President Joe Biden’s proposed Indo Pacific Economic Framework with key Asian nations signals a new approach for U.S. trade policy in the region. As VOA’s Kane Farabaugh reports, U.S. farmers are optimistic the Framework will provide new markets for their goods.
Camera: Kane Farabaugh Producer: Kane Farabaugh
…
Month: June 2022
Ex-Minneapolis Officer Who Killed 911 Caller to be Released
The former Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot an unarmed woman who called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in the alley behind her home is scheduled to be released from prison next week, months after his murder conviction was overturned and he was resentenced on a lesser charge.
Mohamed Noor, 36, is scheduled to be released from custody Monday, according to online Department of Corrections records.
Noor was initially convicted of third-degree murder and manslaughter in the 2017 fatal shooting of Justine Ruszczyk Damond, a 40-year-old dual U.S.-Australian citizen and yoga teacher. But last year, the Minnesota Supreme Court tossed out his murder conviction and 12½-year sentence, saying the murder charge didn’t apply to the circumstances of this case.
He was resentenced to four years and nine months on the manslaughter charge.
In Minnesota, it’s presumed that a defendant with good behavior will serve two-thirds of a sentence in prison and the rest on supervised release, commonly known as parole. The DOC’s website says Noor will be on supervised release until Jan. 24, 2024.
Damond’s father, John Ruszczyk, said Friday that the family was disappointed that Noor’s third-degree murder conviction was overturned.
“His release after a trivial sentence shows great disrespect to the wishes of the jury who represented the communities of Minneapolis and their wish to make a statement about the communities’ expectations of police behavior and actions,” Ruszczyk wrote in response to emailed questions from The Associated Press.
After his conviction, Noor began serving his time at Minnesota’s maximum-security prison in Oak Park Heights, but the Minneapolis newspaper, the Star Tribune, reported he was transferred to a facility in North Dakota in July 2019 for his safety. Department of Corrections spokesman Nicholas Kimball said Noor is still out of state but did not specify where.
“For safety reasons, we aren’t able to provide more detail than what is available on the public website, which is the scheduled date of release,” Kimball said.
It wasn’t clear whether Noor would return to Minnesota. His attorney, Tom Plunkett, declined to comment, saying, “at this point I just want to respect Mr. Noor’s privacy.”
Damond’s killing angered citizens in the U.S. and Australia and led to the resignation of Minneapolis’ police chief. It also led the department to change its policy on body cameras; Noor and his partner didn’t have theirs activated when they were investigating Damond’s 911 call.
Noor testified at his 2019 trial that he and his partner were driving slowly in an alley when a loud bang on their police SUV made him fear for their lives. He said he saw a woman appear at the partner’s driver’s side window and raise her right arm before he fired a shot from the passenger seat to stop what he thought was a threat.
Damond was a meditation teacher and life coach who was killed about a month before her wedding. Her maiden name was Justine Ruszczyk, and though she was not yet married, she had already been using her fiance’s last name.
Her fiance, Don Damond, declined to comment on Noor’s pending release, but said during Noor’s resentencing that he had forgiven the former officer, and that he had no doubt Justine also would have forgiven him “for your inability in managing your emotions that night.”
Noor, who is Somali American, was believed to be the first Minnesota officer convicted of murder for an on-duty shooting. Activists who had long called for officers to be held accountable for the deadly use of force applauded the murder conviction but lamented that it came in a case in which the officer is Black and his victim was white.
Since Noor’s conviction, former Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin, who is white, was convicted of murder in the May 2020 killing of George Floyd, a Black man who was pinned to the pavement under Chauvin’s knee. Chauvin’s colleague, Thomas Lane, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting manslaughter, while two other officers are awaiting trial on charges of aiding and abetting both murder and manslaughter. All four have been convicted on federal charges of violating Floyd’s rights.
In another case, former Brooklyn Center Officer Kim Potter was convicted of manslaughter after she said she mistook her Taser for her handgun when she fatally shot Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black motorist, during a traffic stop last year.
Days after Noor’s conviction, Minneapolis agreed to pay $20 million to Damond’s family, believed at the time to be the largest settlement stemming from police violence in Minnesota. It was surpassed last year when Minneapolis agreed to a $27 million settlement in Floyd’s death just as Chauvin was going on trial.
…
18 Migrants Died in Mass Crossing into Spanish Enclave, Morocco Says
Morocco said 18 migrants died trying to cross into Spain’s North African enclave of Melilla on Friday, after a violent two-hour skirmish between migrants and border officers that also led to scores of injuries.
About 2,000 migrants stormed a high fence that seals off the enclave. This led to clashes with security forces as more than 100 migrants managed to cross from Morocco into Melilla, Moroccan and Spanish authorities said.
Morocco’s Interior Ministry initially said five migrants had died in the border raid, some after falling from the fence surrounding Melilla and others in a crush, and that 76 migrants were injured. It later said an additional 13 had died.
Some 140 members of Moroccan security forces were also injured, it added, five seriously, though none of them died.
Over the past decade, Melilla and Ceuta, a second Spanish enclave also on Africa’s northern coast, have become magnets for mostly sub-Saharan migrants trying to get into Europe.
Friday’s attempt began about 6:40 a.m. in the face of resistance from Moroccan security forces.
Two hours later, more than 500 migrants began to enter Melilla, jumping over the roof of a border checkpoint after cutting through fencing with a bolt cutter, the Madrid government’s representative body there said in a statement.
Most were forced back, but about 130 men managed to reach the enclave and were being processed at its reception center for immigrants, it added.
Footage posted on social media showed large groups of African youths walking along roads around the border, celebrating entering Melilla, and the firing of what appeared to be tear gas by the authorities.
Spanish authorities said the border incursion led to 57 migrants and 49 Spanish police sustaining injuries.
‘Human trafficking mafias’
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez paid tribute to officers on both sides of the border for fighting off “a well-organized, violent assault” which he suggested was organized by “human trafficking mafias.”
He underscored the improvement in relations between Madrid and Rabat. In March, Spain recognized the position of Morocco toward the Western Sahara, a territory the North African nation claims as its own but where an Algeria-backed independence movement is demanding establishment of an autonomous state.
“I would like to thank the extraordinary cooperation we are having with the Kingdom of Morocco which demonstrates the need to have the best of relations,” he said.
AMDH Nador, a Moroccan human rights group, said the incursion came a day after migrants clashed with Moroccan security personnel attempting to clear camps they had set up in a forest near Melilla.
The watchdog’s head, Omar Naji, told Reuters that clash was part of an “intense crackdown” on migrants since Spanish and Moroccan forces resumed joint patrols and reinforced security measures in the area around the enclave.
The incursion was the first significant one since Spain adopted its more pro-Rabat stance over Western Sahara.
In the weeks of 2022 prior to that shift, migrant entries into the two enclaves had more than tripled compared with the same period of 2021.
In mid-2021, as many as 8,000 people swam into Ceuta or clambered over its fence over a couple of days, taking advantage of the apparent lifting of a security net on the Moroccan side of the border following a bilateral diplomatic spat.
your ad here29 Kidnapped Wedding Guests Freed in Nigeria
Twenty-nine people kidnapped by gunmen two weeks ago as they returned from a wedding in northwest Nigeria have been freed, relatives told AFP on Friday.
The victims, all mobile phone traders, were returning to the Zamfara state capital, Gusau, after attending the wedding of a colleague when one of their vehicles broke down late on June 11.
“Twenty-nine of our members kidnapped two weeks ago were released on Thursday after we paid 20 million naira ($50,000) to their captors,” said Kabiru Garba Mukhtar, the head of the Zamfara mobile traders’ union.
The day after the kidnapping, Mukhtar told AFP that 30 guests at the wedding had been kidnapped while 20 others managed to escape.
In fact, 29 people were kidnapped and all were released, he said. “Their release followed intense negotiations with the bandits who had initially demanded 145 million naira” for the hostages, said Mustapha Halifa, another union official.
After their release, the victims were taken to a hospital to be treated for illnesses contracted because of the “difficult conditions” of their captivity, Halifa said.
Heavily armed criminal gangs known locally as bandits are rampant in northwest and central Nigeria, attacking villages and carrying out mass kidnappings for ransom despite military operations to combat them.
Gunmen on Wednesday kidnapped 22 farmers from their fields on the outskirts of Nigeria’s capital Abuja, the latest in a long line of kidnappings in Africa’s most populous country.
The gangs operate for financial reasons with no ideological motive.
But possible alliances with jihadi groups who have waged an insurgency in the northeast for 13 years have raised concerns.
…
US Prepares for Post-Roe v. Wade Future
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Friday that held there is no constitutional right to an abortion generated a tsunami of emotion across the United States. Religious conservatives celebrated the attainment of a long-held goal while abortion-rights advocates warned that millions of American women will now face daunting obstacles to receiving what many consider a basic health care service.
Demonstrators outside the Supreme Court cheered, booed, and wept as Americans across the country began to prepare for a future in which a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy — protected for nearly 50 years by the court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade — will be eliminated or sharply curtailed in more than half of the 50 states.
In more than a dozen states, restrictions on abortion were expected to take effect almost immediately due either to “trigger laws” meant to come into effect with the overturning of Roe, or laws already on the books that were not enforced because of the protections Roe afforded.
In all, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a women’s health research organization, eventually 26 states are “certain or likely to ban abortion to the fullest extent possible.”
In some states this will include measures banning abortion with no exception for rape or incest, bringing criminal prosecutions against medical professionals who perform abortions, and bringing criminal prosecutions against women who have abortions.
Activists react
“It’s truly an atrocity,” said Heather Shumaker, director of state abortion access at the National Women’s Law Center. “We are yet to see the chaos that’s going to be unleashed in this country from this decision.”
“Every day women are seeking abortion care,” she told VOA. “They need help from their families and their friends and their trusted partners and providers to get that care. And the court has essentially put all of that into jeopardy with this decision. Clinics are going to be closing. Those who help people get abortions could be threatened with lawsuits, people are going to be increasingly criminalized and policed. … I don’t think that the country truly knows what to expect yet.”
By contrast Steven Aden, general counsel for Americans United for Life, told VOA that he experienced “euphoria” when the decision was announced, and called on abortion rights supporters to accept the ruling.
“The pro-life movement extends its hand across the aisle, to those on the pro-abortion side, and we call on them to recognize what abortion really is and does to women and to life in the womb so that we can forge a new America, one that’s not divided over the right to kill children in the womb,” he said.
Patchwork of laws
By making the federal government silent on the question of abortion and throwing the issue to the states, the ruling guarantees a patchwork of abortion laws across the country. The procedure is expected to remain broadly available in the Northeast, on the Pacific Coast, and in some states in the interior of the country, including Illinois, Colorado and New Mexico.
In areas of the Deep South and Midwest, however, there will be little or no access to abortion services. Women seeking care could face journeys of hundreds of miles — which virtually guarantees that many will carry unwanted pregnancies to term. This will be particularly true for women without significant financial resources and support networks, a population in which minority groups are disproportionately represented, according to the U.S. Census.
There will also be variations among states in the way abortion laws are enforced. In some cases, it will be the job of law enforcement agencies to bring charges against people found to be in violation of the law.
In other states, including Texas and Oklahoma, enforcement is delegated to private citizens. Those states have given individual citizens the right to sue people involved in an abortion procedure that is against the law. This tactic was originally devised when Roe remained in force, because it made it difficult or impossible to challenge the legislation in federal court.
Warnings of negative consequences
Professor Tracey A. Weitz, an American University sociologist, told VOA that research has clearly established that women who want an abortion but are unable to get one experience a wide range of negative outcomes in the next five years.
“Those women were more likely to have poor economic consequences, more bankruptcies, more evictions, more financial problems,” she said. “The children that they had, and the children they already had, are more likely to suffer economic and social consequences. People were more likely to stay in relationships with violent partners, and they were more likely to suffer health consequences and, in some cases, death.”
Weitz said that these problems will hit the poorest Americans the hardest.
Wealthier American will be able to travel to access abortion services, she said.
“The people who will be left having the children that they did not anticipate and know that they cannot care for will be people who already suffer from the structures of oppression,” she said. “They’re more likely to be people of color and more likely to be low income.”
Anti-abortion ‘safety net’
Even as they celebrated the ruling, some anti-abortion organizations acknowledged that by restricting abortion rights, states would create a heightened need for services among women who carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
“Over the next few years we will have the opportunity to save hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives by limiting the horror of abortion in many states,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, in a prepared statement. “In this mission of justice and mercy, we redouble our commitment to women and families.”
Dannenfelser called for the expansion of a “pro-life safety net” for pregnant women and their families.
Republicans supportive of ruling
“The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Dobbs is courageous and correct,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, said in a statement. “This is an historic victory for the Constitution and for the most vulnerable in our society.
“Millions of Americans have spent half a century praying, marching, and working toward today’s historic victories for the rule of law and for innocent life,” he added. “I have been proud to stand with them throughout our long journey and I share their joy today.”
House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy called the decision “the most important pro-life ruling in American history.”
He added, “The right to life has been vindicated. The voiceless will finally have a voice. This great nation can now live up to its core principle that all are created equal — not born equal — created.”
Democrats decry it
President Joe Biden on Friday called the court’s ruling the “realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error.” He noted that it is the first time the court has acted to take away a constitutionally protected right.
Biden said the federal right to an abortion could be restored legislatively, but acknowledged that in a closely divided Congress in which Democrats broadly support abortion rights and Republican broadly do not, a law codifying the protections of Roe was unlikely to pass. He called on supporters of abortion access to vote with the issue of abortion access in mind in November’s midterm elections.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, offered a similar call to voters.
“A woman’s fundamental health decisions are her own to make, in consultation with her doctor and her loved ones — not to be dictated by far-right politicians,” Pelosi said in a statement. “While Republicans seek to punish and control women, Democrats will keep fighting ferociously to enshrine Roe v. Wade into law.”
Calling the ruling “cruel … outrageous and heart-wrenching,” she added, “But make no mistake: the rights of women and all Americans are on the ballot this November.”
…
Supreme Court Ends Constitutional Right to Abortion in America
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overruled a constitutional right to abortion in America, leaving it to states to decide whether to permit the procedure that has been legal nationwide for five decades.
“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion, joined by four other conservative justices. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
The ruling came less than two months after an early draft of Alito’s decision was leaked to a news site, setting off nationwide protests by abortion-rights activists.
While the high court’s overturning of its 1973 ruling in the case known as Roe v. Wade and a separate case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey does not impose a ban on abortion, its legal impact will ripple through the country almost immediately.
The Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group, estimates that 26 states, mostly in the South and Midwest, will ban abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s repeal. That could force millions of women seeking abortions to travel to states where abortion rights are protected.
“[O]ne result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens,” wrote Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the court’s liberal members, in a spirited dissent.
At the White House, President Joe Biden condemned the ruling but implored protesters to remain peaceful.
“Let’s be very clear: The health and life of women in this nation are now at risk,” Biden said. “It’s a sad day for the country.”
In a statement, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department “strongly disagrees with the court’s decision” and “will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling came in a closely watched case involving a Mississippi law that bans nearly all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, several weeks before the cutoff stage established under Roe v. Wade.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, challenged the 2018 law in federal court, arguing that it would violate nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent.
After two lower courts sided with the clinic, the state of Mississippi, backed by 25 other Republican-controlled states, went to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn both Roe and Casey. Their petition claimed that “nothing” in the Constitution “supports a right to abortion.”
Six of the high court justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, agreed. Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in upholding the Mississippi law but indicated he would not have gone further in ending the constitutional right to abortion.
Few issues in America are as divisive as abortion. For the past 50 years, American conservatives, driven by a desire to protect unborn life, have campaigned against the Roe v. Wade ruling. But they lacked the votes on the high court to overturn it.
That changed after Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election and put three abortion-rights opponents on the high court. That gave conservatives a 6-3 majority on the powerful court, raising the likelihood that abortion rights would be overturned.
Trump reacted with jubilation to Friday’s ruling, saying in a statement, “Today’s decision, which is the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation, along with other decisions that have been announced recently, were only made possible because I delivered everything as promised, including nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.”
Generally, the Supreme Court follows principles established in its prior rulings, a doctrine known as stare decisis. The dissenting justices wrote that the ruling violated this long-standing legal precept.
But Alito said that there are circumstances where a precedent can be and has been overturned. In a landmark ruling in 1954, for example, the Supreme Court invalidated an 1896 decision that had legalized racial segregation in the United States, Alito noted.
Alito wrote that the court’s ruling was limited to abortion and would not affect other rights. But liberal critics of the decision worry the decision will open the door to overturn other rights recognized by the Supreme Court.
“If you strike down a law based on a fundamental disagreement with the legal reasoning that underpins it, the same exact arguments will allow the other decisions to be overturned,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a law professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.
Although Friday’s ruling did not come as a surprise after the draft opinion had been leaked, it set off a tidal wave of reaction in Washington and across America.
“This is a great day for preborn children and their mothers,” Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, a prominent group opposing abortion rights, said in a statement. “The Court has correctly decided that a right to abortion is not in the [C]onstitution, thereby allowing the people, through their elected representatives, to have a voice in this very important decision.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, hailed the ruling as “courageous and correct” and “an historic victory for the Constitution and for the most vulnerable in our society.”
“Today is one of the darkest days our country has ever seen,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a statement. “Millions upon millions of American women are having their rights taken from them by five unelected justices.”
“This decision is the worst-case scenario, but it is not the end of this fight. The 8 in 10 Americans who support the legal right to abortion will not let this stand,” Mini Timmaraju, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights group, said in a statement. “There is an election in November, and extremist politicians will learn: When you come for our rights, we come for your seats.”
News of the ruling made headlines across the globe. While the Vatican’s Academy for Life praised the Supreme Court’s decision as a challenge to the world to reflect on life issues, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet called it “a huge blow to women’s human rights and gender equality.”
In a statement, Bachelet added, “More than 50 countries with previously restrictive laws have liberalized their abortion legislation over the past 25 years. With today’s ruling, the U.S. is regrettably moving away from this progressive trend.”
In anticipation of the ruling, states across the country, depending on their legislatures’ ideological leanings, have been changing their abortion rules.
In conservative states, in addition to passing “trigger laws” designed to take effect after Roe is overturned, lawmakers have moved to tighten restrictions on abortion, with Oklahoma enacting a law in March that bans abortion at any point during pregnancy.
For their part, some liberal-leaning states have responded by passing legislation to expand access to abortion, with some states considering laws that would allow nurses to carry out the procedure.
The court ruling came despite growing public acceptance of abortion. A Gallup Poll conducted after the court’s draft decision was leaked in May indicated that 55% of Americans identified as “pro-choice,” the highest level of such sentiment since the mid-1990s.
Still, abortion remains a politically divisive issue that is likely to live on well past Roe’s demise. Abortion-rights groups are gearing up to challenge new state bans and restrictions in state courts, setting off protracted legal battles.
“Part of the issue is that you have to find some protections within the state constitutions in order to bring these cases,” said Elizabeth Nash, a state policy analyst for the Guttmacher Institute.
Complicating efforts to challenge state abortion bans, four states — Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia — have passed constitutional amendments that say the state constitution does not recognize the right to abortion, Nash noted. In two others — Kansas and Kentucky — voters are expected to cast ballots on the issue later this year.
…
Ukraine, Moldova Hail EU Candidacy; Balkan States, Georgia Told to Wait
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hailed the European Union’s decision to grant his country candidate status Friday, a key milestone in joining the bloc. Moldova was also granted accession candidate status.
EU officials described the move as historic but cautioned that both countries will have to make tough reforms before they become full members.
Historic
In a joint televised message to the Ukrainian people, Zelenskyy, flanked by the prime minister and the speaker of parliament, compared the EU decision to other historic moments in Ukraine’s history and said the process was irreversible.
“Today, Ukraine is fighting for its freedom and this war began just when Ukraine declared its right to freedom, to choosing its own future,” Zelenskyy said. “We saw [that future] in the European Union.”
Speaker of the Ukrainian parliament Ruslan Stefanchuk called the decision a powerful political message. “It will be heard by soldiers in the trenches, every family that was forced to flee the war abroad, everyone who helps bring our victory closer,” he said.
Reforms
EU leaders cautioned that the road to full membership for Ukraine and Moldova would not be easy.
“The countries all have to do homework before moving to the next stage of the accession process,” said EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after the decision, referring to political and governmental reforms required before continuing the process.
On Thursday, von der Leyen expressed confidence that Ukraine and Moldova would “move as swiftly as possible and work as hard as possible to implement the necessary reforms, not just because they are required to move ahead in the European accession path, but, first and foremost, because these reforms are good for the countries.”
Those reforms will be difficult and will take time, says analyst Andi Hoxhaj, a fellow in European Union law at Britain’s University of Warwick.
“It’s about strengthening the rule of law and the judicial system. In addition, they would like to see a track record of applying an anti-oligarch law, meaning that they want to root out corruption as well as strengthen independent institutions,” Hoxhaj told VOA. “That will be a really challenging aspect.”
Border uncertainty
For now, Ukraine is focused on repelling Russia’s invasion in the east. The outcome of war will likely also determine the EU’s verdict on Ukrainian membership.
“Will they be able to allow for a big country like Ukraine in, which still would have a lot of problems when it comes to its borders?” Hoxhaj said.
Dashed hopes
Other former Soviet states are eyeing EU membership. Georgia’s hopes of joining Ukraine and Moldova were dashed as the EU demanded further reforms before granting the country candidacy status. Instead, the bloc said it formally recognized Georgia’s “European perspective.”
Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili nevertheless said it was an incredibly historic step. “We’re ready to work with determination over the next months to reach the candidate status,” Zourabichvili said.
North Macedonia has been a candidate for 17 years but its progress is being blocked by Bulgaria in a dispute over ethnicity and language. The feud is also blocking Albania’s hopes of progressing toward EU accession.
Bulgarian lawmakers voted Friday to end its veto, but with certain conditions attached, which could yet be rejected by North Macedonia or the EU.
EU ‘short-sighted’
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo also want to join the EU, but political crises have prevented Brussels from offering candidacy. Arton Demhasaj, the head of Kosovo’s Wake Up anti-corruption watchdog, said the EU’s position is short-sighted.
“If countries who aspire to join EU face delays, they will re-orientate their policies and then we will have an increase of Russian and Chinese influence in the western Balkans and this will create problems within the E.U. itself,” Demhasaj told Reuters.
Hoxhaj of Warick University agrees.
“Bosnia should have been offered a candidate status a long time ago, as well as Kosovo, because it’s preventing them from moving forward,” Hoxhaj said. “But it’s also allowing Russia to have a kind of influence in the Western Balkans, especially in Serbia as well as in Bosnia.”
Kremlin reaction
Russia said Ukraine’s EU candidacy would not pose a threat but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West of seeking war.
“When World War II was about to start, Hitler gathered most of the European countries under his banner. Now the EU and NATO are also gathering the same modern coalition for the fight and, by and large, for war with the Russian Federation,” Lavrov said Friday during a visit to Azerbaijan.
NATO and the EU say they do not seek war with Russia and accuse Moscow of upending decades of peace in Europe with its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
your ad hereVatican Praises US Court Decision on Abortion, Saying It Challenges World
The Vatican’s Academy for Life on Friday praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on abortion, saying it challenged the whole world to reflect on life issues.
The Vatican department also said in a statement that the defense of human life could not be confined to individual rights because life is a matter of “broad social significance.”
The U.S. Supreme Court took the dramatic step Friday of overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and legalized it nationwide.
“The fact that a large country with a long democratic tradition has changed its position on this issue also challenges the whole world,” the Academy said in a statement.
U.S. President Joe Biden, a lifelong Catholic, condemned the ruling, calling it a “sad day” for America and labeling the court’s conservatives “extreme.”
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who heads the Pontifical Academy for Life, said the Court’s decision was a “powerful invitation to reflect” on the issue at a time when “Western society is losing passion for life.
“By choosing life, our responsibility for the future of humanity is at stake,” Paglia said.
your ad hereUS Leaders React to High Court Abortion Ruling
Reaction from political leaders to the U.S Supreme Court decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade — the ruling that legalized abortions in the United States — fell predictably along party lines. Republicans hailed it as the correct decision while Democrats framed it as call to action in an election year.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a statement, called the ruling “courageous and correct. This is an historic victory for the Constitution and for the most vulnerable in our society.”
He said the high court “has corrected a terrible legal and moral error,” and compared it to the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, which outlawed segregation in schools.
From his Twitter account, former Republican Vice President Mike Pence also praised the decision, saying, “Today, Life Won. By overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States has given the American people a new beginning for life and I commend the Justices in the majority for having the courage of their convictions.”
Among Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called it “one of the darkest days” the country had ever seen. He said “millions and millions” of American women were having their rights ripped away by a “hard-right Supreme Court.”
With an eye toward U.S. voters, Schumer said, “Today’s decision makes crystal clear the contrast as we approach the November elections. Elect more MAGA Republicans if you want nationwide abortion bans.” Or, he said, elect Democrats who will work to “protect a woman’s right to choose.”
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was just as direct in her comments. A stone-faced Pelosi addressed reporters, saying, “A woman’s right to choose, reproductive freedom, is on the ballot in November.”
Expressing the decision as a call to action, Pelosi said, “Republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban. They cannot be allowed to have a majority in the Congress to do that, but that’s their goal.”
Some information for this report came from The Associated Press and Reuters.
…
Ukraine Appeals for African Support on War With Russia and Food Crisis
Ukraine’s foreign minister says Kyiv is ready to export much-needed grain to Africa as soon as Russia lifts its Black Sea blockade. In a U.S.-arranged online briefing to journalists Thursday, he blamed Russia for the global food crisis affecting millions of Africans and called for more African support against Moscow.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dymtro Kuleba said his country and Africa need each other to overcome the global food crisis, which he blamed on Russia’s aggression.
“We want to export our agricultural products to you as badly as you want to receive them,” Kuleba said, “and there is only one reason why both ends of this supply chain – which is us and you – cannot benefit from these exports. It’s the Russian blockade of Ukrainian ports as a result of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine.”
Ukraine is a major supplier of wheat, corn and sunflower oil to African countries and, since Russia’s invasion began in February, Africa has faced food and cooking oil shortages that have left an estimated 400 million people on the continent food insecure.
While drought and conflict have also played a role in the food crisis, Kaleba focused on the actions of Russia. He said Russian forces have taken 400,000 tons of grain crops from Ukraine.
“Russians also steal agricultural equipment from Ukrainian farmers – tractors, combine harvesters, and other tools in Donetsk, Kherson, Kharkiv and Sumy regions of Ukraine,” he said.
“Russian forces have riddled Ukrainian fields with mines to prevent farmers from cultivating their crops for years. According to the recent preliminary estimate, about 13 percent of Ukrainian territory has been contaminated by Russian mines and other explosive remnants. This creates threats of a multiyear global food crisis.”
Fred Munene, an agronomist and farmer in Kenya, said Africa, for now, should fight to get the food stuck in Ukraine out and invest in its farm economy to be food secure.
“The short term is getting the food that is already produced,” Munene said. “In the long term, look for other suppliers or industries in Africa that will supply fertilizers and other farm inputs because that’s the biggest challenge.”
Kuleba said Africa can play a role in ending the conflict between the two neighbors.
“African states have a crucial role in this, and many already work together with us to achieve it,” Kuleba said. “African capitals matter and they do influence Russia’s position.”
However, African countries on the U.N. Security Council have been reluctant to pressure Russia based on historical ties to Moscow and current geopolitical concerns.
Hassan Khannenje, head of the Horn Institute for Strategic Studies, said that Africa’s say in the conflict is limited.
“They do not have the leverage outside diplomatic engagement and are trying to appeal to both parties to see the need to unblock the wheat supply which Africa relies on heavily on,” Khannenje said.
Senegalese President and African Union Chairperson Macky Sall is expected to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in coming days but no firm date has been set.
…
Biden, Top US Officials Plead for Peaceful Protests Following Abortion Ruling
Top U.S. officials warned Americans Friday against resorting to violence following the Supreme Court ruling that struck down the constitutional right to abortion, which sparked emotional responses from those on both sides of the debate.
Abortion rights opponents outside the Supreme Court in Washington celebrated following Friday’s ruling, chanting “Goodbye, Roe!” to mark the court’s 5-4 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the case that established the right to an abortion nearly 50 years ago.
At the same time, groups of abortion rights supporters also gathered outside the court, chanting “My body, my choice,” while carrying signs reading “Overturn Roe? Hell no!” and “Rise up for abortion rights.”
‘No intimidation’
Despite emotions running high among both groups, the demonstrations appeared peaceful, and President Joe Biden called on all Americans to keep it that way, both in Washington and across the country.
“No intimidation. Violence is never acceptable,” Biden said in an address to the nation in which he also accused the Supreme Court of taking away a fundamental right and “literally taking America back 150 years.”
“We must stand against violence in any form, regardless of your rationale,” Biden added. “Keep all protests peaceful, peaceful, peaceful.”
Earlier, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland also warned Americans against resorting to violence in reaction to the court’s ruling.
“Peacefully expressing a view is protected by the First Amendment,” Garland said in a statement. “Violence and threats of violence are not. The Justice Department will not tolerate such acts.”
U.S. officials and law enforcement agencies have been bracing for weeks for potential fallout from the Supreme Court ruling on abortion, which was first leaked in early May.
“We have been working closely with our law enforcement partners in order to prepare for demonstrations related to the Supreme Court,” the U.S. Capitol Police, which is responsible for security for Congress and the Capitol, told VOA in an email Friday.
U.S. homeland security officials have also cited the ruling as a key factor in an ever more dangerous and volatile threat environment.
“Individuals who advocate both for and against abortion have, on public forums, encouraged violence, including against government, religious and reproductive health care personnel and facilities, as well as those with opposing ideologies,” the Department of Homeland Security warned in its latest bulletin, issued this month.
There have also been concerns about the safety of the Supreme Court’s nine justices. The Justice Department announced round-the-clock security details for all justices last month.
A 26-year-old California man, Nicholas John Roske, was arrested June 8 outside the home of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Police said Roske was carrying a gun, ammunition, a knife and other items, and that he said he was planning to kill himself and Kavanaugh. Roske has been charged with attempted murder.
your ad hereUN Chief Says World Faces ‘Real Risk’ of Multiple Famines This Year
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told an international conference on food security Friday that the world is facing the “real risk” of multiple famines this year and that 2023 could be even worse.
“The war in Ukraine has compounded problems that have been brewing for years: climate disruption; the COVID-19 pandemic; the deeply unequal recovery,” Guterres said by video message to the Uniting for Global Food Security ministerial conference in Berlin.
He said rising fuel and fertilizer prices are dramatically affecting the world’s farmers.
“All harvests will be hit, including rice and corn – affecting billions of people across Asia, Africa and the Americas,” Guterres said. “This year’s food access issues could become next year’s global food shortage.”
He warned that no country would be immune to the social and economic fallout.
Russia’s February 24 invasion of Ukraine has led to availability and supply chain disruptions. The United Nations says more than 36 countries get half or more of their grain supply from the Black Sea region.
In addition to destroying and stealing some Ukrainian grain, Russia’s military has blockaded the country’s key southern port of Odesa, preventing more than 20 million tons of Ukrainian grain from being exported. The Kremlin has also held back some of its own grain and fertilizer production from global markets, claiming Western sanctions are obstructing their export.
“Nothing – nothing — is preventing food and fertilizer from leaving Russia,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said of the sanctions. “And only one country is blocking food and fertilizer from leaving Ukraine and that is Russia.”
Japan’s foreign minister noted that Russia’s own statistics show its wheat exports had doubled this May over last year.
“Despite this, Russia is spreading disinformation to the contrary,” Yoshimasa Hayashi said.
Ending the blockade
Guterres has been conducting intense, private diplomacy with Russia and Ukraine, as well as Turkey, which could soon host grain talks between the warring parties, and key actors the United States and European Union. His goal is a package deal that would let Ukraine export its grain, not only by land but also through the Black Sea, and would bring Russian food and fertilizer to world markets.
Getting the port of Odesa open and safely functioning again is a top priority.
“We have got to get the port of Odesa open right now,” World Food Program chief David Beasley told the conference. “Failure to do so is a declaration of war on global food security — it is that simple.”
The grain in the silos must be exported before it begins to rot. It also needs to be moved to make way for the next grain harvest that will begin in September.
In the meantime, neighbor Romania has been stepping up to help Kyiv get its grain out.
“We are receiving Ukrainian grain by road, rail, sea and the Danube River,” Romanian Foreign Minister Bogdan Aurescu told the meeting. “Since the start of the invasion, the Romanian Black Sea port of Constanta, which is the largest port on the Black Sea, has become the main gateway for Ukrainian grain shipments to the outside world.”
He said Romania is working to make Constanta a European food hub and increase its processing capacity. In 2021, he said more than 25 million tons of grain were exported through Constanta.
The African continent has been badly hit by the impacts of the grain and fertilizer shortages, as many of those nations receive large quantities of these imports from the Black Sea region.
“My country, the Democratic Republic of Congo, it had to lift value added tax on basic foods, had to subsidize products such as fuel, in order to avoid uprisings as a consequence of the general price increases,” said Minister of Planning Christian Mwando Nsimba Kabulo. “Of course, this has enormous consequences for the national budget of my country, and it makes the efforts for greater resilience more difficult.”
“There is a straight line between the actions in the war in Ukraine and the suffering we see in the [global] South,” U.N. humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths said.
Action and announcements of assistance for the most vulnerable nations are expected in the coming days, as members of the world’s largest economies meet in Germany for the G-7 summit.
…
Commonwealth Countries Meet to Cement Relations
Leaders of 54 countries in the British Commonwealth are meeting in Rwanda to discuss trade, food security, health issues, and climate change. The summit comes as Britain and Rwanda are facing criticism on a controversial migrant deal.
Commonwealth member states are meeting for the first time in four years to discuss ways to strengthen relations and tackle global problems ranging from health care and conflict to climate change and food security.
Speaking in Rwanda’s capital of Kigali and representing Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s Prince Charles said such a political union is still needed to overcome the world’s challenges.
“I treasure the friendships we have built over these past 70 years and look forward to their deepening in the years ahead,” Charles said. “As we build back from the pandemic that has devastated so many lives, as we respond to climate change and biodiversity loss that threatens our very existence and as we see lives destroyed by the unattenuated aggression of violent forces, such friendships are more important than ever.”
Rwanda is the newest country in the 54-member Commonwealth, and host of this year’s meeting.
The East African nation’s president, Paul Kagame, said his country became a member of the union to benefit from its unity and development.
“Everything we do, including joining the Commonwealth in 2009, is aimed at making sure that our people are connected, included and forward looking,” Kagame said. “We are delighted that through CHOGM you have the opportunity to know us and we aim to repay that trust with many years of continued friendship.”
Gabon and Togo are also set to join the Commonwealth. The West African nations will be the latest countries to become members of the union that have no ties to Britain.
The head of the Horn Institute for Strategic Studies, Hassan Khannenje, says Britain wants to strengthen the union after leaving the European Union in 2016.
“It’s one way for Britain after Brexit to reestablish a relationship with the Commonwealth, but also it signals the kind of interest Britain has acquired, especially in Rwanda’s role within the Commonwealth as a new member in trying to strengthen the Commonwealth relationship, especially in the wake of Brexit that has affected UK’s standing in the world in ways may affect it economically,” Khannenje said.
In April, Britain and Rwanda reached an agreement that allows the UK to send asylum seekers to Kigali, a deal that has been sharply criticized by human rights defenders.
However, speakers made no mention of the deal or the controversy surrounding it.
The union discussed how to mitigate the effect of climate change in the member states.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said some countries are facing existential threats from global warming.
“No one understands better than our Commonwealth friends in the Caribbean, the Pacific, the Indian Ocean who can see the incoming tides surging ever higher up their beaches, threatening to inundate their villages and towns and in time the entire land mass of some island states,” he said. “For them the baleful effects of climate change aren’t vague or theoretical but already happening before their eyes.”
During the meeting the Commonwealth provided $38 million to help the countries most affected by the changing climate.
…
US Supreme Court Overturns Historic Abortion Ruling
In a widely anticipated move, the U.S. Supreme Court cast aside a half-century-old ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion, leaving it to states to decide whether or not to permit the procedure.
Friday’s ruling by the high court’s conservative majority came less than two months after an early draft of the decision was leaked to a news site, setting off nationwide protests by abortion rights activists.
While the high court’s overturning of its 1973 ruling in the case known as Roe v. Wade and a separate case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey does not impose a ban on abortion, its legal impact will ripple through the country almost immediately.
The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research group, estimates that 26 states, mostly in the south and midwest, will ban abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wake’s repeal. That could force millions of women seeking an abortion to travel to states where abortion rights are protected.
The Supreme Court’s ruling came in a closely-watched case involving a Mississippi law that bans nearly all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, several weeks before the cutoff stage established under Roe v. Wade.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, challenged the 2018 law in federal court, arguing that it would violate nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent.
After two lower courts sided with the clinic, the state of Mississippi, backed by 25 other Republican-controlled states, went to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn both Roe and Casey. Their petition claimed that “nothing” in the constitution “supports a right to abortion.”
Six of the high court justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, agreed.
“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including…the Due Process of the 14th Amendment,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion
The 14th Amendment says that no state can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
That provision has been invoked by the Supreme Court in recent decades to affirm rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution such as the right to same-sex marriage. But Alito argued that “any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.'”
“The right to abortion does not fall within this category,” he wrote in the leaked draft.
Instead of the Supreme Court, states should decide whether to allow or ban abortion, the opinion said.
The court’s three liberal justices, joined by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, dissented.
Few issues in America are as divisive as abortion. For the past 50 years, American conservatives, driven by a desire to protect unborn life, have campaigned against the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling. But they lacked the votes on the high court to overturn it.
That changed after Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election and put three anti-abortion justices on the high court. That gave conservatives a 6-3 supermajority on the powerful court, raising the likelihood that the conservative justices will overturn the abortion ruling.
Generally, the Supreme Court follows principles established in its prior rulings, a doctrine known as stare decisis. The dissenting justices wrote that the ruling violated this long-standing legal precept.
But Alito said that there are circumstances where a precedent has and can be overturned. In a landmark ruling in 1954, for example, the Supreme Court invalidated an 1896 decision that had legalized racial segregation in the United States, Alito noted.
Alito wrote that the court’s ruling was limited to abortion and would not affect other rights. But liberal critics of the decision worry the decision will open the door to the overturn of other rights recognized by the Supreme Court.
“If you strike down a law based on a fundamental disagreement with the legal reasoning that underpins it, the same exact arguments will allow the other decision to be overturned,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a law professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.
The ruling came less than two months after an initial draft of the opinion was leaked to a political news site, setting off both praise and criticism across the political spectrum.
While anti-abortion activists and politicians hailed the draft opinion as a “victory for human life,” their liberal counterparts condemned it as an assault on reproductive and other privacy rights.
In anticipation of the ruling, states across the country, depending on their legislatures’ ideological leanings, have been changing their abortion rules.
In conservative states, in addition to passing so-called “trigger laws” designed to take effect after Roe is overturned, lawmakers have moved to tighten restrictions on abortion, with Oklahoma enacting a law in March that bans abortion at any point during pregnancy.
For their part, the more politically liberal states have responded by passing legislation to expand access to abortion, with some states considering laws that would allow nurses to carry out the procedure.
The court ruling comes despite growing public acceptance of abortion. A Gallup Poll conducted after the court’s draft decision was leaked in May indicated that 55% of Americans identified as “pro-choice,” the highest level of such sentiment since the mid-1990s.
Still, abortion remains a politically divisive issue that is likely to live on well past Roe’s demise. Abortion-rights groups are gearing up to challenge new state bans and restrictions in state courts, setting off protracted legal battles.
“Part of the issue is that you have to find some protections within the state constitutions in order to bring these cases,” said Elizabeth Nash, a state policy analyst for the Guttmacher Institute.
Complicating efforts to challenge state abortion bans, four states — Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia — have passed constitutional amendments that say the state constitution does not recognize the right to abortion, Nash noted. In two others — Kansas and Kentucky — voters are expected to vote on the issue later this year.
your ad here
Cameroon Deploys Hundreds of Troops to Protect 40,000 People Displaced by Boko Haram
Cameron has deployed hundreds of troops along its border with Nigeria after attacks by Boko Haram militants forced more than 40,000 villagers over the past two months to flee the area. Cameroon’s defense minister is visiting the border to assess the security situation and assure villagers that it is safe to return home.
Cameroon’s military reports that Boko Haram incursions in Mayo Tsanaga, an administrative unit on its northern border with Nigeria, have increased drastically since April.
Each day, armed members of the Nigerian terror group cross over to Cameroon, attack villages and steal cattle and food, the military reports.
Cameroon’s defense minister, Joseph Beti Assomo, said Thursday President Paul Biya asked him to lead a delegation of top military officials to the border. Assomo, whose delegation was in Mokollo district where Mayo Tsanaga is located, says several hundred troops have been deployed to protect civilians and their goods.
He said that self-protection groups must cooperate with the army.
Assomo says all militias must henceforth be registered and controlled by local government officials and Cameroon military. He says militia group members should be people of unquestionable integrity. Assomo says government troops and local officials note that militias have been infiltrated by Boko Haram terrorists and adds that the military will energetically fight terrorists and bring back civilians trapped along the border with Nigeria.
Ousman Aliou is from Duvan, a village on the border with Nigeria. He says except for a few elderly persons, almost everybody has escaped from Duvan. He spoke via a messaging app from Mokollo.
“Duvan has got 10,000 population and when I went there last week, I saw only 15 people in Duvan,” Aliou said. “So, I am asking Mr. Minister to do something for us please. Come and help us. Our people are sleeping on the mountain.”
In May, villagers along Cameroon’s northern border with Chad and Nigeria organized daily protests in front of government offices demanding the military protect them.
Vohod Deguime is mayor of the Mokollo district. He says if the military had responded more quickly to the villagers’ plea, civilians would have been spared from fleeing their homes.
He says the situation is getting worse as the days go by. He says several dozen villages have been destroyed over three weeks by Boko Haram, and food and cattle stolen. Deguime says more than 30,000 of the 40,000 Cameroonians who have escaped from their villages are hiding in bushes on the border with Nigeria.
Deguime said some of the fleeing villagers are finding refuge in host communities in safer border localities.
Local media reports that Cameroon recently withdrew some of its troops from the northern border with Nigeria and Chad and redeployed them to fight separatist rebels in the west of the country. Cameroon’s military dismiss the claims and say troops are always on standby to defend civilians when the need arises.
your ad hereVOA Interview: NSC Spokesperson John Kirby
John Kirby, the former Pentagon spokesperson, told VOA’s Ukrainian service on Thursday the United States is “focused on making sure that Ukraine can continue to defend itself and its sovereignty.”
Kirby, who recently became the coordinator for strategic communications at the National Security Council, said since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, the United States has provided nearly $6 billion worth of assistance, including military equipment, such as HIMARS, high mobility artillery rocket systems.
Ukraine determines “what operations they’re going to conduct. And that’s their right to the material that they get from the United States. [It is] now theirs. It’s Ukrainian property, and they get to determine how they’re going to use it,” Kirby said.
Here is the interview, edited for brevity and clarity.
VOA: We know that American HIMARS [High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems] arrived today in Ukraine. What impact do we expect them to make on a battlefield at this stage?
National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby: The big difference that these HIMARS, which stands for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, can make is distance, its range. It’s giving the Ukrainians the benefit of farther standoff from Russian forces as they continue to fight them every single day which is now a much more concentrated geographic area.
VOA: The United States is providing Ukraine unprecedented levels of military assistance. Still, some in Kyiv and Washington are saying it’s not enough, it’s not fast enough. Do you think the administration is providing enough weapons to Ukraine to make a difference on the battlefield?
Kirby: All these systems are making a difference. Even today, they’re making a difference. And the Ukrainians will tell you that, and it’s not just the big systems. It’s the small arms and ammunition, which they’re using literally every day in this fight with the Russians. So it’s already making an impact. And we’re obviously the largest donor of security assistance to Ukraine or any other nation around the world … almost $6 billion since the beginning of the invasion. So it’s a lot of material that’s going in and the president has made clear that we’re committed to continuing that assistance going forward.
VOA: Should we expect more HIMARS to be sent to Ukraine? And what is the absolute maximum amount that United States can provide HIMARS and MLRS [multiple launch rocket systems], given its own stocks?
Kirby: I do think you’ll continue to see systems like HIMARS going in in future deliveries. I think that that’s very likely. I don’t want to get ahead of specific announcements here. But again, the president was very clear with [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy. So once again, we’re going to help them as much as we can as fast as we can. And I’ll tell you, the material is going in at record speed. … It’s just unprecedented the speed with which security assistance is actually reaching the front lines in Ukraine. There’s literally shipments going in every single day. And it’s not just from the United States, we are the biggest donor. But more than 40 other nations around the world are also contributing security assistance in some type of form to Ukraine. [U.S. Defense] Secretary [Lloyd] Austin just held the most recent Ukraine contact group in Brussels last week, almost 50 nations showed up, not just from Europe, but from around the world, to look at ways they can continue to continue to support Ukraine and their ability to defend themselves.
VOA: Can you clarify what weapons the administration is providing to Ukraine to defend themselves and to push Russia outside Ukraine?
Kirby: We are really focused on making sure that Ukraine can continue to defend itself and its sovereignty, its people, its territorial integrity. And, obviously, the Ukrainians are in this fight. They determine what operations they’re going to conduct. And that’s their right. The material that they get from the United States is now theirs. It’s Ukrainian property, and they get to determine how they’re going to use it. Now, obviously, we want to see Ukraine’s sovereignty fully respected, we want to see Ukraine’s territorial integrity fully restored. But how that gets determined, and it should be determined by Mr. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin ending this war. But Mr. Zelenskyy is going to get to determine what victory looks like.
VOA: If Ukrainians determined that they want to win this war, push Russians back to the February 23 lines, would you also support that and for them to use the provided weapons to conduct counteroffensives?
Kirby: Well, Ukrainians are already conducting counteroffensives in their own country. I mean, look at what they’ve been doing in the south, look at Khakiv in the north, where the Russians almost had the city completely encircled [and] Ukrainians pushed them away, pushed them back toward the border. Mr. Zelinskyy is the commander in chief of his armed forces. We respect that. He gets to determine how he’s going to use those forces and how he’s going to define victory. Our job is to make sure that he has the tools available to him to do that in the most efficient, effective way.
VOA: Is the administration preparing for this war to become a protracted war? We hear [NATO Secretary-General Jens] Stoltenberg say that we should expect this war to last for a long time. What is the expectation on American side?
Kirby: Once Mr. Putin decided to concentrate on the Donbas, you heard American officials say almost from the very beginning, that this was the potential. That there could be a prolonged fight here in the Donbas region. We have to remember, this is a part of Ukraine that the Russians and Ukrainians have been fighting over literally since 2014. We tend to think of Feb. 24 as a watershed moment, and it was, but Ukrainian soldiers were dying, fighting and dying for their country years before that. So this is a part of the country that both armies know well, and both are digging in. The Russians are making incremental but not consistent progress. Ukrainians are pushing back. And it certainly could end up being a prolonged conflict.
VOA: July 9 will mark 60 days since [U.S.] President [Joe] Biden signed into law the Lend-Lease Act [which would expedite the process of sending military aid to Ukraine]. When is the United States planning to use this mechanism, and would weapons the United States would be sending through this mechanism be any different from what the United States is sending right now?
Kirby: We certainly welcome the support that Congress gave with additional authorities to help Ukraine defend itself. We’re still working our way through that particular act and, sort of, what authorities and capabilities might help us provide Ukraine. In the meantime, we’re already continuing to flow a lot of material through drawdown authority, just pulling it from our own stocks. We have the authorities to do that. The president’s not been bashful about using that. And you’re going to continue to see those flow going forward. We got a supplemental request of some $40 million from Congress just a few weeks ago, not all of it for security assistance, but a lot of it is. And we also have authorities through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. This is authorities, and we just used some last week, where the Department of Defense can go contract for items that go directly to Ukraine. So there’s an awful lot of tools available in the toolbox. And we’re open-minded about using all of them.
VOA: There are some reports indicating that American intelligence agencies have less information than they would like about Ukrainian operations, personnel and equipment losses. Does this administration see this as an issue in the context of providing military aid for Ukraine?
Kirby: I’d rather not talk about intelligence matters here, in an interview. I would just tell you that the relationship with the Ukrainian armed forces is very, very strong. And we’re talking to them literally almost every single day, at various levels, all the way up to the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff down to working staff levels, including military-to-military contact. And the idea of those conversations is to help give us a better idea of what Ukraine needs in the fight. One of the things we didn’t talk about was, when we talked about aid and how much they’re getting and how fast you’re getting it is, we’re doing this in parcels, so that deliberately so that we can continue to give them assistance in ways that are relevant to the fight that they’re in. And the Ukrainians have been very honest and open with us about the fight that they’re in and what they need. And they’ve been honest with the rest of the world. And so those conversations are going to continue. And that’s what really matters.
VOA: We heard from Secretary Austin and [U.S.] Secretary [of State Antony] Blinken that they want to see Ukraine win, that they want to see Ukraine prevail. Is it still the position of the administration?
Kirby: Of course, we want Ukraine to succeed on the battlefield, and we want them to succeed at the negotiating table, if and when it comes to that. Now, obviously, we’re not at that stage right now. But we believe that President Zelenskyy is the one who gets to determine what victory looks like. I mean, it’s his country. He’s the commander in chief, and we respect him. Unlike the Russians, we respect the decision by the Ukrainian voters to elect him into office. And we respect his leadership and his responsibilities.
VOA: What results is President Biden expecting from his visit to Europe – G-7 (Group of Seven) summit, NATO summit. What is the major expectation?
Kirby: This is a very exciting trip. A year ago, when President Biden was at the G-7, and he’s now attended several NATO summits, the theme in the past has been, look, America is back, American leadership is back. And now I think, without getting into specific deliverables ahead of these meetings, I can tell you that we’re very much looking forward to a theme of, now it’s American leadership delivering, delivering for our allies and partners, delivering for the American people, producing results that will actually improve our national security, help with energy security at home and around the world, and also continue to impose costs and consequences on Mr. Putin for this unprovoked war.
VOA: Russia’s envoy in Afghanistan said Moscow can recognize the Taliban government, regardless of the American position. Do you think this kind of move by Russia could further worsen the relationship between Moscow and Washington?
Kirby: I think there’s enough tension between the United States and Russia right now that that we need to continue to focus on what Mr. Putin has done for security across the European continent and, quite frankly, across the globe. Russia can speak for themselves in terms of what governments they intend to recognize or not, we are not at a stage where we’re willing to do that with respect to the Taliban. What we would ask of any nation in the world, certainly any nation bordering Afghanistan is to not make decisions that are going to make it less stable and less secure than it is right now for the Afghan people.
VOA: The White House says Biden’s upcoming meeting with [Saudi] King Salman and Prince [Mohammed] bin Salman will advance national security interests. What’s the rationale for where the White House decides that national interests trump objections to authoritarian leaders? And do you see that anytime in the foreseeable future where the White House might decide it’s in national interest to sit down even with Putin?
Kirby: Well, the president has spoken to Vladimir Putin, spoke to him before the invasion. The president will speak, he will meet, he will discuss with any leader around the world things that he believes are in the national security interests of the American people. That’s his job as commander in chief and he takes that responsibility seriously. And I would, you know, go back on some of the critics here, I mean, the fact that an adherence to values and human rights and civil rights is somehow at odds with a pragmatic foreign policy is just foolishness. They go hand in hand, they have to go hand in hand. And the president has been very clear that our foreign policy is going to be rooted in values and he’s never bashful about espousing and advancing those values as he meets with leaders around the world. The two go hand in hand they have to.
…
Why NATO’s China Focus May Endure
When the top leaders of NATO countries meet next week in Spain, the discussion will be dominated by the Ukraine war and how to deter further Russian aggression in Europe.
But in the latest sign the Western military alliance is trying to expand its focus eastward, the NATO summit will also deal with the challenges posed by China, perhaps in a more direct way than any of its previous meetings.
For the first time, the NATO summit will include the top leaders of four Asian countries: Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. None are NATO members, but each is wary of China’s growing influence and coercion.
Since 2020, NATO has stepped up cooperation with the four Asian democracies, which it refers to as “Asia-Pacific partners.”
The engagement underscores a profound shift in the scope and priorities of NATO, which was meant to focus on the collective defense of its North American and European member states.
But China’s growing global presence, as well as its expanding military cooperation with Russia, has made it much harder for NATO to ignore.
While there is no talk of NATO accepting Asian countries as members, the alliance’s new Asia focus will likely endure, according to many observers.
“I do not expect that NATO will now expand into the Indo-Pacific and create a new Asian NATO kind of organization,” said Zsuzsa Anna Ferenczy, a former political adviser in the European Parliament.
“I do expect, though, that cooperation with [Asian] countries that face the growing threat of China’s economic coercion and aggressive behavior … will converge more and more with European democracies as well as the United States,” said Ferenczy, assistant professor at National Dong Hwa University in Taiwan.
Europe sours on China
NATO’s eastward shift reflects not only an intensified U.S.-China rivalry, but also changing European attitudes toward Beijing.
For decades, Europe prioritized stable ties with China, which in 2020 overtook the United States as the European Union’s biggest trading partner.
But European views of China have soured under the leadership of Chinese Communist Party chief Xi Jinping, whose government has become more authoritarian at home and more aggressive abroad.
Under Xi, China has obliterated democratic opposition in Hong Kong, increased military threats against democratically ruled Taiwan, and been accused of genocide against Uighur Muslims.
Xi has also steadily expanded China’s military presence beyond its shores, most notably in the South China Sea, where it has created military outposts over the objections of its neighbors, which have overlapping territorial claims with China.
As part of its new “wolf warrior” approach to diplomacy, China has made clear it will retaliate against countries that criticize Beijing or enact policies that go against its wishes.
After Lithuania opened a de facto embassy in Taiwan, which Beijing views as its own territory, China downgraded diplomatic ties and imposed what some say amounts to a trade boycott. The unannounced embargo affected not only Lithuanian products, but also other European countries’ goods that incorporated Lithuanian components.
The pandemic has also helped worsen Europe-China relations. China has been accused of not cooperating sufficiently with a World Health Organization investigation into the origins of the coronavirus, which first appeared in central China. Instead, Chinese government-controlled media have suggested the virus originated elsewhere, such as the United States or Italy.
Changing NATO approach
Europe’s growing skepticism of China can also be observed in NATO’s recent history.
In 2019, China was included for the first time in a NATO statement – but only in a single sentence saying Beijing “presents both opportunities and challenges.”
By 2021, NATO’s tone had shifted. A joint communique issued in Brussels said China presents “systemic challenges to the rules-based international order.”
The statement also slammed China’s “coercive” policies, “opaque” military modernization, use of “disinformation,” and military exercises with Russia in the Euro-Atlantic area.
A major reason for NATO’s more combative tone is the Ukraine war, which coincided with Beijing and Moscow declaring a “no limits” partnership.
Just weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine, Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Beijing, where they announced a broad plan to counter Western influence around the world.
Since Russia’s invasion, China has attempted to portray itself as a neutral party. But many European observers are not convinced, noting China has consistently defended Russia from global criticism and instead blamed Washington for engaging in a “Cold War mindset” that provoked Moscow.
Pierre Morcos, a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Ukraine conflict has “confirmed the growing strategic rapprochement between China and Russia.”
“The war in Ukraine has also demonstrated that the Euro-Atlantic area and the Indo-Pacific region are deeply inter-connected. A crisis in a region can have deep impacts on the other one,” he said.
That explains why like-minded Asian countries are eager to play an active role in supporting Ukraine and pushing back against Russia, Morcos said.
“I think that we will see growing coordination and consultations between NATO and these countries in the future notably to discuss the aftershocks of the war in Ukraine but also exchange about China’s capacities and activities,” he added.
Speaking at a forum earlier this week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg insisted the alliance does not regard China as an adversary. However, he suggested the coming summit would result in a statement acknowledging “China poses some challenges to our values, to our interests, [and] to our security.”
China has responded angrily to NATO’s eastward focus. At a Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry briefing Thursday, spokesperson Wang Wenbin accused NATO of engaging in a “highly dangerous” effort to create hostile blocs in Asia.
“NATO has already disrupted stability in Europe,” he said. “It should not try to do the same to the Asia-Pacific and the whole world.”
…
Jill Biden to Speak at Event in Florida, Honoring Victims of Condo Collapse
U.S. first lady Jill Biden is expected to speak Friday in Surfside, Florida, marking the anniversary of the nighttime collapse of a 12-story oceanfront condo building that killed 98 people.
Events are being held Friday to honor the victims and survivors, as well as the rescue teams who searched for the victims.
A woman and two teenagers were the only people who survived the actual collapse of the building, according to an Associated Press report. Other survivors escaped the part of the building that initially remained standing.
Friday’s observances come a day after a judge approved a more than $1 billion compensation package for the victims.
…
US Theater Skips Plan to Fast Forward Through Disney Same-Sex Kiss
A movie theater owner in the western U.S. state of Oklahoma said the theater never carried out a plan to fast forward through a same-sex kiss in a newly released Disney/Pixar film.
The theater had posted a warning sign about the kiss and its intention to fast forward through the brief kissing scene in Lightyear, part of the Toy Story franchise.
The sign said that management found out about the kiss between two women after booking the film, adding that, “We will do all we can to fast-forward through that scene, but it might not be exact.”
Instead, the owner of the theater in Kingfisher told local television station KOCO 5 that the plan to interrupt the film was never executed in any of the showings of the film.
Some countries have banned the film because of the kiss.
…
Jan. 6 Investigators: Trump Pressured Department of Justice to Overturn 2020 Election
In the fifth public hearing this month examining the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, congressional investigators detailed how former President Donald Trump pressured the nation’s highest law enforcement officials to declare the 2020 election results invalid. As VOA’s congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports, those fraudulent election claims were also pushed by Republican members of Congress who later sought pardons.
Producer: Katherine Gypson
…
Biden’s USAGM Nominee Bennett Wins Senate Committee Approval
The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved President Joe Biden’s nominee to head the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), clearing the way for former VOA director Amanda Bennett to face a final confirmation vote on the Senate floor.
Juan Pachon, communications director for the committee’s Democratic majority, told VOA the committee approved Bennett’s nomination “en bloc” at a Thursday meeting at the Capitol, meaning she was one of several nominees for government positions who secured approval as a group. Pachon was responding to a VOA question about the outcome of the meeting. USAGM is VOA’s parent agency.
Pachon said the approval of Bennett and five U.S. ambassadorial nominees was part of a “broader agreement” proposed by Democratic committee chair Bob Menendez.
“As a result, there was no recorded vote,” he said. Pachon did not elaborate on what the agreement involved or when Bennett will have a final vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
With no Senate Democrats publicly expressing opposition to Bennett’s nomination, her confirmation appears likely.
Speaking to VOA outside the Capitol meeting room after the proceedings, Republican Senator Marco Rubio said he did not hear Bennett’s name come up in the discussion about the various nominees.
Bennett, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, previously served as VOA director from 2016 to 2020. She resigned that position in June 2020, days before Michael Pack, nominated as USAGM CEO by then-President Donald Trump, took office after winning Senate confirmation.
Asked what he thought of Bennett’s nomination, Rubio said, “I had some questions about the way (VOA) handled the interview with the well-known Chinese dissident while she was there the first time. But ultimately, you know, she was part of this bloc of nominees. There wasn’t an individual vote on her nomination, so it passed,” he said.
Rubio was referring to Bennett’s 2017 decision to cut short a planned three-hour, live interview by VOA’s Mandarin Service with exiled Chinese billionaire and prominent Beijing critic Guo Wengui, and to fire then-Mandarin Service chief Sasha Gong and other staffers who had defied instructions regarding the length and handling of the interview.
Bennett’s critics accused her of succumbing to Chinese government pressure to silence Guo. But VOA’s public relations office said third-party reviews of the incident “concluded that the decision to curtail the live interview was based solely on and consistent with journalistic best practices.”
Responding to a question about Bennett’s prospects of being confirmed by the full Senate, Rubio said, “Any (senator) can hold up any nominee for any reason. I don’t know if she’ll get an individual vote, or if she’ll be part of a package (vote) right before summer recess.”
Congress will be in recess Aug. 8-Sept. 6.
Pachon did not respond to a VOA request for comment from Menendez about Bennett earning a favorable recommendation from the Senate committee.
The White House cited Bennett’s long career in U.S. media and her four years as VOA director when it nominated her for the USAGM role last November. She has served as executive editor at Bloomberg News and was managing editor of The Oregonian newspaper. She also was a reporter for The Wall Street Journal for more than two decades, including in Beijing.
After Bennett resigned as VOA director in June 2020, Pack appointed Robert Reilly in December 2020 to succeed her. Minutes after Biden was sworn in as president on Jan. 20, 2021, he requested and received Pack’s resignation and appointed then-VOA programming director Kelu Chao as acting USAGM CEO. Chao removed Reilly as VOA director a day later.
Bennett has faced criticism from some Republicans since her June 7 confirmation hearing, when she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that she would advance USAGM’s mission of objectivity and balanced reporting at a time when disinformation is on the rise globally.
America First Legal Foundation, a right-of-center nonprofit organization founded by former senior Trump administration officials, sent a letter to Biden on Thursday asking him to withdraw Bennett’s nomination, citing alleged “national security and related failures” when she was VOA director.
The group’s main complaint is that Bennett ran USAGM’s biggest network, VOA, at a time when other government departments warned USAGM leaders of “deficiencies” in security clearances of agency employees, some with sensitive positions. A July 2020 report by the Office of Personnel Management found that 1,527 USAGM employees, or about 40% of the total workforce, had been improperly vetted over the previous 10 years, prompting OPM to revoke USAGM’s authority to conduct its own background investigations of employees.
House Foreign Affairs Committee lead Republican Michael McCaul said he believed Bennett did not face a “robust” round of questioning in the June 7 hearing and sent a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee two days later urging it to subject Bennett to closer scrutiny. He cited allegations that the former VOA director mismanaged public funds and personnel, and oversaw security lapses, biased news coverage and poor morale.
“I have grave concerns with Amanda Bennett’s nomination to serve as the CEO of USAGM,” McCaul told VOA via email earlier this month. “At a time when we are facing existential threats from disinformation and the silencing of objective journalism in China, Russia, and around the world, it is imperative we have a fair-minded, skilled leader at the helm of USAGM.”
McCaul has been a strong supporter of USAGM’s mission and criticized Pack during his time as the agency’s CEO.
Bennett and USAGM did not immediately respond to VOA’s requests for comment on American First Legal’s call that her nomination be withdrawn.
U.S. Ambassador Karen Kornbluh, a former member of USAGM’s governing board, told VOA earlier this month that Bennett’s media background and knowledge of USAGM as a former VOA director make her a strong candidate to be the agency’s CEO. She said Bennett could set “the standard for all who follow.”
“Her leadership is essential at a time of resurgent authoritarianism around the world — to ensure that people living under repressive regimes not only have access to accurate information, but also can see models of excellent journalism in practice,” Kornbluh said.
…
Biden Heads to European Summits With Ambitious Agenda
President Joe Biden heads to Europe for two major summits with challenges that include how Western democracies can continue to support Ukraine, how they can counter China’s growing influence, and how the world’s most liberal nations can weather these uncertain times. VOA’s Anita Powell reports.
…
Ethiopia’s Struggling Displaced People Face Dilemma: Stay or Go Home?
Internally displaced persons in Ethiopia’s Afar region have been leaving camps because of lack of food and shelter. The U.N. has warned that returning home may not prove any better and it’s seeking more international aid. Halima Athumani reports from Semera, Ethiopia. Camera: Yidnkeachew Lemma.
…
Supreme Court Rules Against New York Law Limiting Concealed Firearms
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a New York State law restricting the ability of individuals to carry concealed firearms outside of their homes is unconstitutional, an opinion that will trigger the overthrow of several similar state laws and which also plants the seeds for challenges to an array of other laws regulating firearms across the country.
In its ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court held that New York’s requirement that an applicant for a permit to carry a handgun in public show “proper cause” violates individuals’ right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The court found that by imposing a subjective test that a law-abiding citizen must pass in order to exercise the right to bear arms, New York also violated the 14th Amendment, which prevents states from passing laws restricting Americans’ ability to exercise their constitutional rights.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” wrote Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, in an opinion joined by the five other conservative justices on the court.
The court’s three liberal justices all dissented, with Associate Justice Stephen Breyer arguing the majority had ignored New York’s “compelling interest in preventing gun violence.”
The ruling, a major victory for gun rights organizations, comes less than a month after two highly publicized mass shootings — in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas — galvanized congressional support for a new law aimed at reducing gun violence. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, expected to pass the Senate this week, would make a number of changes to current law, including expanding background checks for gun buyers under 21 years of age.
The killers in Buffalo and Uvalde were both 18 years old and had purchased their weapons legally.
On Thursday, just hours after the Supreme Court ruled on the New York case, 15 Republicans joined all 50 Democrats in the Senate to overcome a filibuster of the bill, setting it up for a final vote.
Advocacy groups react
Gun rights organizations cheered the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), whose Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in a statement, “This decision unequivocally validates the position of the NRA and should put lawmakers on notice: no law should be passed that impinges this individual freedom.”
The reaction from gun control advocates was angry.
“Today’s ruling is out of step with the bipartisan majority in Congress that is on the verge of passing significant gun safety legislation, and out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans who support gun safety measures,” John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: the Supreme Court got this decision wrong, choosing to put our communities in even greater danger with gun violence on the rise across the country.”
Response in Washington
The reaction to the court’s ruling broke down largely along partisan lines in Washington, with Democrats decrying the court’s stance and Republicans supporting it.
In a statement issued by the White House, President Biden said, “This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all. In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans.”
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said, “It is unfathomable that, while families in Uvalde, Buffalo and countless other communities mourn their loved ones stolen by gun violence, a supermajority of the Supreme Court has chosen to endanger more American lives. Today’s decision by a radical, Republican-controlled Court extends what was intended to be a limited right to self-defense at home to a new right to bring guns into our public spaces.”
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy issued a statement in support of the ruling, saying, “The Constitution protects the right of law-abiding Americans to own a firearm for self-defense through the Second Amendment. While states like New York have tried to restrict that right through burdensome laws and regulations, the Supreme Court has, on multiple occasions, recognized it, and today strengthened it.”
Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, a staunch gun rights advocate, tweeted, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class constitutional right. I applaud the Supreme Court for standing with the Constitution and individual liberty in reaffirming the right of Americans to protect themselves and their families.”
Licensing laws limited
The primary holding of the court’s opinion is that states may not pass laws that create a system of “discretionary” permitting for concealed firearms, such as New York’s, which demands applicants show evidence of a “special need” to carry a weapon and leaves it to government officials to assess the validity of that claim.
Going forward, the only constitutional gun licensing laws will be so-called “shall issue” regimes, under which a person who objectively complies with a set of requirements — including things like a criminal background check, firearms training, and a mental health evaluation — is guaranteed to receive a license.
However, gun rights activists were quick to point out that the decision is written in a way that opens the door to legal challenges to laws that extend well beyond those governing concealed carry permits.
History as guide
In the opinion, Thomas ruled that the way many courts analyze the constitutionality of gun laws, by applying a two-step process that considers both the history of the Second Amendment and the government’s interests in enforcing the law, is mistaken.
“Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many,” he wrote.
In ruling on Second Amendment cases, he wrote, courts should not weigh the government’s interest in promoting public health or other aims against restrictions on gun rights.
In such cases, Thomas wrote, the courts have only one consideration: “the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”
In his dissent, Breyer provided lengthy descriptions of the gun violence problem in the U.S. and said that the majority was wrong to limit the government’s ability to consider its interests in public safety when assessing the constitutionality of gun laws.
“Courts must be permitted to consider the State’s interest in preventing gun violence, the effectiveness of the contested law in achieving that interest, the degree to which the law burdens the Second Amendment right, and, if appropriate, any less restrictive alternatives,” Breyer wrote.
‘You name it’
Gun rights groups see the abolishment of the “two-part test” as an opportunity to try to overturn numerous other gun restrictions.
In an interview with VOA, Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California and a member of the board of directors of Gun Owners of America, said that the ruling opens the door to challenges to assault weapons bans, high-capacity magazine bans, gun-purchase waiting periods, and more.
“You name it, it’s across the board,” Paredes said. “Virtually any gun control law that affects the individual rights of law-abiding citizens to acquire, use, store, possess, travel with and dispose of firearms will now be placed in jeopardy, because of the ruling from the Supreme Court. We will have the opportunity to restore the Second Amendment to its original intent.”
‘More firearm-related deaths’
Tim Carey, a law and policy adviser at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Violence Solutions, told VOA that he agrees that the ruling makes further challenges to existing gun laws very likely.
“There’s going to be a tidal wave of incoming litigation of what have previously been long-standing and generally accepted firearms regulations,” he said.
Asked what that means for the country, Carey answered on behalf of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions.
“As a public health organization, we expect, as a result of this ruling for there to be … more firearms in public and thus, more firearm-related deaths and injuries in public.”
…