s cancellation in order to provide enough room for adjustments to the Pentagon.

The decision was unpopular among many Filipinos, who have favored strong security cooperation with the US to counterbalance China. Even Duterte’s allies in the Senate joined with the opposition earlier this year to challenging his unilateral nixing of the agreement without legislative concurrence.

In early March, veteran senators led by Senate President Vicente Sotto III asked the Philippine Supreme Court to “issue an order” to “refer [Duterte’s] Notice of Withdrawal to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence.” That legal challenge is still pending.

But the ongoing pandemic and China’s rising aggressiveness have seemingly forced Duterte’s hands.

Despite his rhetorical hostility towards the West, including the US, and cozy diplomatic relations with Beijing, Duterte has often shown strategic maturity vis-à-vis the perilous geopolitical environment in the region.

He has also been well-attuned to the sentiments of the powerful Philippine defense establishment, which has lobbied for robust security cooperation with the US, especially in these times of unprecedented strategic uncertainty.

In recent months, the Philippines has shown a willingness to highlight Chinese strategic adventurism.

For example, top Filipino military officials revealed to the media in April that a Chinese warship pointed a laser gun at a Philippine frigate in the Spratlys in February, while Filipino diplomats stood in solidarity with Hanoi in early April by criticizing China’s sinking of Vietnamese fishing vessels.

One of the Philippines’ leading concerns is China’s next move in the South China Sea, including the possible reclamation and militarization of the Manila-claimed Scarborough Shoal, as well as declaration of an ADIZ across the entire area.

China’s control of the shoal, situated within the Philippines’ EEZ is crucial for the ADIZ.

“[In the past] Beijing has been hesitant to declare the ADIZ in the South China Sea due to a number of technical, political, and diplomatic considerations,” an anonymous source in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) recently told the South China Sea Morning Post newspaper.

“But the most practical problem is that the PLA has in the past not had the capability to scramble its fighter jets to expel intrusive foreign aircraft in the South China Sea, which is several times the size of the East China Sea, and the cost to support the ADIZ would be huge.”

But Beijing could soon make the move since it has consolidated its strategic position across a sprawling network of airstrips and military facilities in the Spratlys and Paracels, which could now credibly support and sustain an ADIZ declaration, strategic analysts say.

“Recent satellite images show that the People’s Liberation Army has deployed KJ-500 airborne early-warning and control aircraft and KQ-200 anti-submarine patrol planes at Fiery Cross Reef,” Lu Li-Shih, a China military expert told regional media.

“Once the PLA’s fighter jets arrive they can join the early-warning and anti-submarine aircraft in conducting ADIZ patrol operations.”

Whether the US military is currently in a position to counter such a move is not immediately clear, considering certain of its aircraft carriers have been docked at home ports due to Covid-19 infections among personnel. But assured access to nearby Philippine bases, via the VFA, could tip the strategic balance enough to give Beijing second thoughts.

A Pipelineistan fable for our times
Ukraine was supposed to prevent Russia from deepening energy ties with Germany; it didn't work out that way

By PEPE ESCOBAR JUNE 8, 2020


Once upon a time in Pipelineistan, tales of woe were the norm. Shattered dreams littered the chessboard – from IPI vs. TAPI in the AfPak realm to the neck-twisting Nabucco opera in Europe.

In sharp contrast, whenever China entered the picture, successful completion prevailed. Beijing financed a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Xinjiang, finished in 2009, and will profit from two spectacular Power of Siberia deals with Russia.

And then there’s Ukraine. Maidan was a project of the Barack Obama administration, featuring a sterling cast led by POTUS, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain and last but not least, prime Kiev cookie distributor Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland.

Ukraine was also supposed to prevent Russia from deepening energy ties with Germany, as well as other European destinations.

Well, it did not exactly play like that. Nord Stream was already operational. South Stream was Gazprom’s project to southeast Europe. Relentless pressure by the Obama administration derailed it. Yet that only worked to enable a resurrection: the already completed TurkStream, with gas starting to flow in January 2020.

The battlefield then changed to Nord Stream 2. This time relentless Donald Trump administration pressure did not derail it. On the contrary: it will be completed by the end of 2020.

Richard Grennel, the US ambassador to Germany, branded a “superstar” by President Trump, was furious. True to script, he threatened Nordstream 2 partners – ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper, and Wintershall – with “new sanctions.”

Worse: he stressed that Germany “must stop feeding the beast at a time when it does not pay enough to NATO.”

“Feeding the beast” is not exactly subtle code for energy trade with Russia.

Peter Altmaier, German minister of economic affairs and energy, was not impressed. Berlin does not recognize any legality in extra-territorial sanctions.

Grennel, on top of it, is not exactly popular in Berlin. Diplomats popped the champagne when they knew he was going back home to become the head of US national intelligence.

Trump administration sanctions delayed Nordstream 2 for around one year, at best. What really matters is that in this interval Kiev had to sign a gas transit deal with Gazprom. What no one is talking about is that by 2025 no Russian gas will be transiting across Ukraine towards Europe.

So the whole Maidan project was in fact useless.

It’s a running joke in Brussels that the EU never had and will never have a unified energy policy towards Russia. The EU came up with a gas directive to force the ownership of Nord Stream 2 to be separated from the gas flowing through the pipeline. German courts applied their own “nein.”

Nord Stream 2 is a serious matter of national energy security for Germany. And that is enough to trump whatever Brussels may concoct.

And don’t forget Siberia

The moral of this fable is that now two key Pipelineistan nodes – Turk Stream and Nord Stream 2 – are established as umbilical steel cords linking Russia with two NATO allies.

And true to proverbial win-win scripts, now it’s also time for China to look into solidifying its European relations.

Last week, German chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese premier Li Keqiang had a video conference to discuss Covid-19 and China-EU economic policy.

That was a day after Merkel and President Xi had spoken, when they agreed that the China-EU summit in Leipzig on September 14 would have to be postponed.

This summit should be the climax of the German presidency of the EU, which starts on July 1. That’s when Germany would be able to present a unified policy towards China, uniting in theory the 27 EU members and not only the 17+1 from Central Europe and the Balkans – including 11 EU members – that already have a privileged relationship with Beijing and are on board for the Belt and Road Initiative.

In contrast with the Trump administration, Merkel does privilege a clear, comprehensive trade partnership with China – way beyond a mere photo op summit. Berlin is way more geoeconomically sophisticated than the vague “engagement and exigence” Paris approach.

Merkel as well as Xi are fully aware of the imminent fragmentation of the world economy post-Lockdown. Yet as much as Beijing is ready to abandon the global circulation strategy from which it has handsomely profited for the past two decades, the emphasis is also on refining very close trade relations with Europe.

Ray McGovern has concisely detailed the current state of US-Russia relations. The heart of the whole matter, from Moscow’s point of view, was summarized by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, an extremely able diplomat:

“We don’t believe the US in its current shape is a counterpart that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever. So our own calculations and conclusions are less related to what America is doing …. We cherish our close and friendly relations with China. We do regard this as a comprehensive strategic partnership in different areas, and we intend to develop it further.”

It’s all here. Russia-China “comprehensive strategic partnership” steadily advancing. Including “Power of Siberia” Pipelineistan. Plus Pipelineistan linking two key NATO allies. Sanctions? What sanctions?

Indonesia tackles racism in ruling on blackouts

Court finds President Joko Widodo broke the law by shutting down the internet during anti-racism protests in Papua

By JOHN MCBETH JUNE 9, 2020

A Papuan student with a painted face attends a rally in Jakarta, Indonesia, on August 22, 2019. Photo: AFP/Andrew Gal/NurPhoto WEST PAPUAN FLAG REJECTED BY INDONESIA REPRESENTS THEIR FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE 

Jakarta’s Administrative Court, reputedly the most progressive branch of Indonesia’s much-maligned judicial system, may have broken new legal ground by ruling that the government acted illegally in shutting down the internet during anti-racism riots in Papua last year.

Legal reform advocate Dian Rosita says while the court stopped short of declaring the practice of internet blackouts unlawful, it was the first time human rights principles had been applied to an existing law, something she hopes will set a standard for other jurists to follow.

Live-streamed on June 3, the judgement said President Joko Widodo and then communications minister Rudiantara had violated the 1959 Emergency Law by imposing the internet blackout without proving during court hearings that a state of emergency was justified.

Although the law was passed long before the internet was conceived, it gives the government the power to take any actions it deems necessary to deal with an emergency situation affecting the country’s security.

Responding to a lawsuit brought by a coalition of civil society groups, the three administrative court judges, all women, ruled that any policy which limited the people’s right to information should be made in accordance with the law and not merely at the discretion of the government.

Among the plaintiffs was the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI), which claimed in its submission that the government had only succeeded in sewing confusion by robbing journalists of the ability to verify what was happening in Papua.

Although Widodo promised in 2015 to lift the long-time blanket ban on foreign reporters entering Papua, that has never happened, mainly because of the prohibitive procedures laid down by security agencies to gain a travel permit.

The court found “bandwidth throttling” was used in West Papua and Papua provinces on August 19, 2019, and that authorities either blocked content or cut off internet access entirely in 42 cities and regencies between August 21 and September 4.

An Indonesian activist protests against the internet blackout in Papua and West Papua in August 2019. Photo: Facebook/JP/Seto Wardhana

The Information and Communications Ministry claimed to have blocked 713,166 internet links during the period of the riots which it claimed contained hoax messages about further racial incidentsin the East Java port city of Surabaya, where the trouble began.

Previously, in May, the Communications Ministry cut social media and instant messaging across Jakarta in an effort to head off the organization of violent protests against Widodo’s re-election, following a heated presidential race.

While the tactic appeared to achieve its purpose, it raised questions about the future implications for freedom of speech and raised the broader issue of how other governments in the region have been using partial blackouts as an authoritarian tool.

Internet research firm TOP10VPN says 122 national or region-wide shutdowns cost the global economy more than US$8 billion last year, mostly in response to protests or civil unrest “as authoritarian regimes looked to restrict the flow of information and maintain their grip on power.”

Coming in the middle of an explosion of racial unrest in the United States over the death of a black suspect at police hands, the Papua ruling has also forced some Indonesians to look inwards at their own record of racial discrimination towards ethnic Melanesians.

Last year’s riots were triggered by an incident in Surabayain which a mob shouting “monkey” and other insults attacked Papuan students who had allegedly defiled an Indonesian flag in the aftermath of Indonesia’s 74th independence day celebrations.

A Papuan student with the West Papua Morning Star flag painted on her face during a rally in Jakarta, August 28, 2019. Photo: AFP Forum via NurPhoto/Andrew Gal

Spread on social media, the violence left more than 30 people dead and caused widespread damage to government buildings in Manokwari and Jayapura, the respective capitals of West Papua and Papua, and the district centers of Wamena, Sorong, Fak Fak and Timika.

Papuan students have long been the subject of discrimination on Java, but little has been done to address that and other derogatoryissues which go to the heart of the rebel Free Papua Movement’s (OPM) struggle for independence.

Amnesty International Indonesia called the court decision a rare victory for Papuans. “Although the ruling is only a small step towards justice for human rights abuses in Papua, at least it is a step in the right direction,” executive director Usman Hamid said in a statement.

Legal reform began under new Supreme Court chief justice Bagir Manan in 2001, two years after the fall of long-serving president Suharto. But it has been a painfully slow process with criminal justice trailing far behind advances made in adjudicating civil law, particularly litigation.

The Administrative Court has made the most progress because of the pioneering work of Sorbonne-trained Paulus Lotulung, the Supreme Court’s former deputy chief justice for state administration who once admitted he was ashamed of the corruption in the court system.

Although the government is likely to appeal the Papua ruling, Rosita believes the court’s judgement is so well argued, rare in Indonesia’s judicial system, that state attorneys may only be going through the motions.

But the longer term impact of the decision remains in doubt, given subsequent statements by the communications ministry that the court’s failure to specifically address internet blackouts meant it could still apply them when it feels they are warranted.

“If internet access had remained open, the government was worried that the spread of information would have brought further divisions,” said current Communications Minister Johnny Plate, who made it clear he respected the court’s decision.

Rosita, senior researcher with the Indonesian Institute for an Independent Judiciary (LeIP), hopes the ruling can be used to push Parliament into outlawing the use of internet blackouts as a weapon to put down civil unrest. 

An armed Indonesian policeman stands guard near a burning building after hundreds of demonstrators marched near Papua’s biggest city Jayapura on August 29, 2019. Photo: AFP/Indra Thamrin Hatta

Some legal activists believe the practice could be prohibited as part of amendments to controversial provisions of the 2008 Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE) that they say already impinge on freedom of expression.

The government argued the blackout was in accordance with the ITE law, but the judges asserted that the legislation could only be enforced to block access to electronic information and illegal documentation, not the internet itself.

The judgement also said that fake news should only be tackled by using provisions in the Criminal Code or blocking specific accounts that spread false information.

Reformers don’t put much faith in the Constitutional Court, which has taken a conservative turn since its formative years in the early 2000s when the caliber of the justices negated the political way the court was structured.

Indonesia follows the French judicial system in which court decisions can be used as a model, but not as a binding legal precedent to be followed in deciding subsequent cases with a similar set of issues or facts.

However, the Indonesian and Dutch supreme courts have been engaged in consultative discussions that could see a system of precedence adopted internally, without the judiciary going so far as to take on the role of lawmaker.

The Indonesian court does publish occasional circulars that provide guidelines on tackling specific cases, but now the 60-member bench has formed itself into different chambers, each charged with drawing up a set of norms aimed at eliminating often glaring inconsistencies in court decisions.

Broadest economic collapse since 1870: World Bank

The Covid-19 crisis will drive 70 to 100 million people into extreme poverty, according to report

By HEATHER SCOTT JUNE 9, 2020

People in need queue at a free food distribution point on June 6, 2020, in Geneva, as the Covid-19 pandemic casts a spotlight on the usually invisible poor people of Geneva, one of the world's most expensive cities. Photo: AFP

The coronavirus pandemic inflicted a “swift and massive shock” that has caused the broadest collapse of the global economy since 1870 despite unprecedented government support, the World Bank said Monday.

The world economy is expected to contract by 5.2% this year – the worst recession in 80 years – but the sheer number of countries suffering economic losses means the scale of the downturn is worse than any recession in 150 years, the World Bank said in its latest Global Economic Prospects report.

“This is a deeply sobering outlook, with the crisis likely to leave long-lasting scars and pose major global challenges,” said World Bank Group Vice President for Equitable Growth, Finance and Institutions Ceyla Pazarbasioglu.

The depth of the crisis will drive 70 to 100 million people into extreme poverty – worse than the prior estimate of 60 million, she told reporters.

And while the Washington-based development lender projects a rebound for 2021, there is a risk a second wave of outbreaks could undermine the recovery and turn the economic crisis into a financial one that will see a “wave of defaults.”

Economists have been struggling to measure the impact of the crisis they have likened to a global natural disaster, but the sheer size of the impact across so many sectors and countries has made that difficult.

Under the worst-case scenario, the global recession could mean a contraction of 8%, according to the report.

But Pazarbasioglu cautioned: “Given this uncertainty, further downgrades to the outlook are very likely.”

Meanwhile, a group of American economists who are the arbiters of when a recession starts and ends said Monday the United States entered a downturn in February, ending 128 months of uninterrupted growth, the longest streak in history.

Recessions typically are defined by several months of declining economic activity.


But the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a non-profit, non-partisan research organization, called the current situation in the world’s largest economy “unprecedented” due to the severity of the drop in employment and production, even if it might turn out to be shorter than other recessions.
China still growing, barely

China is nearly alone in seeing modest growth this year. However, the World Bank warned the depth of the slowdown in the world’s second-largest economy will hinder recovery prospects in developing nations, especially commodity exporters.

While China will see GDP rise just 1%, the World Bank said, the rest of the forecasts are grim: US -6.1%, eurozone -9.1%, Japan -6.1%, Brazil -8%, Mexico -7.5% and India -3.2%.


And things could get worse, meaning the forecasts will be revised even lower, the bank warned.

Though dramatic, the current forecast falls short of the Great Depression, which saw a global contraction of 14.5% from 1930 to 1932, while the post-war downturn in 1945-1946 was 13.8%, according to the World Bank.

But because of the pandemic there remain some “exceptionally high” risks to the outlook, particularly if the disease lingers and authorities have to reimpose restrictions – which could make the downturn as bad as 8%.

“Disruptions to activity would weaken businesses’ ability to remain in operation and service their debt,” the report cautioned.

That, in turn, could raise interest rates for higher-risk borrowers. “With debt levels already at historic highs, this could lead to cascading defaults and financial crises across many economies,” it said.

But even if the 4.2% global recovery projected for 2021 materializes, “in many countries, deep recessions triggered by Covid-19 will likely weigh on potential output for years to come.”


– AFP

How Trump could legally militarize America

US president's penchant for legal loopholes to push controversial policies could justify military occupation of protest-hit cities

By JENNIFER SELIN JUNE 6, 2020

Troops gather during a demonstration on June 1, 2020 in Washington, DC. Joshua Roberts/Getty Images/AFP
After a week of both peaceful protests and violent chaos in the wake of George Floyd’s death, President Donald Trump announced, “If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”

Is Trump’s warning just bluster? Does the president have the authority to send the military into American cities?

The answer to this question involves a web of legal provisions that help define the president’s constitutional roles as commander in chief and chief executive of the country and that simultaneously try to balance presidential power with the power of state leaders.
‘Protect states in times of violence’

Tracing back to the Magna Carta, the British charter of liberty signed in 1215, there is a longstanding tradition against military involvement in civilian affairs.

However, the US Constitution guarantees that the national government will protect the states in times of violence and permits Congress to enact laws that enable the military to aid in carrying out the law.

Almost immediately after the Constitution’s enactment in 1787, Congress passed a law that allowed the president to use the military to respond to a series of citizen rebellions.

Troops serving as what’s called “posse comitatus,” which translates roughly to “attendants with the capacity to act,” could be called to suppress insurrections and help carry out federal laws.

Following the Civil War, the national government used troops in this capacity to aid in Reconstruction efforts, particularly in states that had been part of the Confederacy.

The use of troops in this manner may even have influenced the outcome of the 1876 presidential election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. That happened when, in return for agreeing to withdraw federal troops from the South, Democrats informally agreed to the election of Hayes when the disputed election was thrown to a congressional commission.

Two years later, Hayes signed into law the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibited the use of the military in civilian matters.

The Posse Comitatus Act has not changed much since that time. The law prohibits the use of the military in civilian matters but, over time, Congress has passed at least 26 exemptions to the act that allow the president to send troops into states.

The exemptions range from providing military personnel to protect national parks to helping states in carrying out state quarantine and health laws.

Military troops arrive in Los Angeles to restore order after rioting occurred in the wake of the verdict in the Rodney King case in 1992. Photo: Peter Turnley/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images
Insurrection Act

What exemption would President Trump use if he wants to send the military to one or more states?

He would likely rely on the Insurrection Act, which governs certain circumstances when the president can use the military. Signed by Thomas Jefferson in 1807, Congress originally passed the law in order to help fight citizen rebellions against federal taxes.

Over time, the law has evolved to allow the use of troops in other circumstances. For example, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson used the Insurrection Act in the 1950s and 1960s to send the military to enforce court desegregation orders and to protect civil rights marchers.

It was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when he ordered 4,500 troops to Los Angeles after rioting erupted in response to the acquittal of police officers charged with beating Rodney King.

The Insurrection Act says that the president may use the armed forces to subdue an insurrection or rebellion and take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress violence.

But before doing so, he must issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse and return to their homes.

While state governors and legislatures also have the legal authority to ask the president to use troops in this manner, none have done that during this period of unrest. The states have preferred to rely on a combination of local law enforcement and the National Guard, which is under state command, not federal.

Not only does this strategy enable governors to maintain authority over their states’ responses to the clashes in the wake of George Floyd’s death, but it also keeps things more straightforward legally and politically.
 

After President Trump’s threat to send troops to quell violence, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, middle, told CNN ‘I reject the notion that the federal government can send troops into the state of Illinois.’ Photo: Chris Sweda-Pool via Getty Images

Authority uncertain

Reliance on the Insurrection Act raises a host of political and practical questions about who is in charge when the military sends troops into a state.

For example, despite the fact that the act was invoked in response to the Rodney King riots, the military actually was not used as directed. The Joint Task Force Commander in control of the mission appears to have been confused regarding how the Insurrection Act worked alongside the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act.

He issued an order prohibiting troops from directly supporting law enforcement and that led to numerous denials of requests for assistance.

Questions about the federal government’s authority in the wake of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana raised similar concerns.

The administration of President George W. Bush determined that it had authority under the Insurrection Act to send federal troops to the area, despite the fact that Louisiana’s governor was opposed to military assistance.

For political reasons, President Bush did not end up deploying troops but, in 2006, Congress amended the law to address concerns that the military was unable to provide effective assistance to states in emergency situations.

The amendment was later repealed when all 50 state governors raised objections to what they perceived as a grant of unilateral power to the president.

These examples suggest a real difficulty balancing governmental responses to domestic crises. States need the flexibility and authority to respond as they see fit to the needs of their citizens.

But the federal government can and often does serve as a supplemental resource. As the events of the past week illustrate, striking an effective balance is rarely a straightforward thing.

[Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter.]

Jennifer Selin, Kinder Institute Assistant Professor of Constitutional Democracy, University of Missouri-Columbia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.