WASHINGTON – There is still time to dissuade Beijing not to use force to reunify Taiwan with mainland China, according to America’s most senior military official.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said Friday that despite well-publicized plans calling for the Chinese military to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027, there is no indication Chinese President Xi Jinping has made a decision one way or the other.

Speaking to an audience at the National Press Club in Washington, Milley said that gives the U.S. and other countries time to show Xi the use of force would be a bad idea.

“You want to make sure that every single day, President Xi wakes up and says, ‘Today is not that day,’ and that that decision never comes,” he said.

Milley’s comments are in line with analysis from top U.S. intelligence officials, who have argued for much of the past year that Xi would prefer a peaceful reunification with Taiwan.

Some officials and analysts, however, have expressed concern that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would prompt Beijing to risk war over Taiwan, with others warning China is likely learning lessons from Russia’s failures.

Milley on Friday said that as long as the U.S. and its allies are able to maintain their shrinking military advantage over China — and upgrade and modernize where necessary — Beijing can be persuaded to keep its forces on its side of the Taiwan Strait.

“The faster we move out, the faster we can retain military superiority, then I believe the theory of the case is we are more likely than not to deter war from happening, and if war does happen, we will prevail,” Milley said.

He also pushed back against criticism of the current U.S. approach to China and Taiwan, saying the U.S. and its allies have the capacity to support Ukraine and Taiwan, even though some of the needs overlap when it comes to weapon systems and ammunition.

“It’s not … a zero-sum game. It’s not like that,” Milley said, adding, “There are other allies and partners out there [to help Taiwan]. It’s not just the United States.”

Tensions between the U.S. and Chinese militaries have been rising steadily, going back to February, when the Pentagon accused China of flying a high-altitude spy balloon over the United States. 

Chinese officials have insisted the device was a weather balloon, rejecting evidence from Washington that the equipment on board the balloon was meant for surveillance.

Complicating matters, Chinese military leaders have refused to speak with their U.S. counterparts.

Earlier this week, officials at the Chinese Embassy in Washington called on the U.S. to drop sanctions against China as a prerequisite for talks.

Pentagon officials Thursday rejected the demand.

U.S. officials have said they will continue to leave open the possibility for military-to-military talks, saying such communication is critical to prevent misunderstandings that could lead to conflict, something Milley alluded to Friday. 

“The geostrategic history of this century will likely be determined by the United States-China relationship,” he said, “and whether it remains in competition or tips into a great power war.”
…

your ad here

WASHINGTON – A U.S. State Department report on Friday criticized the handling of the 2021 evacuation from Afghanistan, saying decisions by President Joe Biden and his predecessor Donald Trump to withdraw troops had “serious consequences for the viability” and security of the former U.S.-backed government. 

Adverse findings in the report also reflected on Secretary of State Antony Blinken, without naming him. They included the department’s failure to expand its crisis-management task force as the Taliban advanced on Kabul in August 2021 and the lack of a senior diplomat “to oversee all elements of the crisis response.” 

“Naming a 7th floor principal … would have improved coordination across different lines of effort,” said the report, referring to the State Department’s top floor where Blinken and senior diplomats have offices.  

The review, and a similar Pentagon study, contributed to a report released by the White House in April. But the State Department review’s critical findings were not reflected in the White House report. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A representative for Trump also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The White House report effectively blamed the chaotic U.S. pullout and evacuation operation on a lack of planning and troop reduction rounds by Trump following a 2020 deal with the Taliban to withdraw U.S. forces. 

“I can’t speak to that internal coordination piece and how the administration settled on the core conclusions that it presented” in April, a senior State Department official said. 

No reason given for timing

The official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, declined to say why the review dated March 2022 was withheld from release until the eve of the July 4 holiday weekend. 

The U.S troop pullout and evacuation of U.S. and allied officials, citizens and Afghans at risk of Taliban retribution saw crowds of desperate Afghans trying to enter Kabul airport and men clinging to aircraft as they taxied down runways. 

An Islamic State group suicide bomber killed 13 U.S. servicemembers and more than 150 Afghans outside an airport gate. 

The State Department released 24 pages of an 85-page After Action Report — the rest remained classified — on its handling of the evacuation operation launched as the last U.S.-led international forces departed after 20 years of backing successive Kabul governments against the Taliban. 

It praised the performance of American Embassy personnel working under difficult conditions like the COVID-19 pandemic and reduced security because of the U.S. troop drawdown, whose speed “compounded the difficulties the department faced.” 

About 125,000 people, including nearly 6,000 Americans, were flown out of Kabul before the last U.S. soldiers departed on August 30, 2021, as the Taliban consolidated their grip on Kabul after the U.S.-backed government fled. 

“The decisions of both President Trump and President Biden to end the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan had serious consequences for the viability of the Afghan government and its security,” the review said. 

While those decisions were outside its scope, the review said that “during both administrations there was insufficient senior-level consideration of worst-case scenarios and how quickly those might follow.” 

The review said State Department planning for the evacuation was hindered because it was unclear which senior official had the lead. 

Senior administration officials also failed to make “clear decisions regarding the universe of at-risk Afghans” to be included in the evacuation by the time it started, nor had they determined where Afghan evacuees would be taken, it said. 

Preparation and planning “were inhibited” by the Biden administration’s reluctance to take steps that could signal a loss of confidence in the Kabul government “and thus contribute to its collapse,” the review found. 

“The complicated department task force structure that was created when the evacuation began proved confusing to many participants, and knowledge management and communication among and across various lines of effort was problematic,” it said. 
…

your ad here

WASHINGTON — A sharply divided Supreme Court on Friday effectively killed President Joe Biden’s $400 billion plan to cancel or reduce federal student loan debts for millions of Americans.

The 6-3 decision, with conservative justices in the majority, said the Biden administration overstepped its authority with the plan, and it leaves borrowers on the hook for repayments that are expected to resume in the fall.

Biden was to announce a new set of actions to protect student loan borrowers and would address the court decision later Friday, said a White House official. The official was not authorized to speak publicly ahead of Biden’s expected statement on the case and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The court held that the administration needed Congress’ endorsement before undertaking so costly a program. The majority rejected arguments that a bipartisan 2003 law dealing with student loans, known as the HEROES Act, gave Biden the power he claimed.

“Six States sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. We agree,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent, joined by the court’s two other liberals, that the majority of the court “overrides the combined judgment of the Legislative and Executive Branches, with the consequence of eliminating loan forgiveness for 43 million Americans.”

Loan repayments will resume in October, although interest will begin accruing in September, the Education Department has announced. Payments have been on hold since the start of the coronavirus pandemic more than three years ago.

The forgiveness program would have canceled $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, would have had an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

Twenty-six million people had applied for relief and 43 million would have been eligible, the administration said. The cost was estimated at $400 billion over 30 years.

Advocacy groups supporting debt cancellation condemned the decision while demanding that Biden find another avenue to fulfill his promise of debt relief.

Natalia Abrams, president and founder of the Student Debt Crisis Center, said the responsibility for new action falls “squarely” on Biden’s shoulders. “The president possesses the power, and must summon the will, to secure the essential relief that families across the nation desperately need,” Abrams said in a statement.

The loan plan joins other pandemic-related initiatives that faltered at the Supreme Court.

Conservative majorities ended an eviction moratorium that had been imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and blocked a plan to require workers at big companies to be vaccinated or undergo regular testing and wear a mask on the job. The court upheld a plan to require vaccinations of health-care workers.

The earlier programs were billed largely as public health measures intended to slow the spread of COVID-19. The loan forgiveness plan, by contrast, was aimed at countering the economic effects of the pandemic.

In more than three hours of arguments last February, conservative justices voiced their skepticism that the administration had the authority to wipe away or reduce student loans held by millions.

Republican-led states arguing before the court said the plan would have amounted to a “windfall” for 20 million people who would have seen their entire student debt disappear and been better off than they were before the pandemic.

Roberts was among those on the court who questioned whether non-college workers would essentially be penalized for a break for the college educated.

In contrast, the administration grounded the need for the sweeping loan forgiveness in the COVID-19 emergency and the continuing negative impacts on people near the bottom of the economic ladder. The declared emergency ended on May 11.

Without the promised loan relief, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer told the justices, “delinquencies and defaults will surge.”

At those arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said her fellow justices would be making a mistake if they took for themselves, instead of leaving it to education experts, “the right to decide how much aid to give” people who would struggle if the program were struck down.

The HEROES Act has allowed the secretary of education to waive or modify the terms of federal student loans in connection with a national emergency. The law was primarily intended to keep service members from being hurt financially while they fought in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Biden had once doubted his own authority to broadly cancel student debt, but announced the program last August. Legal challenges quickly followed.

The court majority said the Republican-led states had cleared an early hurdle that required them to show they would be financially harmed if the program had been allowed to take effect.

The states did not even rely on any direct injury to themselves, but instead pointed to the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, a state-created company that services student loans.

Nebraska Solicitor General James Campbell, arguing before the court in February, said the Authority would lose about 40% of its revenues if the Biden plan went into effect. Independent research has cast doubt on the financial harm MOHELA would face, suggesting that the agency would still see an increase in revenue even if Biden’s cancellation went through. That information was not part of the court record.

A federal judge initially found that the states would not be harmed and dismissed their lawsuit before an appellate panel said the case could proceed.

In a second case, the justices ruled unanimously that two Texans who filed a separate challenge did not have legal standing to sue. But the outcome of that case has no bearing on the court’s decision to block the debt relief plan.
…

your ad here

In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. Smith had argued that the law violates her free speech rights.

Smith’s opponents warned that a win for her would allow a range of businesses to discriminate, refusing to serve Black, Jewish or Muslim customers, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants. But Smith and her supporters had said that a ruling against her would force artists — from painters and photographers to writers and musicians — to do work that is against their beliefs.

“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s six conservative justices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by the court’s other liberals. “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote.

The decision is a win for religious rights and one in a series of cases in recent years in which the justices have sided with religious plaintiffs. Last year, for example, the court ruled along ideological lines for a football coach who prayed on the field at his public high school after games.

The decision is also a retreat on gay rights for the court. For two decades, the court has expanded the rights of LGBTQ people, most notably giving same-sex couples the right to marry in 2015 and announcing five years later that a landmark civil rights law also protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from employment discrimination. That civil rights law decision was also written by Gorsuch.

Even as it has expanded gay rights, however, the court has been careful to say those with differing religious views needed to be respected. The belief that marriage can only be between one man and one woman is an idea that “long has been held — and continues to be held — in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court’s gay marriage decision.

The court returned to that idea five years ago when it was confronted with the case of a Christian baker who objected to designing a cake for a same-sex wedding. The court issued a limited ruling in favor of the baker, Jack Phillips, saying there had been impermissible hostility toward his religious views in the consideration of his case. Phillips’ lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, of the Alliance Defending Freedom, also brought the most recent case to the court.

Smith, who owns a Colorado design business called 303 Creative, does not currently create wedding websites. She has said that she wants to but that her Christian faith would prevent her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. And that’s where she runs into conflict with state law.

Colorado, like most other states, has a law forbidding businesses open to the public from discriminating against customers. Colorado said that under its so-called public accommodations law, if Smith offers wedding websites to the public, she must provide them to all customers, regardless of sexual orientation. Businesses that violate the law can be fined, among other things. Smith argued that applying the law to her violates her First Amendment rights. The state disagreed.
…

your ad here

Unaccompanied migrant children in U.S. shelters will now be allowed longer phone calls with loved ones. That’s because of a recent change in guidance announced by the U.S. agency that oversees the care and release of minors.

The updated guidance from the Office of Refugee Resettlement, that went into effect on Monday, allows minors to have at least 50-minute phone calls Monday through Friday with parents or other relatives anywhere in the U.S. or outside the country. That’s a change from the two 10-minute phone calls twice a week they were allowed to have.

Unaccompanied migrant minors remain in shelters and under the U.S. government’s custody until they’re released to their relatives or sponsors in the United States. Migrant children advocates called this a critical step for children’s safety and well-being.

“It’s something that children have repeatedly raised over time as a key issue in terms of conditions of custody,” Jane Liu, director of policy and litigation at Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, told VOA. “We’ve been working with pediatric health experts to do advocacy around this issue. … And so anything to mitigate the harm of that detention is critical to their health and that’s why … we’ve been pushing really hard on this.”

The policy also requires at least 45-minute calls on holidays, weekends, and the child’s birthday. Unlimited calls are expected to be available when children are in situations of emergency such as “grieving the loss of a loved one or experiencing a mental health crisis.”

There are almost 6,000 unaccompanied minors in U.S. custody, according to the latest daily report released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security.

In its daily report to the media, ORR and DHS repeatedly say that in more than 80% of cases, an unaccompanied minor has a family member in the United States; in nearly half of those instances, that family member is a parent or legal guardian.

“These children are reunited with their families who will care for them,” according to the daily report. “The children then go through immigration proceedings where they are able to present an application for asylum or other protection under the law.”

Importance of communication

Physicians for Human Rights sent ORR a letter in April 2022 recommending that children in its custody have at least 30 minutes of phone communication per day, video being preferable, and in-person contact visits when possible. For children without anyone to call, the physicians recommended support through other activities.

“The most powerful factor to foster child resilience and adaptive skills to overcome negative impacts from difficult situations is a secure relationship with a safe, stable, nurturing adult whose presence is continuous over time, whether it is the child’s parent or caregiver,” they wrote. “Emotionally attuned attachment promotes healthy brain growth, development of accurate mental maps of self and others, ability to trust, and protection from trauma.”

Although ORR did not say specifically what prompted its decision to allow for longer phone calls with loved ones, expanded communications had been advocated by a number of pediatric health experts aside from PHR, some of whom submitted an open letter to ORR officials in January.

In addition to government-run facilities, some unaccompanied minors are placed in foster care programs until they are released to relatives in the United States. ORR notes in its policy that “Care providers must exhaust all efforts to utilize video calls over audio-only calls, where the family, sponsor and/or other approved contacts have access to video calling technology.”

ORR guidance also prohibits providers from taking away or threatening to take away opportunities to communicate with approved family members or sponsors as a form of punishment.

Unaccompanied migrant minors arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border and crossing without authorization are first taken to a border patrol station. Many hope to reunite with parents who are already in the U.S. or have deliberately left their country due to crime, domestic abuse, gangs, or poverty.

Within 72 hours, however, they must be transferred to the custody of the ORR office under HHS and placed in facilities designed to accommodate the needs of children.

The Biden administration dealt with a record number of unaccompanied migrant minors arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2022. According to the latest numbers, border patrol processed 9,943 minors in May. That number was 14,675 at the same time last year.

In May, the U.S. House passed a border security package that included extending the timeframe in which minors can be held in immigration facilities, limiting asylum and eliminating ORR’s program that offers legal representation to children in immigration court.

Democrats have said the proposed legislation does not resolve the challenges at the U.S.-Mexico border.

U.S. Representative Jody Chu, from California, said the bill would “decimate our asylum system and humanitarian protections, put more children and families in detention.”

House GOP leadership, however, said the proposal is the “strongest border security bill this country has ever seen.”

The bill, however, is unlikely to become law as the White House has already said it would veto it.
…

your ad here

WASHINGTON – Former U.S. President Donald Trump, a longtime admirer of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said Thursday that Putin has been “somewhat weakened” by an aborted mutiny and that now is the time for the United States to try to broker a negotiated peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine.

Speaking expansively about foreign policy in a telephone interview with Reuters, the front-runner in opinion polls for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination also said China should be given a 48-hour deadline to get out of what sources familiar with the matter say is a Chinese spy capability on the island of Cuba 145 kilometers off the U.S. coast.

On Ukraine, Trump did not rule out that the Kyiv government might have to concede some territory to Russia to stop the war, which began with Russian forces invading Ukraine 16 months ago. He said everything would be “subject to negotiation,” if he were president, but that Ukrainians who have waged a vigorous fight to defend their land have “earned a lot of credit.”

“I think they would be entitled to keep much of what they’ve earned, and I think that Russia likewise would agree to that. You need the right mediator, or negotiator, and we don’t have that right now,” he said.

U.S. President Joe Biden and NATO allies want Russia out of territory it has seized in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine has launched a counteroffensive that has made small gains in driving out Russian forces.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last year proposed a 10-point peace plan, which calls on Russia to withdraw all of its troops.

“I think the biggest thing that the U.S. should be doing right now is making peace — getting Russia and Ukraine together and making peace. You can do it,” Trump said. “This is the time to do it, to get the two parties together to force peace.”

As president, Trump developed friendly relations with Putin, who Biden said on Wednesday has “become a bit of pariah around the world” for invading Ukraine.

Trump said Putin had been damaged by an uprising by the Russian mercenary force, the Wagner Group, and its leader Yevgeny Prigozhin, last weekend.

“You could say that he’s (Putin) still there, he’s still strong, but he certainly has been, I would say, somewhat weakened at least in the minds of a lot of people,” he said.

If Putin were no longer in power, however, “you don’t know what the alternative is. It could be better, but it could be far worse,” Trump said.

As for war crimes charges levied against Putin by the International Criminal Court last March, Trump said Putin’s fate should be discussed when the war is over “because right now if you bring that topic up, you’ll never make peace, you’ll never make a settlement.”

Trump was adamantly opposed to China’s spy base on Cuba and said if Beijing refused to accept his 48-hour demand for shutting it down, a Trump administration would impose new tariffs on Chinese goods.

As president, Trump adopted a tougher stance on China while claiming a good relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping that soured over the coronavirus pandemic.

“I’d give them 48 hours to get out. And if they didn’t get out, I’d charge them a 100% tariff on everything they sell to the United States, and they’d be gone within two days. They’d be gone within one hour,” Trump said.

Trump was mum on whether the United States would support Taiwan militarily if China invaded the self-ruled island that Beijing claims as its own.

“I don’t talk about that. And the reason I don’t is because it would hurt my negotiating position,” he said. “All I can tell you is for four years, there was no threat. And it wouldn’t happen if I were president.” 
…

your ad here