manila, Philippines — Analysts see China’s increasingly aggressive attacks on Philippine vessels in the South China Sea as a test of the U.S.-Philippines alliance. What happens next, they say, will depend largely on how Manila and Washington respond. 

Dramatic footage released last week by the Philippine military showed Chinese coast guard personnel wielding knives, an ax and other weapons as they intercepted Philippine soldiers who were in rubber boats delivering supplies to a garrison at Second Thomas Shoal.  

The June 17 clash was the worst so far in the escalating tension in the disputed waters, with several Philippine soldiers injured, including one who lost a thumb, according to Manila. 

But while the Philippines tried to de-escalate the tension with diplomacy, analysts say future such incidents are likely.  

“China will seek to push the Philippines further,” said Don McLain Gill, an international studies lecturer at De La Salle University in Manila.  

“The main challenge here is to apply considerable cost on China in order for it not to illustrate this sort of behavior and turn it into something regular, like the same way it had regularized water canonning and ramming [of Philippine vessels],” he told VOA. 

There have been several incidents in the past months in which Chinese coast guard ships blasted Philippine patrol boats with water cannons and performed dangerous maneuvers in attempts to stop resupply missions to Philippine troops stationed at the shoal. 

The flash point of the conflict is the BRP Sierra Madre, a dilapidated warship that Manila deliberately ran aground in 1999 to stake its claim to Second Thomas Shoal, a maritime feature in the Spratly Islands that is within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.  

China claims almost the entirety of the South China Sea, including the Spratly chain, based on historical maps that an international tribunal has ruled have no legal basis.

Parallel strand of negotiation

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., in his first media interview since the incident, acknowledged Thursday that more must be done than to just file diplomatic protests against China. 

“We have [lodged] more than 100 protests already. … [What usually happens is] we summon the ambassador, we tell him our position, that we don’t want what happened, and that’s it. But we have to do more than that, so we are. We are doing more than just that,” Marcos told reporters Thursday, without elaborating. 

But Collin Koh, a fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said there must also be a “parallel strand of negotiation and dialogue” between China and the United States to de-escalate the tension. 

The United States is a treaty ally of the Philippines and is obligated to defend Manila against external armed attack, including in areas in the South China Sea. 

Given the high stakes for all three countries, Koh said, China might listen to another superpower.  

“I think in large part it will depend very greatly on U.S. signaling explicitly to China on things that it should refrain from doing, and it must come with a very explicit threat of repercussions or consequences,” Koh told VOA. 

“If the messaging isn’t done clearly, then we are going to see a repetition of what’s happening,” he added. 

Mutual defense treaty 

Marcos has ruled out invoking the mutual defense treaty over the latest incident, saying it could not be considered an “armed attack.” 

Marcos had earlier said he wanted a review of the treaty, which was signed in 1951, to respond to the changing security challenges in the region.  

The recent escalation might provide urgency for Washington and Manila “to expedite the process of defining particular provisions and enhancing consultations,” according to Gill of De La Salle University. 

One such clarification was provided earlier this year by Marcos, who said the death of a Philippine serviceman in “an attack or an aggressive action by another foreign power” could trigger the treaty.  

This specific requirement, however, might work in China’s favor.

“If you set the bar so high, then it means that you are allowing China to keep doing whatever it is doing just under that threshold,” Koh said, although he agreed that it was not yet necessary to activate the treaty.  

“Nobody died and there were no other serious injuries other than the poor guy who lost his thumb. The question is: Are we going to be lucky in the future like that?” Koh asked.
…

…

WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence and security officials are increasing their focus on the country’s southern border, worried the constant flow of migrants has attracted the attention of the Islamic State terror group.

The heightened concern follows the arrests earlier this month of eight men from Tajikistan, all of whom entered the United States via its southern border with Mexico, some making the trip over a year ago.

While the initial background checks came up clean, U.S. law enforcement subsequently turned up information indicating potential ties to the Islamic State group, also known as IS or ISIS.

“It’s not lost on us that the people who killed over 150 Russians in that theater were from the same part of the world,” said Ken Wainstein, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s undersecretary for intelligence and analysis, referring to the March attack on a Moscow concert hall, claimed by the terror group’s Afghan affiliate. 

Wainstein, testifying Wednesday before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, said concern about the potential for IS to exploit the border has led to daily meetings with the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), as well as unprecedented cooperation with the FBI.

But he sought to downplay concerns stemming from intelligence suggesting that the IS-linked human smuggling network may have brought more than 400 migrants from Central Asia into the U.S., across the southern border.

“There is not information which suggests those particular individuals are terrorist operatives,” Wainstein told lawmakers.

Information on the 400 migrants, first reported by NBC News, indicates more than 150 of the migrants have been arrested. But officials told NBC that the whereabouts of more than 50 others are unknown.

The newfound concerns about terror groups like IS actively trying to exploit the southern border seems to indicate a significant shift in the threat landscape.

For years, U.S. counterterrorism officials have maintained there was no evidence that IS or other Sunni terror groups were trying to infiltrate the U.S. along its border with Mexico. 

And this past November, NCTC Director Christine Abizaid told lawmakers that while counterterrorism officials “absolutely recognize the risk,” evidence for such plots was lacking.

“We don’t have indications that are credible or corroborated,” she told members of the House of Representatives at the time.

But U.S. and Turkish sanctions unveiled earlier this month may point to the Islamic State terror group’s growing interest in human smuggling.

The sanctions focus on what the U.S. Treasury Department described as a Eurasian human smuggling network that was providing support for IS members in Turkey. 

One of the key operatives, Olimkhon Ismailov, is based in Uzbekistan. And Ismailov had high-level help, with Treasury alleging he was given guidance by the leader of IS in the Republic of Georgia, Adam Khamirzaev.

According to the U.S. State Department, Khamirzaev apparently had his sights set on the U.S. 

The IS-Georgia emir “provided guidance to this network on a range of activities supporting ISIS and was aware of its efforts to facilitate travelers to the United States,” the State Department said in a statement.

Multiple U.S. agencies, including DHS, the FBI and the State Department declined to respond to questions about the reach of the Eurasian human smuggling network involved with IS operatives in Turkey and Uzbekistan.

There are also no indications that the sanctioned network is connected to the same IS-linked network that brought the eight men from Tajikistan, or the hundreds of other Central Asian migrants, into the U.S. through the southern border.

As for the eight men from Tajikistan, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told reporters in Tucson, Arizona, Wednesday that, “They are in removal proceedings as we speak.”

And other U.S. officials say they have stepped up security measures.

“We have increased our vigilance at our border,” said Jen Daskal, the White House deputy Homeland Security adviser, virtually addressing a counterterrorism conference Wednesday in Omaha, Nebraska.

“We have enhanced our screening and vetting, instituted recurrent vetting of migrants to identify newly uncovered threats and detain those who pose a public safety threat,” she said.

But Daskal admitted the threat from IS, and especially its Afghan affiliate, persists.

“Both ISIS and ISIS-Khorasan, or what we call ISIS-K, have demonstrated a capability and intent to conduct external operations,” she said.
…

WASHINGTON — Reality TV star Paris Hilton called for greater federal oversight of youth care programs at a U.S. House of Representatives committee hearing on Wednesday as she described her traumatic experience in youth care facilities.

Hilton, 43, the great-granddaughter of Hilton Hotels founder Conrad Hilton, has spoken publicly about the emotional and physical abuse she endured when she was placed in residential youth treatment facilities as a teen.

In remarks to the committee on Wednesday, she described being taken from her bed in the middle of the night at age 16 and transported across state lines to a residential facility where she experienced physical and sexual abuse.

“This $23 billion industry sees this population [of vulnerable children] as dollar signs and operates without meaningful oversight,” she said.

“There’s no education in these places; there’s mold and blood on the walls,” she said in response to lawmaker questions. “It’s horrifying what these places are like. They’re worse than some dog kennels.”

Hilton said private equity firms that have taken a greater stake in the industry in recent years focus on maximizing profits, prompting them to hire unqualified workers.

“They’re caring more about profit than the safety of children,” she said.

Hilton first described her experience at a Utah facility in 2021 and has been a vocal advocate for greater oversight of the system.

“These programs promised ‘healing, growth, and support,’ but instead did not allow me to speak, move freely, or even look out of a window for two years,” Hilton told the committee. “My parents were completely deceived, lied to and manipulated by this for-profit industry, so you can only imagine the experience for youth who don’t have anyone checking in on them.”

Several lawmakers agreed that more federal oversight was necessary.

“We must always be concerned about fraud and guard against Wall Street vultures snatching public funds to line their pockets,” Democratic Representative Bill Pascrell said. “We cannot allow the private equity octopus to reach its tentacles into child services.”
…

EAST PALESTINE, Ohio — The head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday that Norfolk Southern repeatedly tried to interfere with the agency’s investigation into the derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, and shape its conclusions about the flawed decision to blow open five tank cars and burn the vinyl chloride inside. 

The NTSB also confirmed at Tuesday’s hearing that the February 2023 derailment was caused by a wheel bearing that video showed was on fire for 32.19 kilometers (more than 20 miles) beforehand but wasn’t caught in time by inaccurate trackside detectors. The board also approved more than two dozen recommendations to prevent similar disasters, including establishing federal rules for those detectors and the way railroads respond to them along with reviewing how officials decide whether to ever conduct a vent and burn again. 

More than three dozen freight cars derailed February 3, 2023, on the outskirts of East Palestine near the Pennsylvania border, including 11 carrying hazardous materials. Some residents were evacuated that night, but days later more had to leave their homes amid fears of an imminent explosion. Despite potential health effects, officials intentionally released and burned toxic vinyl chloride three days after the crash, sending flames and smoke into the air. 
…

Washington — The closed-door trial of American journalist Evan Gershkovich is set to begin on Wednesday in Russia, nearly 15 months after he was jailed on espionage charges that are widely viewed as baseless and politically motivated.

A correspondent with The Wall Street Journal, Gershkovich was detained in March 2023 on spying charges that he, his employer and the U.S. government vehemently deny. The State Department has also declared Gershkovich wrongfully detained.

Press freedom experts have said that the trial against Gershkovich will almost certainly be a politically motivated sham.

The trial is taking place in Yekaterinburg, where Gershkovich was first detained. The city in the Ural Mountains is about 1,400 kilometers (870 miles) east of Moscow.

Russian authorities have accused Gershkovich of “gathering secret information” about a military facility. But to date, Moscow has not publicly provided any evidence to substantiate the charges against Gershkovich, who was accredited by Russia’s foreign ministry to work in the country.

Russia’s Washington Embassy did not immediately reply to a VOA email requesting comment.

Secret trials are common practice in Russia for cases of alleged treason or espionage involving classified state material. The charges against Gershkovich carry a sentence of up to 20 years behind bars.

In an open letter on Tuesday, The Journal’s editor-in-chief, Emma Tucker, reaffirmed her view that the trial will not be a fair display of justice.

“To even call it a trial, however, is unfair to Evan and a continuation of this travesty of justice that already has gone on for far too long,” she wrote.

It is not clear whether U.S. officials will be permitted to observe the trial. But Daniel Kanigan, the spokesperson of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, told VOA that the mission “will make efforts to attend any future proceedings.”

Gershkovich is one of two American journalists currently jailed in Russia.

Alsu Kurmasheva, a U.S.-Russian national who works at VOA’s sister outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague, has been jailed since October 2023 on charges of failing to self-register as a “foreign agent” and spreading what the Kremlin views as false information about the Russian army.

Kurmasheva rejects the charges against her, and the U.S. government has called for her immediate release.
…

…

Elections in the United States are some of the most expensive in the world. In 2020, more than $16 billion was spent on U.S. presidential and congressional races. 2024 election costs are likely to be higher. How do campaigns help finance these elections? Fundraising.
…

WASHINGTON — News that the U.S. Justice Department has reached a plea deal that will lead to freedom for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange brings a stunning culmination to a long-running saga of international intrigue that spanned multiple continents. Its central character is a quixotic internet publisher with a profound disdain for government secrets.

A look at Assange, the case and the latest developments:

Who is Julian Assange?

An Australian editor and publisher, he is best known for having founded the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, which gained massive attention — and notoriety — for the 2010 release of almost half a million documents relating to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His activism made him a cause célèbre among press freedom advocates who said his work in exposing U.S. military misconduct in foreign countries made his activities indistinguishable from what traditional journalists are expected to do as part of their jobs.

But those same actions put him in the crosshairs of American prosecutors, who released an indictment in 2019 that accused Assange — holed up at the time in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London — of conspiring with an Army private to illegally obtain and publish sensitive government records.

“Julian Assange is no journalist,” John Demers, the then-top Justice Department national security official, said at the time. “No responsible actor, journalist or otherwise, would purposely publish the names of individuals he or she knew to be confidential human sources in war zones, exposing them to the gravest of dangers.”

What is he accused of?

The Trump administration’s Justice Department accused Assange of directing former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in one of the largest compromises of classified information in U.S. history.

The charges relate to WikiLeaks’ publication of thousands of leaked military and diplomatic documents, with prosecutors accusing Assange of helping Manning steal classified diplomatic cables that they say endangered national security and of conspiring together to crack a Defense Department password.

Reports from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq published by Assange included the names of Afghans and Iraqis who provided information to American and coalition forces, prosecutors said, while the diplomatic cables he released exposed journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates and dissidents in repressive countries.

Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison after being convicted of violating the Espionage Act and other offenses for leaking classified government and military documents to WikiLeaks. President Barack Obama commuted her sentence in 2017, allowing her release after about seven years behind bars.

Why wasn’t he already in U.S. custody?

Assange has spent the last five years in a British high-security prison, fighting to avoid extradition to the U.S. and winning favorable court rulings that have delayed any transfer across the Atlantic.

He was evicted in April 2019 from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he had sought refuge seven years earlier amid an investigation by Swedish authorities into claims of sexual misconduct that he has long denied and that was later dropped. The South American nation revoked the political asylum following the charges by the U.S. government.

Despite his arrest and imprisonment by British authorities, extradition efforts by the U.S. had stalled prior to the plea deal.

A U.K. judge in 2021 rejected the U.S. extradition request in 2021 on the grounds that Assange was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions. Higher courts overturned that decision after getting assurances from the U.S. about his treatment. The British government signed an extradition order in June 2022.

Then, last month, two High Court judges ruled that Assange can mount a new appeal based on arguments about whether he will receive free-speech protections or be at a disadvantage because he is not a U.S. citizen. The date of the hearing has yet to be determined.

What will the deal require?

Assange will have to plead guilty to a felony charge under the Espionage Act of conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified information relating to the national defense of the United States, according to a Justice Department letter filed in federal court.

Rather than face the prospect of prison time in the U.S., he is expected to return to Australia after his plea and sentencing. Those proceedings are scheduled for Wednesday morning, local time in Saipan, the largest island in the Northern Mariana Islands.

The hearing is taking place there because of Assange’s opposition to traveling to the continental U.S. and the court’s proximity to Australia.

On Monday evening, he left a British prison ahead of a court hearing expected to result in his release.

Is this case connected to the 2016 election?

It’s not, but beyond his interactions with Manning, Assange is well-known for the role WikiLeaks played in the 2016 presidential election, when it released a massive tranche of Democratic emails that federal prosecutors say were stolen by Russian intelligence operatives.

The goal, officials have said, was to harm the electoral effort of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and boost her Republican challenger Donald Trump, who famously said during the campaign: “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.”

Assange was not charged as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. But the investigation nonetheless painted an unflattering role of WikiLeaks in advancing what prosecutors say was a brazen campaign of Russian election interference.

Assange denied in a Fox News interview that aired in January 2017 that Russians were the source of the hacked emails, though those denials are challenged by a 2018 indictment by Mueller of 12 Russian military intelligence officers.
…

…

…

New York — In the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned women’s constitutional right to abortion, political contributions aimed at protecting abortion rights have far outstripped those to support anti-abortion causes.

In the 2023-2024 election cycle leading up to the Nov. 5 vote, pro-abortion rights interests have given $3.37 million to federal candidates, political parties, political action committees (PACs) and outside groups, compared to about $273,000 from anti-abortion interests, according to data from OpenSecrets, which tracks money in politics.

The level of spending by pro-abortion rights interests is expected to offer a financial boost to the campaigns of some Democratic candidates including U.S. President Joe Biden, who has made protecting abortion rights a central part of his campaign message for reelection.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, in 2022 overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent that had legalized abortion nationwide, prompting 14 states to since enact measures banning or sharply restricting the procedure.

Groups like super PACs received 65.8% of contributions from those backing abortion rights in this election cycle, according to a Reuters analysis of OpenSecrets data.

Republican candidates and party committees got the bulk — about 75.9% — of contributions from anti-abortion rights interests.

PACs are typically set up to gather funds for candidates or political causes. They differ from outside money groups like super PACs, which can receive donations of unlimited size but cannot coordinate with campaigns directly.

So far this election cycle, PACs and super PACs allied with anti-abortion causes have raised $3.54 million, while abortion rights groups have raised $15.3 million, OpenSecrets data showed.

“The balance of spending between pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights groups always reflected the fact that there are more people who support abortion rights than who don’t,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at University of California, Davis.

Ziegler said she would not be surprised if political donations to support or oppose abortion rights rose for the 2024 election cycle compared to the 2020 election cycle.

2020 election cycle set records

The sums reported so far are dwarfed by those in the 2020 election cycle, in which abortion rights interests poured in $11.33 million in political contributions, with spending in the 2022 midterm election cycle coming in second with $10.67 million in contributions, OpenSecrets data showed.

Contributions from anti-abortion interests totaled $6.41 million in the 2020 cycle, and $2.7 million in the 2022 midterm cycle, during which the outcomes for ballot measures and competitive races seemed to suggest that voters were eager to protect abortion access at the state level.

With more than four months to go before the November election, it remains to be seen whether contributions this election cycle from abortion rights and anti-abortion causes will outstrip those in the 2020 cycle, when Biden beat the incumbent Donald Trump, a Republican.

The impact of political contributions on race outcomes is complicated, Ziegler said, as voters have various priorities at the ballot box.

“You can’t dismiss the importance of it, but it’s not like [more contributions] definitely means ballot initiatives are going to pass, Democrats are going to win, etc. It’s not that simple,” Ziegler said.

During Trump’s term as president, which started in 2017, he appointed a third of the current members of the Supreme Court and half of its conservative bloc, with all three of his picks coming from a list compiled by conservative legal activists.

Trump’s campaign earlier this month said he supports the rights of states to make decisions on abortion, supports exceptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, and also supports protecting access to contraception and in vitro fertilization.

Two of the top contributors to candidates and groups are Planned Parenthood – which advocates for abortion rights — and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America — which lobbies against abortion rights.

So far this election cycle, Planned Parenthood has contributed $2.53 million, most of that to liberal groups, the Democratic party and its candidates.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America has contributed about $92,600, almost all of it to Republican candidates and their party.
…