This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Republican vice-presidential nominee Ohio Senator JD Vance has doubled down on his sexist remarks that Democrats are led by “childless cat ladies,” claiming the party is anti-family. He made the original comment on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show in 2021. He has also previously suggested parents should be given more votes than childless people. “I just find the entire line of attack to be ridiculous and also unpopular,” says New York Times opinion writer Jessica Grose, who notes that Republicans generally also oppose paid leave, universal child care and other policies that make it easier to have families. “There’s still this idea that if you are a woman, unless you bear children, you are somehow less than.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

A forthcoming drone made by Autel, a Chinese electronics manufacturer and drone-maker, is being marketed using images of the unmanned aerial vehicle carrying a payload of what appears to be explosive shells. The images were discovered just two months after the company condemned the military use of its flying robots.

Two separate online retail preorder listings for the $52,000 Autel Titan drone, with a cargo capacity of 22 pounds and an hour of flight time, advertised a surprising feature: the ability to carry (and presumably fire) weapons.

In response to concerns from China-hawk lawmakers in the U.S. over Autel’s alleged connections to the Chinese government and its “potentially supporting Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine,” according to a congressional inquiry into the firm, Autel issued a public statement disowning battlefield use of its drones: “Autel Robotics strongly opposes the use of drone products for military purposes or any other activities that infringe upon human rights.” A month later, it issued a second, similarly worded denial: “Autel Robotics is solely dedicated to the development and production of civilian drones. Our products are explicitly designed for civilian use and are not intended for military purposes.”

It was surprising, then, when Spanish engineer and drone enthusiast Konrad Iturbe discovered a listing for the Titan drone armed to the teeth on OBDPRICE.com, an authorized reseller of Autel products. While most of the product images are anodyne promotional photos showing the drone from various angles, including carrying a generic cargo container, three show a very different payload: what appears to be a cluster of four explosive shells tucked underneath, a configuration similar to those seen in bomb-dropping drones deployed in Ukraine and elsewhere. Samuel Bendett, an analyst with the Center for Naval Analyses, told The Intercept that the shells resembled mortar rounds. Arms analyst Patrick Senft said the ordnance shown might actually be toy replicas, as they “don’t resemble any munitions I’ve seen deployed by UAV.”

Contacted by email, an OBDPRICE representative who identified themselves only as “Alex” told The Intercept: “The drone products we sell cannot be used for military purposes.” When asked why the site was then depicting the drone product in question carrying camouflage-patterned explosive shells, they wrote: “You may have misunderstood, those are some lighting devices that help our users illuminate themselves at night.” The site has not responded to further queries, but shortly after being contacted by The Intercept, the mortar-carrying images were deleted.

A “heavy lift” drone made by Autel, a Chinese electronics manufacturers listed for resale on eBay on Jan. 5, 2023, showing Autel’s renderings of the drone carrying a payload of camouflage-clad explosives.

Iturbe also identified a separate listing from an Autel storefront on eBay using the very same three images of an armed Titan drone. When asked about the images and whether the drone is compatible with other weapons systems, the account replied via eBay message: “The bombs shown in the listing for this drone is just for display. Pls note that Titan comes with a standard load of 4 kilograms and a maximum load up to 10 kilograms.”

The images bear a striking resemblance to ordnance-carrying drones that have been widely used during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where their low cost and sophisticated cameras make them ideal for both reconnaissance and improvised bombing runs. Autel’s drones in particular have proven popular on both sides of the conflict: A March 2023 New York Times report found that “nearly 70 Chinese exporters sold 26 distinct brands of Chinese drones to Russia since the invasion. The second-largest brand sold was Autel, a Chinese drone maker with subsidiaries in the United States, Germany and Italy.” A December 2022 report from the Washington Post, meanwhile, cited Autel’s EVO II model drone as particularly popular among volunteer efforts to source drones for the Ukrainian war effort.

Last summer, researchers who’ve closely followed the use of drones in the Russia–Ukraine war documented an effort by two Russian nationals, self-chronicled via Telegram, to obtain Chinese drones for the country’s ongoing war in Ukraine. Their visit to Shenzhen resulted in a meeting at an Autel facility and the procurement, the individuals claimed, of military-purpose drones. 

Autel’s New York-based American subsidiary did not respond to a request for comment.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Sam Biddle.

Responding to a question about the withdrawal, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a press briefing on Thursday in Beijing that “China firmly opposes attempts to smear and sabotage Belt and Road cooperation or stoke bloc confrontation and division” without naming any country.

It is unclear whether the statement was directed at Italy or a third party that, in Beijing’s opinion, may have interfered to dissuade Rome from participation. 

Also on Thursday, Chinese leader Xi Jinping, addressing broader relations between China and the European Union during a summit with top EU officials in Beijing, said that the two sides should be partners and “eliminate all kinds of interference.” 

The first in-person EU-China summit in four years aimed to promote “constructive and stable EU-China relations,” according to an official statement.

Lack of tangible benefits

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in her first public comments on leaving the BRI said “The tool of the [BRI] ... has not produced the results that were expected.”

Italy exported 16.4 billion euros (US$17.7 billion) worth of goods to China last year but imported 57.5 billion euros ($62 billion) of China-made products, making a large deficit, according to official data.

Meloni was speaking to reporters in Rome on Thursday after media reports that her government had formally notified Beijing of the decision earlier this week. 

“I think that we should ... improve our cooperation with China on trade [and] the economy,” Reuters quoted the prime minister as saying. 

Italy joined China’s mega scheme in 2019, the only member of the Group of Seven major developed economies, or G7,  to do so. At the time, the United States warned Rome that “the Chinese Communist Party is trying to leverage its economic presence in Italy to serve its own strategic purposes.”

Italy’s BRI membership expires in March, 2024, and Meloni had indicated that she wanted to leave.

“This decision was largely expected for months and was only a matter of time,” said Filippo Fasulo, a political scientist from the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) in Milan.

“In the last months, negotiations have been underway to understand the best way to terminate the agreement without causing diplomatic clashes,” Fasulo, co-head of the think tank’s Geo-economics Center, told Radio Free Asia.

A Chinese geopolitical commentator agreed that the move, while significant, “was not entirely unexpected due to Italy’s growing skepticism about the tangible benefits from the deal.”

“Italy’s decision to leave the BRI aligns with Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's critical view of the partnership and broader Western concerns about Beijing's influence,” said Andy Mok, a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the BRI – Xi Jinping’s signature mega project.
China said it has benefited more than 150 countries in the world with infrastructure contracts worth over US$2 trillion to develop projects such as seaports, railways and bridges. Critics meanwhile accuse Beijing of setting up debt traps and expanding geopolitical and economic influence.

Restarting the relationship

“China may react to Italy's exit with skepticism, but a complete breakdown in bilateral relations seems unlikely,” said Mok.

“Italy's strategic approach in exiting the BRI, aimed at maintaining political dialogue, suggests a cautious balance to avoid severe economic retaliation from China,” the political commentator added. 

“High-level diplomatic engagements and efforts to balance Italy's geopolitical stance indicate a continued interest in a robust, albeit recalibrated, relationship with China.”

Filippo Fasulo from Italy’s ISPI said that he would not expect Beijing to respond with serious punitive economic measures.

“Italy and China had consultations before this decision and it is not in the interest of China while attempting to improve its relations with the EU to retaliate against one of its principal members,” he said.

He also noted that there are “signals,” like the decision by Chinese authorities to waive visitor visas for Italian citizens as of Dec. 1, that indicate the main differences between the two governments might have already been settled.

In the Italian expert’s opinion, “Italy’s participation, even if ineffective, was highly politicized and symbolic.”

However, the country needs to maintain the relationship with the world’s second largest economy.

“Now, it is possible to restart this relationship, as other countries are doing, bearing in mind the context of the great power competition and Italy's network of alliances,” Fasulo said.

The EU said in a statement after the Dec. 7 summit with Xi Jinping that China is the bloc’s major trading partner but “the relationship is critically and structurally imbalanced.”

“The EU stressed to China the importance of achieving a more balanced economic relationship with a level playing field and reciprocity,” it said. “The EU does not intend to decouple or to turn inwards.”

Andy Mok in Beijing said “Europe’s initial declaration to decouple from China was a fantasy.”

“‘De-risking’ is a flawed political compromise. But strategic interdependence is a historic inevitability,” he noted.

Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

For decades, chemical companies fought attempts to ban asbestos, claiming they needed the potent carcinogen to manufacture chlorine. As recently as last April, in fact, the CEO of one of the last major companies still clinging to the toxic substance argued for it to remain legal. Acceptable alternatives “do not exist,” Olin Corp. CEO Scott Sutton told regulators.

In a dramatic turnaround, Olin said on Tuesday that it would support a federal ban on the deadly mineral.

ProPublica’s reporting changed the national conversation on asbestos, challenging a long-standing and successful industry argument that chlorine companies kept their employees safe. Late last year, ProPublica revealed that workers across the country had been exposed to the substance, including those at an Olin facility in Alabama who said they could “see it all the time” and weren’t given protective gear when they worked around it. (Olin did not return repeated calls or emails from ProPublica seeking comment on those findings.)

“I just wish they had stopped sooner,” Andy Lang, a contract pipefitter who worked at the plant in McIntosh, Alabama, told ProPublica on Wednesday. “I wish they had stopped years ago. I’m thinking about the people in my neighborhood like my sister.”

Lang’s sister, Bertha Reed, was a plant employee who worked a number of jobs and spent time around asbestos. Reed, who never smoked, died of lung cancer in 2017. It’s unclear what caused the cancer, but Lang blames the substances his sister was exposed to in the plant.

In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency this week, Sutton said Olin would endorse a proposed ban if the companies were given seven years to phase out asbestos materials already in use. Companies apply the mineral to thick metal screens used in the production process to keep explosive chemicals from mixing. Sutton said workers would not have to apply new asbestos to screens during the last five years of the phase-out period, minimizing the potential for exposure.

“Additionally, no asbestos imports into the U.S. are required past today,” he added.

Olin did not reply to ProPublica’s questions on Wednesday.

The EPA said that it would consider Olin’s letter and other comments it has received, and that it was “moving expeditiously” to finalize its ban this year. The agency opened a new public comment period on the ban to account for new information, including ProPublica’s reports on the dangers at asbestos-dependent chlorine plants. That period ends April 17.

Olin’s letter marks a turning point in the battle over asbestos in the United States.

The U.S. has lagged behind dozens of other countries that outlaw asbestos, which is known to cause deadly cancers like mesothelioma. To this day, the U.S. continues to let chlorine companies import hundreds of tons annually.

Last year, ProPublica found that chlorine companies had spent decades lobbying against a ban. Behind the scenes, industry representatives pushed for regulatory exemptions, marshaled pro-business lawmakers to make their talking points and found support from 12 prominent attorneys general who said a ban was a “heavy and unreasonable burden.”

Supporters of a ban heralded Olin’s new position.

“We are deeply encouraged that Olin Corporation has stepped forward to publicly say they are committed to ending asbestos use in the chlor-alkali industry,” said Linda Reinstein, the co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, in a statement on Wednesday.

The EPA still needs to address resistance from the rest of the chemical industry.

The American Chemistry Council, a powerful trade association that lobbies for chlorine companies, has pushed for its members to be exempted from the ban and said it would be impossible to transition to newer asbestos-free technology in less than 15 years.

In a statement provided to ProPublica on Wednesday, the group said its 15-year timeline was based on limited contractor resources, supply chain disruptions and regulatory approval cycles, among other factors.

“We continue to hold this position and therefore oppose calls to implement unrealistic timetables and deadlines,” the statement said.

OxyChem, another major producer of chlorine, did not respond to requests for comment from ProPublica. Last year, workers from its recently shuttered plant in Niagara Falls, New York, described conditions that experts called “totally unacceptable,” “fraught with danger” and “like something that maybe would happen in the 1940s or the 1950s.” At the time, OxyChem said ProPublica’s reporting on the plant was inaccurate, but it would not say what specifically was incorrect.

Hanging over the EPA is the agency’s failure to ban asbestos in 1989. Back then, the asbestos industry successfully overturned a ban by arguing in a lawsuit that it was too burdensome. Advocates and experts are now watching to see if history will repeat itself.

Last week, citing ProPublica’s reporting, lawmakers renewed efforts to write an asbestos ban into federal law, a measure that would be more difficult to challenge in court.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Kathleen McGrory and Neil Bedi.

WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 23: TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew prepares to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 23, 2023 in Washington, DC. The hearing was a rare opportunity for lawmakers to question the leader of the short-form social media video app about the company’s relationship with its Chinese owner, ByteDance, and how they handle users’ sensitive personal data. Some local, state and federal government agencies have been banning use of TikTok by employees, citing concerns about national security (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

The US’ TikTok hearing is politically manipulated to cover its real purpose of robbing the profitable firm from China, which reflects the US’ mounting hegemony and bullying against firms with Chinese background, experts said on Friday, noting the US witch-hunting against TikTok portends US’ technological innovation is going downhill and the political farce against a tiny app has seriously shattered the US values of fair competition and its credibility.

The US House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on Thursday (US time) titled, “TikTok: How Congress can safeguard American data privacy and protect children from online harms.”

While US lawmakers acted like they are pursuing a solution on how to ensure data security, the hearing turned out to be a political show that was designed to smear an international firm that has Chinese background and cover up its real purpose of stealing the firm from its Chinese parent, experts said.

Whether it ends up “killing” TikTok or forcibly taking the child out of its parent ByteDance’s arms, it is one of the ugliest scenes of the 21st century in high-tech competition, they said. “Your platform should be banned,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers said as she started the hearing, claiming that the app has ties with Chinese government.

During the roughly five-hour  hearing, CEO Shou Zi Chew’s attempts to illustrate TikTok’s business operations were frequently interrupted. His requests to elaborate on concerns of members of US Congress were also blocked.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning denounced the US’ move on Friday, saying the US is adopting the presumption of guilt and engaging in an unreasonable crackdown against TikTok without any proof.

“We noted that some US lawmaker has said that to seek a TikTok ban is a ‘xenophobic witch hunt’,” she said, urging the US to respect the market economy and fair competition rules, stop the unreasonable crackdown on foreign firms and provide an open, fair and non-discriminatory environment for other countries’ firms in the US.

The Chinese government places high importance on protecting data privacy and security according to laws. China has never and will never ask firms or individuals to violate local laws to collect or provide data and information stored within other countries’ borders, Mao stressed.

The latest hearing followed reports that the Biden administration has threatened to ban TikTok if its China-based parent company ByteDance doesn’t divest its stakes in the popular video app.

It is another dark scene in Washington’s struggle for US supremacy, the US’ barbaric act only underscores that US values of fair competition, freedom of speech and inclusiveness are gradually disappearing and instead xenophobia is rising, experts said, noting that the US government lacks confidence in competing with China.

Even more ironic is that rather than finding a solution to problems brought about by the negative impact of US social problems on children such as suicide, self-harm and drug abuse, US lawmakers are instead faulting the company, Li Yong, deputy chairman of the Expert Committee of the China Association of International Trade, told the Global Times on Friday.

“The hearing was hegemonic and bullying against a private firm,” Li said, noting that it’s common for American politicians to put unwarranted labels on entities with Chinese background by fabricating excuses.

“While the US has always paraded itself as a rules-based market economy, they don’t really have any objective rules. All the rules are selected and serve American political elites’ interests and US hegemony,” Li said.

The US’ forced sale of TikTok is shameless robbery of a profitable firm from China, he said, noting that the US is increasingly politicizing an innovative app that has enriched the digital life of American people and benefited a lot of micro businesses in the US.

“TikTok itself is not available in the Chinese mainland, we’re headquartered in Los Angeles and Singapore, and we have 7,000 employees in the US today,” Chew said in his opening remarks.

Dismissing Chew’s testimony, US officials have stepped up their fight against TikTok. Speaking at a separate House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Thursday TikTok should be “ended one way or another,” adding that he did not know if it would be sufficient for TikTok to be divested from its Chinese parent company, CNN reported.

The high-profile hearing also attracted wide attention from netizens who called US Congress members arrogant, ridiculous and ignorant.

“Not a single one of them has made an argument that makes a lick of sense,” an American net user posted on Twitter. “By his logic every other social media app should be banned,” posted another netizen.

The topic “TikTok CEO attending US hearing” became trending on China’s Twitter-like social media Sina Weibo, generating nearly 5 million views.

“I feel sorry for what Chew endured at the hearing. American politicians weren’t so arrogant and aggressive at Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook hearing. It seems all the lawmakers are bullying Chew,” a Chinese netizen posted on Sina Weibo.

While Chew was grilled in Washington, Apple CEO Tim Cook was met with cheers and applause at an Apple store in Beijing on Friday, prompting Chinese netizens to compare the “so-called free market” in the US and “real free market” in China.

The Biden administration’s so-called “national security” narrative has also caused widespread speculation among TikTok users, scholars and researchers.

A TikTok sale would be “completely irrelevant to any of the alleged ‘national security’ threats” and go against “every free market principle and norm” of the state department’s internet freedom principles, the Guardian reported, citing Karim Farhat, a researcher with the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech.

NBC News reported on Thursday that a 19-year-old Harvard freshman named Aidan Kohn-Murphy, who used TikTok to rally support for Biden in 2020, is now trying to use the app to stop Biden from killing the platform.

“If they went ahead with banning TikTok, it would feel like a slap in the face to a lot of young Americans,” he said. “Democrats don’t understand the political consequences this would have.”

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Sinister move doomed

By forcing the sale of TikTok, the Biden administration is aiming to repeat its takeover of French power company Alstom and its torment on Japanese chip firm Toshiba, but the US’ sinister move is doomed to meet challenges, given similar roadblocks faced by Trump three years ago, experts said.

“The Biden administration will find it hard to completely ban TikTok, as the app has a large user base of more than 150 million in the US,” Xiang Ligang, director-general of the Beijing-based Information Consumption Alliance, told the Global Times.

It’s an even more complicated issue for the US to take over TikTok, as a possible deal should also be in compliance with Chinese laws, he said. Experts said the Chinese government may step in to block the sale of TikTok.

“The Chinese side is firmly opposed to the forced sale or divestiture of TikTok,” Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson Shu Jueting said on Thursday.

Exports of Chinese technology must be subject to administrative licensing procedures in accordance with Chinese laws, and the Chinese government is legally bound to make a decision, she reiterated.

In August 2020, China’s Ministry of Commerce revised its restrictions on technology exports, including personalized content recommendations based on data analysis and a number of other technologies such as AI algorithms, which is widely considered as China’s countermeasures against US’ forced sale of TikTok then.

Back in 2020, then president Donald Trump and his administration sought to remove TikTok from app stores and force ByteDance to sell off its US assets. US courts blocked the order, concluding that banning the app would likely restrict the “personal communications” and sharing of “informational materials” by TikTok users.

In addition, the Washington Post reportedly worked with a privacy researcher to look under the hood at TikTok in 2020, concluding that the app does not appear to collect any more data than typical mainstream social network platforms in the US.

“From the US’ groundless crackdown on Huawei to targeting TikTok citing the so-called ‘national security,’ American politicians have not had a comprehensive ‘blueprint’ for their moves, it’s all politically motivated,” Xiang said, referring to reports saying Biden is seeking a second presidential term.

On Thursday, the US put an additional 14 Chinese companies to a red flag list, forcing US exporters to conduct greater due diligence before shipping goods to them, mainly technology and solar firms.

Xiang said the US’ unabated crackdowns on international firms including those from China violate international rules, disrupt global industrial and supply chains and harm both sides’ interests and the global economy as a whole.

Ghost of McCarthyism haunts TikTok Hearing. Cartoon: Carlos Latuff

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ma Jingjing.

WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 23: TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew prepares to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 23, 2023 in Washington, DC. The hearing was a rare opportunity for lawmakers to question the leader of the short-form social media video app about the company’s relationship with its Chinese owner, ByteDance, and how they handle users’ sensitive personal data. Some local, state and federal government agencies have been banning use of TikTok by employees, citing concerns about national security (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

The US’ TikTok hearing is politically manipulated to cover its real purpose of robbing the profitable firm from China, which reflects the US’ mounting hegemony and bullying against firms with Chinese background, experts said on Friday, noting the US witch-hunting against TikTok portends US’ technological innovation is going downhill and the political farce against a tiny app has seriously shattered the US values of fair competition and its credibility.

The US House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on Thursday (US time) titled, “TikTok: How Congress can safeguard American data privacy and protect children from online harms.”

While US lawmakers acted like they are pursuing a solution on how to ensure data security, the hearing turned out to be a political show that was designed to smear an international firm that has Chinese background and cover up its real purpose of stealing the firm from its Chinese parent, experts said.

Whether it ends up “killing” TikTok or forcibly taking the child out of its parent ByteDance’s arms, it is one of the ugliest scenes of the 21st century in high-tech competition, they said. “Your platform should be banned,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers said as she started the hearing, claiming that the app has ties with Chinese government.

During the roughly five-hour  hearing, CEO Shou Zi Chew’s attempts to illustrate TikTok’s business operations were frequently interrupted. His requests to elaborate on concerns of members of US Congress were also blocked.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning denounced the US’ move on Friday, saying the US is adopting the presumption of guilt and engaging in an unreasonable crackdown against TikTok without any proof.

“We noted that some US lawmaker has said that to seek a TikTok ban is a ‘xenophobic witch hunt’,” she said, urging the US to respect the market economy and fair competition rules, stop the unreasonable crackdown on foreign firms and provide an open, fair and non-discriminatory environment for other countries’ firms in the US.

The Chinese government places high importance on protecting data privacy and security according to laws. China has never and will never ask firms or individuals to violate local laws to collect or provide data and information stored within other countries’ borders, Mao stressed.

The latest hearing followed reports that the Biden administration has threatened to ban TikTok if its China-based parent company ByteDance doesn’t divest its stakes in the popular video app.

It is another dark scene in Washington’s struggle for US supremacy, the US’ barbaric act only underscores that US values of fair competition, freedom of speech and inclusiveness are gradually disappearing and instead xenophobia is rising, experts said, noting that the US government lacks confidence in competing with China.

Even more ironic is that rather than finding a solution to problems brought about by the negative impact of US social problems on children such as suicide, self-harm and drug abuse, US lawmakers are instead faulting the company, Li Yong, deputy chairman of the Expert Committee of the China Association of International Trade, told the Global Times on Friday.

“The hearing was hegemonic and bullying against a private firm,” Li said, noting that it’s common for American politicians to put unwarranted labels on entities with Chinese background by fabricating excuses.

“While the US has always paraded itself as a rules-based market economy, they don’t really have any objective rules. All the rules are selected and serve American political elites’ interests and US hegemony,” Li said.

The US’ forced sale of TikTok is shameless robbery of a profitable firm from China, he said, noting that the US is increasingly politicizing an innovative app that has enriched the digital life of American people and benefited a lot of micro businesses in the US.

“TikTok itself is not available in the Chinese mainland, we’re headquartered in Los Angeles and Singapore, and we have 7,000 employees in the US today,” Chew said in his opening remarks.

Dismissing Chew’s testimony, US officials have stepped up their fight against TikTok. Speaking at a separate House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Thursday TikTok should be “ended one way or another,” adding that he did not know if it would be sufficient for TikTok to be divested from its Chinese parent company, CNN reported.

The high-profile hearing also attracted wide attention from netizens who called US Congress members arrogant, ridiculous and ignorant.

“Not a single one of them has made an argument that makes a lick of sense,” an American net user posted on Twitter. “By his logic every other social media app should be banned,” posted another netizen.

The topic “TikTok CEO attending US hearing” became trending on China’s Twitter-like social media Sina Weibo, generating nearly 5 million views.

“I feel sorry for what Chew endured at the hearing. American politicians weren’t so arrogant and aggressive at Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook hearing. It seems all the lawmakers are bullying Chew,” a Chinese netizen posted on Sina Weibo.

While Chew was grilled in Washington, Apple CEO Tim Cook was met with cheers and applause at an Apple store in Beijing on Friday, prompting Chinese netizens to compare the “so-called free market” in the US and “real free market” in China.

The Biden administration’s so-called “national security” narrative has also caused widespread speculation among TikTok users, scholars and researchers.

A TikTok sale would be “completely irrelevant to any of the alleged ‘national security’ threats” and go against “every free market principle and norm” of the state department’s internet freedom principles, the Guardian reported, citing Karim Farhat, a researcher with the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech.

NBC News reported on Thursday that a 19-year-old Harvard freshman named Aidan Kohn-Murphy, who used TikTok to rally support for Biden in 2020, is now trying to use the app to stop Biden from killing the platform.

“If they went ahead with banning TikTok, it would feel like a slap in the face to a lot of young Americans,” he said. “Democrats don’t understand the political consequences this would have.”

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Sinister move doomed

By forcing the sale of TikTok, the Biden administration is aiming to repeat its takeover of French power company Alstom and its torment on Japanese chip firm Toshiba, but the US’ sinister move is doomed to meet challenges, given similar roadblocks faced by Trump three years ago, experts said.

“The Biden administration will find it hard to completely ban TikTok, as the app has a large user base of more than 150 million in the US,” Xiang Ligang, director-general of the Beijing-based Information Consumption Alliance, told the Global Times.

It’s an even more complicated issue for the US to take over TikTok, as a possible deal should also be in compliance with Chinese laws, he said. Experts said the Chinese government may step in to block the sale of TikTok.

“The Chinese side is firmly opposed to the forced sale or divestiture of TikTok,” Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson Shu Jueting said on Thursday.

Exports of Chinese technology must be subject to administrative licensing procedures in accordance with Chinese laws, and the Chinese government is legally bound to make a decision, she reiterated.

In August 2020, China’s Ministry of Commerce revised its restrictions on technology exports, including personalized content recommendations based on data analysis and a number of other technologies such as AI algorithms, which is widely considered as China’s countermeasures against US’ forced sale of TikTok then.

Back in 2020, then president Donald Trump and his administration sought to remove TikTok from app stores and force ByteDance to sell off its US assets. US courts blocked the order, concluding that banning the app would likely restrict the “personal communications” and sharing of “informational materials” by TikTok users.

In addition, the Washington Post reportedly worked with a privacy researcher to look under the hood at TikTok in 2020, concluding that the app does not appear to collect any more data than typical mainstream social network platforms in the US.

“From the US’ groundless crackdown on Huawei to targeting TikTok citing the so-called ‘national security,’ American politicians have not had a comprehensive ‘blueprint’ for their moves, it’s all politically motivated,” Xiang said, referring to reports saying Biden is seeking a second presidential term.

On Thursday, the US put an additional 14 Chinese companies to a red flag list, forcing US exporters to conduct greater due diligence before shipping goods to them, mainly technology and solar firms.

Xiang said the US’ unabated crackdowns on international firms including those from China violate international rules, disrupt global industrial and supply chains and harm both sides’ interests and the global economy as a whole.

Ghost of McCarthyism haunts TikTok Hearing. Cartoon: Carlos Latuff

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ma Jingjing.

Founded in 2011, CELAC is a bloc of 33 Caribbean and Latin American countries. It has stated its mission as promoting regional integration and providing an alternative to U.S. power in the region, especially as that power is channeled through the multi-state entity, Organization of American States (OAS).

At the conclusion of the summit, CELAC members released the Buenos Aires Declaration, a 28-page, 111-point document covering environmental cooperation, post-pandemic economic recovery, food and energy security. Included in that document was CELAC’s endorsement of the development of the region as a Zone of Peace, free of nuclear weapons and committed to non-militaristic solutions to intra-regional problems.

Yet, CELAC’s commitments to peace as well as to other principles, such as “democracy; the promotion, protection and respect of Human Rights, international cooperation, the Rule of Law, multilateralism, respect for territorial integrity, non-intervention in the internal affairs of States, and defense of sovereignty,” are all directly undermined by its stance on Haiti. By inviting Henry, CELAC has legitimized an unpopular, Core Group-installed, de facto prime minister in Haiti. Henry has not only refused to hold elections, but he has presided over the departure from office of every single elected official in the country. Meanwhile, against the wishes of the Haitian masses and majority, he has begged for foreign intervention to shore up his power.

The Haiti/Americas Team affirms the words of Ajamu Baraka, chairperson of BAP’s Coordinating Committee, who stated, “Solidarity has to be reciprocal. CELAC must commit itself to supporting the democratic struggles in Haiti against an illegitimate U.S. puppet [government]. Inviting the Haitian government to CELAC is like inviting Juan Guaidó to represent Venezuela.”

Points 101 and 102 of the Buenos Aires Declaration directly address the situation in Haiti. Point 102 endorses the September 8 letter from the UN Secretary General to the President of the Security Council encouraging the organization of a “specialized multinational force” to intervene in Haiti. Nowhere in the Declaration do they mention the role of the international community in creating the current crisis in Haiti. Nowhere do they mention that the crisis is a crisis of imperialism, brought on by the United Nations, the Core Group (an alliance of countries as well as multilateral organizations, such as the World Bank), the United States, Canada, and other so-called “friends” of Haiti in the international community.

If CELAC supports non-intervention in the internal affairs of independent states, how can they call for foreign intervention in Haiti? If CELAC promotes a Zone of Peace, how can they demand foreign military intervention? If CELAC is for regional sovereignty, how can they support an imperialist design, driven by the United States and others? If CELAC is an advocate for the people of the Caribbean and Latin America, how can they so brazenly ignore the wishes and demands of the people of Haiti?

BAP’s Haiti/Americas Team suggests CELAC government leaders listen to the voices of the Haitian people, and their supporters in the region, as well as CELAC Social. This new entity of more than 200 organizations issued its own declaration demanding, in part, that the “region give its own response to the Haitian question, respecting the principle of non-intervention and the right of the people of Haiti to define sovereignly their destiny.”

CELAC’s position on Haiti is ill-informed and dangerous, representing an all-too frequent, reactionary “Haiti exception” when it comes to the “progressive” governments of the Americas. Peace and solidarity in the region cannot be achieved at the expense of Haitian sovereignty. CELAC must avoid contributing to Haiti’s current crisis—the crisis of imperialism.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Black Alliance for Peace.

The 19-17 vote by the U.N. Human Rights Council on Thursday drew an angry response from Uyghur and other human rights advocates, who accused governments in the voting majority of pandering to China.

Indonesia, the world’s most populous Islamic-majority country, was among council members that voted to block discussion of a United Nations report, which found Beijing’s abuses against the Uyghur community could constitute “crimes against humanity.”

Other nations rejecting the proposal included Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan. The Gambia, Libya and Malaysia were among 11 countries abstaining.

Achsanul Habib, director of human rights and humanitarian affairs at Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said the council should be “an inclusive forum for countries to have impartial dialogue” and “not [be] selective” in its approach to human rights issues.

“We voted ‘no’ because we don’t want the politicization of the Human Rights Council, [for it] to be used for the purpose of political rivalry,” he told a news conference.

“In this regard, Indonesia also cooperates, coordinates and consults with all parties, including with the countries that support [the proposal], with western countries and China.”

The call for discussion followed an August United Nations report that said China’s repression of Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”

The report said “serious human rights violations” had been committed in XUAR in the context of the Chinese government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies.

Chinese regional authorities are believed to have held close to 2 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in a vast network of internment camps since early 2017.

Febrian Ruddyard, Indonesia’s permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva, explained the “no” vote by saying the human rights council should focus on building an environment that encourages all countries to fulfill their human rights obligations.

“We believe the approach taken by the council today will not yield meaningful progress … especially because it does not enjoy the consent and support of the concerned country,” he told council members.

“Based on these reasons … we are therefore not in a position to support the draft decision … regarding the convening of a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.”

Meanwhile, China accused Western countries of propagating “falsehoods,” insisting that issues related to Xinjiang “are about countering violent terrorism, radicalization and separatism.”

“For some time now, the U.S. and some other Western countries have been misinforming the public about Xinjiang and seeking political manipulation in the name of human rights simply to smear China’s image and contain China’s development,” a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a statement posted Thursday on its website. 

‘Refusing to stand on the right side of history’

Dolkun Isa, president of the World Uyghur Congress, alleged that China was using the pretext of religious extremism to carry out atrocities against the Uyghur minority.

“China has carried out its genocide against Uyghurs largely because of Uyghurs’ belief in Islam. … Basically, China has declared war on Islam and has been attacking Islamic beliefs and values,” he told Radio Free Asia (RFA), an online news service affiliated with BenarNews.

“For Muslim countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar and UAE to vote at the U.N. in support of China’s ongoing genocide against Uyghur Muslims is not only an assault on Uyghur Muslims, but also an assault on Islam itself. To stand together with a regime that is committing genocide against a Muslim people is to be complicit in the same genocide.”

Human rights are universal, said Rushan Abbas, executive director of the Campaign for Uyghurs.

“By refusing to stand on the right side of history and justice, governments that voted no or abstained have made it easier for China to carry out the ongoing genocide against Uyghurs, and hindered the progress toward real justice and accountability for the victims,” he told RFA.

Meanwhile, Greg Barton, an Indonesia scholar at Australia’s Deakin University, said Jakarta’s move was “disappointing, but not surprising.”

“It would have been good to see Indonesia being more bold, but at least, unlike a number of other countries, Indonesia did not simply rehash the propaganda of the Chinese government and deny that there is a problem of human rights abuses on a massive scale occurring in Xinjiang,” Barton told BenarNews.

Domestic political considerations also influenced the Indonesian position, he said.

“A ‘yes’ vote would have been used to argue that President [Joko Widodo] Jokowi was capitulating to pressure from his hardline Islamist critics,” he said.

It seems likely that a major factor was that Jakarta was facing intense pressure from Beijing and did not want to trigger a major falling out with the Chinese government, he said.

However, Taiwanese scholar Si Jianyu believes the lure of investment from Beijing is the reason Indonesia and some other Central Asian republics voted against discussing the Uyghur situation at the U.N. Human Rights Council.

“The real reason for Indonesia to be against the motion is that China’s Belt and Road Initiative has big investment in Indonesia, and they won’t forget about the investments and focus on the human rights issues in Xinjiang,” Si, a researcher at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taiwan, told RFA.

“Xinjiang’s human rights situations are not important to them. The human rights records in their own countries are not so good either.”

Rene Pattiradjawane, a scholar at the Center for China Studies in Jakarta, said Indonesia’s vote was in line with its non-alignment foreign policy.

“Indonesia should not be lured into a campaign to vilify China for the interests of other countries,” he told BenarNews.

“Indonesia in any context will not want to join anti-China bullying.”

Alim Seytoff of RFA Uyghur and Gao Feng of RFA Mandarin contributed to this report by BenarNews, an RFA-affiliated news service.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Tria Dianti for BenarNews.

Progressives responded with indignation Tuesday after U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, stated his opposition to popular legislation that aims to restrict widespread stock trading by members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children, senior government officials, and federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court.

House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-Md.) reportedly indicated during meetings with colleagues that he intends to vote against a bill that would reform the loophole-ridden STOCK Act when it is brought to the floor, which could happen as soon as this week.

"Shameful," progressive champion Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator and co-chair of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign, tweeted in response to the news.

As Punchbowl News reported Tuesday:

Lawmakers, judges, and all other government officials covered by the ban will have to choose between divesting their investment portfolios or putting their assets in a qualified blind trust. Members of the judicial branch will have to file more detailed financial disclosures.

The House is supposed to vote on the Democratic measure this week. But the text hasn't been released yet. And we're told there are serious concerns within leadership ranks about the proposal.

The House leadership doesn't currently have the votes to pass the bill given the number of rank-and-file Democrats who are "actively opposed," according to one source—especially in the face of what looks like solid GOP opposition. A lot could change between now and later this week, but that's where things stand at this moment.

So there's a question of whether this bill even comes to the floor. Several senior Democratic aides told us they're skeptical the legislation will be voted upon during a three-day workweek right at the end of the fiscal year.

Hoyer's office told the outlet's managing editor Heather Caygle that "Leader Hoyer absolutely agrees insider trading must continue to be illegal and substantially penalized; he would like to see increased penalties for members of Congress who violate these laws including an ethics citation and potential expulsion from Congress for such violations."

"He has also not seen final legislation, and will reserve his official decision until that time," Hoyer's office added.

While the House Rules Committee is expected to review the bill when it meets to consider the continuing resolution to extend government funding and prevent a shutdown, time is running short. Lawmakers are set to leave Capitol Hill on Friday until November 14, which means this week marks the last opportunity to vote on the measure before the fast-approaching midterm elections. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—who only recently dropped her opposition to the bill that would likely rein in her husband's suspiciously timed buying and selling of corporate shares—and other Democrats have "said several times recently that the House would vote on legislation to tighten trading rules by the end of September," Punchbowl News noted. "Republicans will surely lambaste Democrats if they adjourned for the election without voting on the measure."

As journalist Alex Sammon pointed out on social media, "Democratic House leadership [is] shooting down a wildly popular messaging bill right before the midterms."

The legislation can be considered a messaging bill because, as Common Dreams reported two weeks ago, the Senate already announced that it is postponing a vote on its version of the stock trading ban until after the November 8 elections.

"Across the entire federal government, there have been significant stories regarding financial conflicts of interest in relation to stock trading and ownership," House Administration Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) wrote last week in a letter to colleagues. "Collectively, these stories undermine the American people's faith and trust in the integrity of public officials and our federal government."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, facing a tough reelection contest in November, said during a recent meeting with constituents that he opposes a bill to codify same-sex marriage rights into federal law as the Senate Democratic leadership plans to hold a vote in the coming weeks, warning the protections are under threat from the Supreme Court's conservative majority.

Speaking at a Common Sense Citizens of Washington County meeting last week, Johnson said his comment in July signaling that he saw "no reason to oppose" the Respect for Marriage Act was issued just to get reporters to stop pressing him.

"I would not support it in its current state," Johnson said at the meeting, according to audio obtained by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and posted online Wednesday by the Heartland Signal.

The Wisconsin Republican went on to express his view that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is probably right" that Obergefell v. Hodges—a landmark 2015 ruling that requires states to license same-sex marriages—was "wrongly decided."

In his concurring opinion in the June decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, Thomas suggested the Supreme Court should revisit and potentially overturn Obergefell and other rulings, prompting Democrats to respond with legislation aimed at shielding same-sex marriage rights.

Johnson's remarks last week also included a swipe at Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first openly gay person to be elected to the U.S. Senate and the lawmaker leading efforts to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which will need at least 10 Republican votes to get through the upper chamber.

The House passed the measure in July with the support of 47 Republicans.

"I'm not happy with the Baldwins of the world who are just opening that wound and opening that debate," Johnson complained Thursday.

Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, Johnson's Democratic challenger in the key battleground state, tweeted in response that the Republican incumbent is "a disgrace and doesn't believe in protecting our rights and freedoms."

"There you have it," Barnes wrote. "Ron Johnson says the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling was wrongly decided and that he won't support the same-sex marriage bill... He's unfit for public office."

Johnson's comments surfaced Wednesday as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced that "a vote on marriage equality will happen on the Senate floor in the coming weeks" as a bipartisan group of lawmakers negotiates the bill's final details.

The Associated Press reported that "to win over more Senate Republicans, negotiators are planning to introduce amendments aimed at addressing concerns from some about 'religious liberty'—the rights of religious institutions or religious business owners to oppose same-sex marriage, for example."

"Supporters say such religious liberty is already enshrined in law, but new language would simply make that clear," AP added. "Another proposed tweak to the bill would make clear that a marriage is between two people, an effort to ward off some far-right criticism that the legislation could endorse polygamy."

There was initially some talk among Democrats of attaching the same-sex marriage bill to a must-pass spending measure, but that idea drew criticism from members of both parties and appears to be off the table.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Baldwin expressed confidence that senators are "darn close" to 60 votes for the legislation and said she wants a vote "sooner rather than later."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

The post Our War for Peace Opposes Liberal Terror, Too appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Kim C. Domenico.

With U.S. President Joe Biden "convinced" that Russian President Vladimir Putin is planning not only confirmed nuclear drills but also an invasion of Ukraine that Moscow has repeatedly denied, the global peace movement on Friday reiterated calls for de-escalation.

"Stop the War opposes any war over Ukraine, and believes the crisis should be settled on a basis which recognizes the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination and addresses Russia's security concerns," declares a statement from the U.K.-based coalition signed by thousands of people.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Thursday accused the Biden administration of ignoring Moscow's security demands—including Ukraine's exclusion from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—but also insisted that "there is no 'Russian invasion' of Ukraine."

Despite the assurance from Moscow, when asked Friday if there is any indication whether Putin has decided to invade Ukraine, Biden told reporters—without providing any further details or evidence—that "as of this moment, I'm convinced he's made the decision. We have reason to believe that."

Members of the Biden administration—and other Western officials—have also recently claimed, without offering proof, that Russia will engage in a false flag operation as a pretext for invasion.

Eight years into fighting in Ukraine's Donbas region, pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian forces on Thursday accused each other of violating a cease-fire. After the Ukrainian military said shells fired by separatists hit a kindergarten, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson claimed it "was a false-flag operation designed to discredit the Ukrainians, designed to create a pretext, a spurious provocation for Russian action."

Stop the War took aim at recent actions and comments from U.K. leaders.

"Our focus is on the policies of the British government which have poured oil on the fire throughout this episode," the coalition explained. "In taking this position we do not endorse the nature or conduct of either the Russian or Ukrainian regimes."

"The British government has talked up the threat of war continually," the statement continued. "Unlike the French and German governments, it has advanced no proposals for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, and has contributed only saber-rattling."

Instead of pursuing diplomacy, the British government has not only "sent arms to Ukraine and deployed further troops to eastern Europe," but also "declared that Ukraine has a 'sovereign right' to join NATO," the coalition added.

"Britain needs to change its policy, and start working for peace, not confrontation," the group asserted, encouraging a halt to the eastward expansion of NATO.

The statement also said:

We refute the idea that NATO is a defensive alliance, and believe its record in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and Libya over the last generation, not to mention the U.S.-British attack on Iraq, clearly proves otherwise.

We support all efforts to reach new arms control agreements in Europe and to move towards nuclear disarmament across the continent.

We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government's aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all.

High-profile signatories to the statement include former Labor Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn, along with another dozen members of Parliament, the heads of several U.K. unions, and various academics, activists, and artists such as musician Brian Eno and rapper Lowkey.

Other signatories include Joe Glenton of Veterans for Peace; Paweł Wargan, coordinator of Progressive International's international secretariat; and Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

The statement came as anti-nuclear and peace campaigners urged against Russia's planned drills, which are scheduled for Saturday, set to be overseen by Putin, and will involve launching cruise missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM).

"Test-firing ICBMs at this time of heightened tensions is particularly irresponsible but any practice to use WMDs at any time is unacceptable," the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) tweeted Friday, referring to weapons of mass destruction.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.