Guinea oil terminal blast kills at least 13, fire largely contained

19 December 2023 - BY SALIOU SAMB

Guinean authorities say depot fire after blast now 'contained'

12 hours ago

An explosion at an oil terminal in Guinea's capital Conakry killed at least 13 people and injured 178 on Monday, the government said, as firefighters worked through the afternoon to fully extinguish the blaze.

The blast at the West African nation's main oil terminal rocked the Kaloum administrative district in downtown Conakry early in the morning, blowing out the windows of nearby homes and forcing hundreds to flee, according to a Reuters witness.

The government gave a provisional death toll of 13 and 178 injured, 89 of whom were well enough to return home.

"The fire has been contained and efforts are under way to fully extinguish it," it said in a statement on Monday afternoon.

Residents of the surrounding neighbourhood were advised to wear face masks.

The extent of the damage to the terminal remains unclear. Guinea is not an oil producer and has no refining capacity. It imports refined products, mostly stored in the Kaloum terminal and distributed via trucks across the country.

An investigation will be launched to determine what caused the incident and any parties responsible, the government said.

Earlier on Monday, a massive fire and billowing black smoke were visible from miles away, as several tanker trucks left the Conakry depot, escorted by soldiers and police.

Workers, excluding defence, security and medical personnel, were advised to stay at home. Schools and gas stations were also closed, the latter to prevent price speculation.

Concerns over a potential fuel shortage prompted residents in the town of Mamou, around 260km from Conakry, to besiege gas stations as black market prices soared.

The government said it was identifying vital fuel needs to prevent shortages in areas that rely on deliveries from the coast.

Reuters

 UNCOVERING U$ IMPERIALISM'S NEXT FRONT IN AFRICA

Attack In Western Sahara Complicates US Regional Strategy – Analysis

 December 19, 2023 

By Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute

By Michael Walsh

(FPRI) — Over the last few months, a new discourse has emerged on Western Sahara. Following the Polisario attack on Smara, novel concerns have been raised that the Polisario Front and its state supporters (e.g., Algeria and South Africa) are undermining US interests. Some analysts have argued that recent events demand the designation of the Polisario Front as a terrorist organization and Algeria as a state sponsor of terrorism. These claims are strongly disputed by the Polisario Front and its supporters.

To make sense of these developments, it is important to understand what is happening behind the scenes in US-Algeria and US-South Africa relations. When viewed through that lens, new competitive reasons come into focus for the US government and its allies to support the consolidation of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. These contextual shifts not only threaten the existence of the Polisario Front and the independence of the Sahrawi people: They could create tensions in US-Algeria and US-South Africa relations that other state actors, like China, Iran, or Russia, could exploit. At the same time, there are also contextual shifts pulling in the opposite direction. The most important is a recent improvement in US-Algeria relations. This is being spearheaded by the United States Embassy Algiers and the National Security Council.

The White House recognizes that this presents a challenging strategic landscape. It accepts that there is a need for a change in the status quo and views the intensification of the United Nations political process in the Western Sahara as the best possible option for trying to do so. This is despite the fact that it will create tensions in US-Morocco relations.

Background

There have been significant shifts in the regional context of the longstanding conflict between Morocco and the Polisario Front, all of which have increased concerns in Washington. First, there is a widespread perception that Russia’s relations with Algeria and South Africa have grown stronger since the invasion of Ukraine. Combined with the expansion of BRICS’s framework, this has raised questions about the shared preference of the two countries for a new world order. There are concerns about the role that both governments are believed to have played in the suspension of Israel’s observer status at the African Union and their relations with Iran and Palestinian militant groups, especially in the aftermath of the Hamas attack on Israel. In Western Sahara, the Polisario attack on Smara has heightened concerns about their sponsorship of the Polisario Front in an escalating conflict with an American ally that is resulting in civilian casualties on both sides.

As a consequence, there is a perception among some analysts that Algeria and South Africa are undermining US interests. The White House is working hard to change those perceptions. US Embassy Algiers sees cracks in the strategic relationship between Algeria and Russia that it wishes to exploit. It also recognizes the risk of pushing Algiers closer to China, Iran, and Russia if it overtly supports the consolidation of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. The Biden Administration is therefore searching for an approach that maximizes U.S. interests. The Moroccan government fears that will come at the expense of its own interests.

Assessment of Key Players

For the Polisario Front, this shift in the background context carries important implications for the future of their armed struggle for an independent state in Western Sahara. Among members of Congress, there has at times been a desire to impose costs on Algeria and South Africa for undermining US regional interests. For Algeria and South Africa, Sahrawi nationalism provides a valuable platform to demonstrate global leadership on anti-colonialism and anti-apartheid politics. 

For the US government, consolidating Moroccan sovereignty would deprive Algeria and South Africa of a foreign policy priority. However, it would also risk pushing Algiers and Pretoria toward major power competitors. Consequently, the Biden Administration is trying to resist the pressure to use Western Sahara as a platform to impose consequences on Algeria and South Africa. 

Policy Options

For Washington, there exists a non-exclusive set of policy interventions that might prove useful in the pursuit of the consolidation of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. It could designate the Polisario Front as a terrorist organization, and then consider state-sponsor designations for Algeria and South Africa. The United States and its allies could increase intelligence sharing regarding the Polisario Front with Morocco, and transfer more advanced counter-insurgency capabilities to them. The US government could pressure African partner countries to withdraw diplomatic recognition of the Sahrawi Democratic Republic. It could even terminate South Africa’s beneficiary status under the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

Beltway analysts have already expressed support for the designation of the Polisario Front as a terrorist organization in the aftermath of the Hamas and Smara attacks. This stands in sharp contrast to the Biden administration’s preferred approach: the intensification of the United Nations political process “to achieve an enduring and dignified solution” in Western Sahara.  

Americans Calculations

For the Biden administration, decision-making on Western Sahara requires the careful consideration of political realities that pull in multiple directions. For example, the consolidation of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara would advance the perceived national interests of Morocco and Israel, and a large number of Americans believe that the US government “should take the interests of allies into account, even if it means making compromises.”

President Joe Biden made a commitment to protect the liberal international order during his campaign for office. The liberal international order demands that “international law constrains the action of states.” The international law position is that Western Sahara is a non-decolonized territory under the military occupation of Morocco, and the Polisario Front is the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people. However, Biden also made a commitment to “standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies and key partners once more.” Moreover, there is a widely held perception that the maintenance of the liberal international order depends on “America’s system of alliances.”

While some members of Congress may desire to impose serious consequences on Algeria and South Africa, some also appear to have a desire to “recommit the United States to the pursuit of a referendum on self-determination for the Sahrawi people of Western Sahara.” Earlier this year, the White House signaled a pragmatic shift toward engaging with “the region in ways consistent with our laws so that we can continue to make sure that the region is safe.” As a consequence, any foreign policy decision-making on Western Sahara will almost certainly take into consideration the impact on national security priority missions, including major-power competition, and the protection of the overseas military posture of the United States and its allies in North Africa and the Sahel.

It’s difficult to say whether the Biden administration will make a radical move to support the consolidation of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. It prefers to achieve a negotiated settlement through the United Nations political process instead. That reality will weigh heavy on the minds of the Polisario Front, its state sponsors, and the Sahrawi people.

Perceptions Abroad

A number of states benefit from an American policy intervention to support the consolidation of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara—specially Morocco. Relatedly, Israel considers the normalization of relations with Morocco to be in the national interest. The consolidation of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara would remove a significant tension that exists in US-Morocco relations. That, in turn, mitigates the risk that the US government would withdraw its recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, which was a precondition of the normalization of Morocco-Israel relations.

Israel considers observer status in the African Union to be in its national interest. The termination of the African Union membership of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic would reduce the number of African Union members opposed to the restoration of that status. It also would serve as a retaliation for prior actions taken against its national interests by Algeria and South Africa.

China, Iran, and Russia likely would consider an American policy intervention to support the consolidation of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara as a valuable opportunity to try to drive a wedge into US-Algeria and US-South Africa relations, among others.

Whether they would be beneficiaries is another matter. In a world of great-power competition, overlapping contingencies, and shifting global norms, some state actors who would expect themselves to be beneficiaries probably would, in fact, become casualties. That includes the US government, which would sacrifice considerable moral power in the process of implementing such a policy intervention. That will weigh heavy on the minds of the Biden administration and members of Congress.

File photo of US and Moroccan troops in a training exercise. Photo Credit: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Joseph Atiyeh

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a non-partisan organization that seeks to publish well-argued, policy-oriented articles on American foreign policy and national security priorities.

• About the author: Michael Walsh is a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Africa Program.
• Source: This article was published by FPRI

Founded in 1955, FPRI (http://www.fpri.org/) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests and seeks to add perspective to events by fitting them into the larger historical and cultural context of international politics.

Protesters in London rally against British government's migration policies

'We will not stop shouting from the top of our lungs that people seeking safety should be welcomed with compassion and dignity,' says Care4Calais charity

Aysu Biçer |19.12.2023 -

People gather outside UK Home Office during a demonstration to show solidarity with refugees and migrants to mark International Migrants Day on December 18, 2023, in London, England

LONDON

Activists, anti-racists and refugee rights campaigners gathered outside the Home Office in London on Monday for a major protest under the banner “Stop the Hate.”

The event aimed to express strong opposition to Britain’s migration policies, particularly in the wake of a distressing incident linked to the controversial Bibby Stockholm barge, which was designated by the government to accommodate migrants.

The protest was ignited by a tragic death last week, further intensifying concerns over the treatment of migrants under the current policies. The Bibby Stockholm, at the center of the controversy, was where an asylum seeker died recently.

​​​​​​​Weyman Bennett, co-convenor of Stand Up To Racism, expressed profound concern over recent developments.

"While our hearts broke watching the news of more lives lost as a result of the racist borders policy, (Prime Minister Rishi) Sunak forced through legislation seeking to override the court’s ruling that the Rwanda plan was illegal," he said.

He was referring to the government's controversial emergency legislation aimed at fast-tracking the process of declaring Rwanda a secure destination for asylum seekers, despite the Supreme Court having ruled against the initial scheme last month.

According to the Rwanda plan, people whom the UK identifies as illegal immigrants or asylum seekers would be relocated to the East African country for processing, asylum and resettlement.

Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn joined the chorus of dissent, drawing a connection between Britain's military operations and the displacement of countless individuals.

"Every single one of those that have come from a war-torn country Britain had been involved in bombing and the war in that particular country,” he said.

The protesters, undeterred by recent legislative actions, delivered a resounding message demanding a more compassionate and inclusive approach to refugees and migrants.

"We are not going to let this government bully us or overwhelm us into silence. We will not stop shouting from the top of our lungs that people seeking safety should be welcomed with compassion and dignity," declared Charlotte Khan, project manager of Care4Calais.

"Looking back over a year, it is a year full of the government's increasingly cruel policies and decisions. To be honest, it's hard not to feel crushed by it all. It's another year where we have lost yet more precious lives in the (English) Channel. And last week, we lost a precious friend on the Bibby Stockholm and important souls because the government has a complete disregard for the value of human life," she added.

2024 is world's biggest election year ever - and AI experts say we're not prepared

The UK, the US, and India - the world's most populous nation - are just three of the countries set to hold elections in 2024, each for the first time since powerful generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney went mainstream.

Tom Acres
Technology reporter @tomiyacres
Tuesday 19 December 2023 


The world is unprepared for the impact of AI on a historic year of elections, experts have warned.

More than two billion people across 50 countries could head to the polls in 2024, which is a record high.

The UK is set to hold a general election, the US has a presidential election in November, and the world's most populous country, India, will vote for its next prime minister.

It will be the first time some of the world's biggest democracies have held a national vote since generative AI tools, including ChatGPT and image creators like Midjourney, went mainstream.

Martina Larkin, chief executive of Project Liberty, a non-profit seeking to promote internet safety, warned politicians were "at the top of the pyramid" when it comes to AI-driven misinformation.

Deepfakes, where high-profile figures are digitally cloned in realistic videos, are of particular concern.

US President Joe Biden and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy have repeatedly fallen victim to such clips, while Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer's voice was cloned for nefarious purposes.

Ms Larkin said such misinformation could spread "at a much bigger scale" in the run-up to 2024's elections.


Deepfake audio of Starmer released

UK government taking threat 'very seriously'

Governments are considering how to regulate the technology, but some are moving faster than others.

Mr Biden unveiled proposals in October, which included mandating that AI-generated content be watermarked.

The EU has reached a deal on how to regulate AI, though it won't take effect until 2025 at the earliest. The bloc holds parliamentary elections next year.

In the UK, the government has been cautious about the need for regulation, fearing it would stifle innovation.

Fact-checkers have called on the government to boost public awareness of the dangers of AI fakes to help them recognise fake images and question what they see online.

A government spokesperson said it took the threat of digitally manipulated content "very seriously".

"We are working extensively across government to ensure we are ready to rapidly respond to any threats to our democratic processes, through our Defending Democracy Taskforce and dedicated government teams," they said.

"Our Online Safety Act goes further by putting new requirements on social platforms to swiftly remove illegal misinformation and disinformation - including where it is AI-generated - as soon as they become aware of it."

Under the act, media regulator Ofcom is tasked with helping to raise public awareness of misinformation online.

Social media companies are also legally required to take action against misinformation and disinformation where it amounts to a criminal offence, or risk a fine.

And the Elections Act requires anyone running political advertising, including AI-generated material, to include an imprint with their name and address.

Shivajee Samdarshi, chief product officer at cybersecurity firm Venafi, said regulation could only go so far without an agreed international approach.

"Think about bad actors in Russia or China - they don't care about these guidelines anyway," he said.

He warned AI-generated content was "completely knocking the foundation of trust" - and could have an even more significant impact on elections than social media.

Companies like Meta faced criticism for not doing enough to combat fake news during the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum, and like governments are under pressure to introduce guardrails.

How to protect yourself from AI fakes

Kunal Anand, who used to run security for once dominant social media site MySpace, said a combination of generative AI, bots, and social media could "accelerate false narratives" like never before.

Now of Imperva, he said platforms have a "responsibility" to take down fake content - but urged voters to prepare themselves too.

"People need to verify what they see, more than ever," he said.

"It's not easy to detect deepfakes. But if something looks questionable, verify it.

"Be aware of confirmation bias and diversify your news sources.

"And go and play with these generative AI tools, not just for writing content but with image and video generation.

"It will give you a sense of what these tools are and how they work."

HEY JOE WHADDA YA KNOW

SIR Keir Starmer pitches for summit with Joe Biden ahead of 2024 elections

The UK Labour leader’s team has become a regular presence in Washington over the past year.

The Labour leader has been lining up meetings with world leaders as his party scents power | Leon Neal/Getty Images

BY ELENI COUREA

POLITICO EU
DECEMBER 19, 2023

LONDON — He’s embraced Bidenomics. Now, U.K. Labour leader Keir Starmer wants to meet U.S. President Joe Biden for face-to-face talks before both men head into elections next year.

The U.K. opposition leader — on course to become Britain’s next prime minister, if current polling proves correct — is seeking talks with Biden in 2024, two Labour Party officials told POLITICO. They were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

“David Lammy [Starmer’s shadow foreign secretary] has been tasked with making it happen,” one of the officials said. “But it’s tricky because we don’t know when the election is going to be.”

The precise date of the U.K. election will be chosen by Starmer’s opponent, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, though it must be called before the end of January 2025.

Lammy has emerged as a key figure in Labour’s efforts to deepen its relationship with the Biden administration. He has visited the U.S. five times in his two years as shadow foreign secretary, and prides himself on his Washington contacts — even counting former U.S. President Barack Obama as a friend.

“If I become foreign secretary, I don’t just want to build on those links, I want to bring a little bit of American energy into Britain’s foreign policy,” Lammy said. “We need to travel, make connections and share ideas at more of an American pace.”

But while polls suggest Starmer is on course for victory in 2024, Biden faces a struggle to be re-elected.

There are also questions over whether Starmer’s team is really prepared for a possible win by former U.S. President Donald Trump in 2024 — and therefore how warmly the party should embrace Biden’s economic ideas in the meantime.

Hangin’ with Joe

As the U.K. election approaches, Starmer has been keen to present himself as a prime-minister-in-waiting, lining up meetings with leaders around the globe.

So far he’s sat down with France’s Emmanuel Macron, Canada’s Justin Trudeau, Australia’s Anthony Alabanese, Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Greece’s Kyriakos Mitsotakis, among others.

Biden, however, has remained elusive — even though Labour politicians and officials have become a regular presence in Washington over the past year.

Shadow Cabinet ministers including Lammy, Rachel Reeves, John Healey, Nick Thomas-Symonds and Lisa Nandy, and top aides such as Morgan McSweeney, have all crossed the Atlantic in the past 12 months to meet senior U.S. figures.Labour’s closeness to Biden’s administration has been likened by some to Tony Blair’s courtship of Bill Clinton’s Democrats | Anna Moneymaker via Getty Images

In interviews and in private, Labour politicians stress their closeness in policy terms to the Biden administration as well as their embrace of Bidenomics — an interventionist U.S. policy characterized by robust green subsidies and a push for domestic manufacturing.

“The economic analysis — where you link foreign policy and domestic policy — is something on which there is a really, really strong sense of shared mission,” one shadow Cabinet minister said, granted anonymity to speak frankly.

They added: “The other thing which has been a real shared point is the green transition … Joe Biden has said ‘when I think climate, I think jobs, jobs jobs.’ And I think that’s very similar in terms of the approach that that we will want to take as well.

Beyond the headline goals, key Labour figures have been talking tactics as well.

On a trip to D.C. in May, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves was convinced she had to water down her pledge to invest £28 billion a year in green projects until 2030. On her return, she downgraded this to an “ambition” that Labour hoped to meet in its first term in government.

One of the Labour officials cited earlier said that Democrat strategists had advised them to “make yourself as small [a target] as possible” by addressing any political weaknesses well ahead of the election — and that the decision to dilute the £28 billion pledge was part of that strategy. The governing Tories have used the huge spending commitment as a regular attack line against Labour.

Labour’s closeness to Biden’s administration has been likened by some to Tony Blair’s courtship of Bill Clinton’s Democrats in the run-up to the 1997 general election and the 1996 presidential run in the U.S.

Yet that proximity presents Starmer and Reeves with a problem: “If the electorate rejects [Bidenomics] in America, that puts them in a difficult position,” former Starmer aide Chris Ward told POLITICO’s Westminster Insider podcast.

“Does that mean Starmer and Reeves now suddenly say, ‘actually, do you know what? That kind of approach isn’t the right one?’”

Trumped by Trump?

Labour’s embrace of Biden also raises questions about the party’s preparedness for a Trump victory in November 2024.

Starmer told POLITICO’s Power Play podcast in September that a Trump win would not be his “desired outcome.” He later told the BBC he would have to make the relationship work if Trump did become president.

But Labour’s recent internal split over a cease-fire in Gaza demonstrates how foreign policy issues can throw up difficulties for the center-left party.

While polls suggest Starmer is on course for victory in 2024, Biden faces a struggle to be re-elected 

| Leon Neal/Getty Images

Asked about the prospect of a Trump victory, Starmer’s Shadow Climate Secretary Ed Miliband told guests at a private event in November that he simply hoped it wouldn’t happen, according to two of those in the room. “He seemed very unwilling to even think about Trump winning,” one of the two said.

Michael Martins, a former political and economic specialist at the U.S. State Department, suggested Labour’s approach would need to evolve as the U.S. election grows near.

“Starmer has already done a lot to rebuild Labour’s credibility,” he said. “Now the party has to develop a foreign policy that is not just sticking as close to President Biden as possible.”


“If President Trump wins in 2024 — which currently seems like the most likely outcome — Starmer will have to strike a balancing act between representing U.K. interests and managing his own party. Many Labour MPs and party members will want him to [publicly] criticize Trump and his politics.”

Bridging the divide

Nevertheless, senior Labour MPs insist they’re building links with American politicians on all sides, and would be ready to work with any administration.

Lammy and Shadow Defense Secretary John Healey traveled to Washington in September to meet senior American politicians, and held lengthy talks with Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. “He gave us a great deal of his time in a diary which normally struggles to accommodate a 5-minute meeting,” Healey said.

But Healey stressed that the broader purpose of the trip was to strengthen “Labour’s credentials as a wannabe government of Britain — not party relations with the Democrats.”

“David and I deliberately made our program bipartisan,” he said. “We met and spoke with as many Republican Senators and Congress members as we did Democrats.”

“I’m an Atlanticist who spent childhood summers with my aunt in New York, studied law at Harvard and worked as a lawyer in San Francisco,” Lammy said. “These days some of my closest political relationships, which I’ve built up over many years, are on the Hill. Not only with Democrats, but also Republicans.”

Lammy’s Republican contacts include former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Nadia Schadlow, Trump’s former deputy national security adviser .

“Whoever is in charge, the U.S. remains the UK’s most important military, intelligence and nuclear relationship,” Lammy said.

Healey agreed: “The U.S. is the U.K.’s most important security ally, and vice versa. That will remain, and has survived through decades, whatever the ups and downs of the political leaderships.”

A second Trump presidency would undoubtedly test that maxim.

 

Hong Kong: China 'anxious' as world watches Jimmy Lai trial

The trial of Hong Kong's most well-known political prisoner has kicked off. Experts noted signs of concern from Beijing with its legal moves closely monitored worldwide. ― DW pic

Tuesday, 19 Dec 2023 10:47 AM MYT

HONG KONG, Dec 19 ― The long-awaited trial of Hong Kong's media tycoon Jimmy Lai began yesterday morning, with a significant police presence deployed outside the courthouse.

Dozens of people queued up for the hearing; some even came before dawn. They were here to see the 76-year-old defendant Lai who was arrested in August 2020 under the sweeping national security law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing in the same year.

The trial, initially scheduled to start more than a year ago, has faced several postponements.

As the founder of Apple Daily — a popular news outlet critical of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — Lai was charged with conspiring to collude with foreign forces and publish seditious material.

Lai's son Sebastien, who has been traveling the world to seek international support, regards the trial as “a show” for Beijing to silence dissidents. “This is clearly a means to put the whole of Hong Kong in fear, so that you will no longer speak out for democracy and be afraid of criticising the government,” he told DW.

Health fears

The closely watched trial was expected to begin without a jury and may last up to 80 days, with Lai facing a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Given Lai's advanced age, even short sentences of imprisonment can pose great risk to his health conditions. Sebastien told DW: “I am worried that my dad will pass away (in prison).”

Lai has remained behind bars for over three years, after his request for bail was denied and the initial plan to hire a British lawyer, Timothy Owen, also failed after Beijing's intervention.

In late 2021, he received a 13-month jail term for charges of involvement in a banned vigil for the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Last year on a separate count, he was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to five years and nine months in prison.

“The [Chinese] government has tried every effort to keep him out of the public scene,” Eric Lai, a Hong Kong research fellow at Georgetown Center for Asian Law (GCAL), told DW.

The media mogul was known to be one of the CCP's most outspoken critics. His newspaper Apple Daily — before being raided by the police and subsequently shut down in 2021 — was vocal about the territory's pro-democracy movement.

His arrest is widely considered part of the sweeping crackdown on press freedom and civil liberties in Hong Kong, following the 2019 pro-democracy protests sparked by the government's decision to introduce a bill to facilitate extradition of criminal suspects to mainland China.

China anxious about global attention

Leading up to the trial, voices demanding the immediate release of Lai have grown stronger, from human rights groups to foreign governments.

Just one day before the trial, the United Kingdom and the United States both urged the Chinese authorities to end their prosecution and release Jimmy Lai. Earlier, the Canadian parliament also released a “unanimous” motion calling for his release, following a similar demand made by the European Parliament.

Of all the international support, the UK's statement is considered particularly critical as Lai holds British citizenship. Last week, Sabastien met with the country's Foreign Secretary David Cameron, who promised that London would “stand by Jimmy Lai and the people of HK,” according to an official post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

In response, the Chinese embassy strongly criticised the meeting, claiming it had “further exposed Jimmy Lai's long-term collusion with the UK side.”

The significant public attention on the case appears to have made the Chinese authorities uneasy, analyst Eric Lai said.

On Friday, a new bounty list of five overseas activists of violating the national security law was released. At the same time, the Hong Kong Security Bureau announced guidelines of strict inspections on visitors entering the court for Lai's trial, including X-ray checks.

Indicating the bounty list can be a way to divert international attention, the GCAL's Lai said: “All these tactics by the government reflect they are very anxious [about] Jimmy Lai's popularity.”

What to expect from the high-profile trial?

Lai's trial, the first where a defendant pleads not guilty for colluding with foreign forces, is believed to be an example of how the national security law has fundamentally changed the criminal proceedings.

In addition to being denied access to an overseas lawyer and bail, Lai will also face judges handpicked by John Lee, the chief executive of Hong Kong. And the court will include tainted witnesses, who are defendants themselves and have been suffering from pre-trial detention for more than two years.

“This will, of course, create a high level of stress on them [witnesses],” the GCAL's Lai said, highlighting that these conditions could make a trial “more unfair than before.”

Since Lai's case is considered “highly politicised,” the Hong Kong researcher suggested it would be worth noting whether the authorities from the territory or Beijing would intervene in the trial, as they have done before, by interpreting basic laws in court.

Sebastien 'proud' of his father

Expecting to celebrate Christmas while his father is still on trial, Sebastien feels “torn” about Lai's decision to remain in Hong Kong before his arrest. “He obviously loves Hong Kong,” Sebastien told DW. “He wants to stand beside Hong Kong people and defend freedom together with journalists.”

“I am incredibly proud that he's my father,” Sebastien added. “I will always keep campaigning for him.” ― DW

Texas governor signs law allowing state to detain and deport migrants

Online News EditorDecember 18, 2023

 

Los Angeles, USA, Dec 18 (EFE). – Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed a package of anti-immigrant laws on Monday, including SB4, considered one of the harshest in American history, which gives state officials the power to stop, arrest, detain and deport migrants.

“The goal of Senate Bill 4 is to stop the tidal wave of illegal entry into Texas,” Abbott said at a signing ceremony along the border in Brownsville.

One of the harshest immigration laws in American history, SB4 allows local and state law enforcement to arrest anyone suspected of crossing the border illegally and charge them with crimes ranging from Class A misdemeanors to felonies, punishable by up to 20 years in case of a repeat offender.

The law also allows the state judiciary to order the deportation of people without a trial.

Amid concerns from activists who argue that the law will encourage racial profiling of immigrants living in the state, among other negative outcomes, Abbott warned that the application of this law “will be focused on the border”.

Meanwhile, dozens of Texas organizations strongly criticized the law on Monday, and warned Abbott that they will meet in court “very soon”.

A group of activists led by LUPE and the Frontera Texas Organising Project, among others, reminded the governor that they are in a “state of vigilance and resistance” against the implementation of this measure.

“There is no limit to the terror that Governor Abbott is inflicting on Texans,” said Tania A. Chávez Camacho, director of LUPE, said.

She also warned that they will continue to march, testify and organize against these policies “in the streets and in the courts”.

Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas confirmed to EFE on Monday that it “intends” to file a lawsuit against SB4 this week.

Sarah Cruz, border and immigrant rights policy and advocacy strategist at the ACLU of Texas, said this law is one of the “most radical and anti-immigrant bills in the country,” and warned that SB4 violates international and state law and interferes with the asylum process.

She added that it will “undoubtedly lead to more rights violations” and “it will instill fear in black, brown and indigenous communities and all people of color across the state.”

Fernando García, executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights (BNHR), warned in a press release that dozens of Texas organizations have pledged to “resist the anti-immigrant, racist and xenophobic agenda led by Governor Abbott”.

Domingo García, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the largest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States, also attacked Abbott and the Texas legislature, accusing them of being “determined to turn their legislative power into a weapon to achieve political gains at the expense of human lives”.

The president of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO), Arturo Vargas, also issued a statement condemning the promulgation of the law, which he described as anti-immigrant, unconstitutional, costly and unsound.

On Monday, Abbott also signed two other bills, including SB3, which provides an additional $1.54 billion for the construction of the border wall and funding for security operations in the region, including funding for police departments to implement SB4.

Despite the exorbitant cost of his immigration policies, the measures have allowed Abbott, who has been governor since 2015, to consolidate his power in the state by overriding Democratic objections, promoting his anti-immigrant agenda nationally and challenging President Biden’s administration, which he blames for illegal immigration because of its supposed ‘open borders’ policy. EFE

amv/mcd (video)