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

One summer day in 2017, a front-page story in the StarNews of Wilmington, North Carolina, shook up the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. The drinking water system, it said, was polluted with a contaminant commonly known as GenX, part of the family of “forever” PFAS chemicals.

It came from a Chemours plant in Fayetteville, near the winding Cape Fear River. Few knew about the contaminated water until the article described the discoveries of scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency and a state university. Given that certain types of PFAS have been linked to cancer, there was widespread anxiety over its potential danger.

In the onslaught of legal action and activism that followed, the EPA during President Donald Trump’s first term took an assertive stance, vowing to combat the spread of PFAS nationwide.

In its big-picture PFAS action plan from 2019, the agency said it would attack this complex problem on multiple fronts. It would, for example, consider limiting the presence of two of the best-known compounds — PFOA and PFOS — in drinking water. And, it said, it would find out more about the potential harm of GenX, which was virtually unregulated.

By the time Trump was sworn in for his second term, many of the plan’s suggestions had been put in place. After his first administration said PFOA and PFOS in drinking water should be regulated, standards were finalized under President Joe Biden. Four other types of PFAS, including GenX, were also tagged with limits.

But now, the second Trump administration is pulling back. The EPA said in May that it will delay enforcement on the drinking water limits for PFOA and PFOS until 2031, and it will rescind and reconsider the limits on the other four. Among those who challenged the standards in court is Chemours, which has argued that the EPA, under Biden, “used flawed science and didn’t follow proper rulemaking procedures” for GenX.

These EPA decisions under Trump are part of a slew of delays and course changes to PFAS policies that had been supported in his first term. Even though his earlier EPA pursued a measure that would help hold polluters accountable for cleaning up PFAS, the EPA of his second term has not yet committed to it. The agency also slowed down a process for finding out how industries have used the chemicals, a step prompted by a law signed by Trump in 2019.

At the same time, the EPA is hampering its ability to research pollutants — the kind of research that made it possible for its own scientists to investigate GenX. As the Trump administration seeks severe reductions in the EPA’s budget, the agency has terminated grants for PFAS studies and paralyzed its scientists with spending restrictions.

Pointing to earlier announcements on its approach to the chemicals, the EPA told ProPublica that it’s “committed to addressing PFAS in drinking water and ensuring that regulations issued under the Safe Drinking Water Act follow the law, follow the science, and can be implemented by water systems to strengthen public health protections.”

“If anything,” the agency added, “the Trump administration’s historic PFAS plan in 2019 laid the groundwork for the first steps to comprehensively address this contamination across media and we will continue to do so this term.”

In public appearances, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has pushed back on the suggestion that his agency weakened the drinking water limits on GenX and similar compounds. Future regulations imposed by his agency, he said, could be more or less stringent.

“What we want to do is follow the science, period,” he has said.

That sentiment perplexes scientists and environmental advocates, who say there is already persuasive evidence on the dangers of these chemicals that linger in the environment. The EPA reviewed GenX, for example, during both the first Trump and Biden administrations. In both 2018 and 2021, the agency pointed to animal studies linking it to cancer, as well as problems with kidneys, immune systems and, especially, livers. (Chemours has argued that certain animal studies have limited relevance to humans.)

Scientists and advocates also said it’s unclear what it means for the EPA to follow the science while diminishing its own ability to conduct research.

“I don’t understand why we would want to hamstring the agency that is designed to make sure we have clean air and clean water,” said Jamie DeWitt, a toxicologist in Oregon who worked with other scientists on Cape Fear River research. “I don’t understand it.”

Favored for their nonstick and liquid-resistant qualities, synthetic PFAS chemicals are widely used in products like raincoats, cookware and fast food wrappers. Manufacturers made the chemicals for decades without disclosing how certain types are toxic at extremely low levels, can accumulate in the body and will scarcely break down over time — hence the nickname “forever chemicals.”

The chemicals persist in soil and water too, making them complicated and costly to clean up, leading to a yearslong push to get such sites covered by the EPA’s Superfund program, which is designed to handle toxic swaths of land. During the first Trump administration, the EPA said it was taking steps toward designating the two legacy compounds, PFOA and PFOS, as “hazardous substances” under the Superfund program. Its liability provisions would help hold polluters responsible for the cost of cleaning up.

Moving forward with this designation process was a priority, according to the PFAS plan from Trump’s first term. Zeldin’s EPA describes that plan as “historic.” And, when he represented a Long Island district with PFAS problems in Congress, Zeldin voted for a bill that would have directed the EPA to take this step.

The designation became official under Biden. But business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and organizations representing the construction, recycling and chemical industries, sued. Project 2025, The Heritage Foundation’s playbook for the new administration, also questioned it.

Zeldin has said repeatedly that he wants to hold polluters accountable for PFAS, but his EPA requested three delays in the court case challenging the Superfund designation that helps make it possible.

The agency said in a recent motion it needed the latest pause because new leadership is still reviewing the issues and evaluating the designation in context of its “comprehensive strategy to address PFOA and PFOS.”

The EPA also delayed a rule requiring manufacturers and importers to report details about their PFAS use between 2011 and 2022. An annual bill that sets defense policy and spending, signed by Trump in his first term, had charged the EPA with developing such a process.

When Biden’s EPA finalized it, the agency said the rule would provide the largest-ever dataset of PFAS manufactured and used in the United States. It would help authorities understand their spread and determine what protections might be warranted.

Businesses were supposed to start reporting this month. But in a May 2 letter, a coalition of chemical companies petitioned the EPA to withdraw the deadline, reconsider the rule and issue a revised one with narrowed scope.

When the EPA delayed the rule less than two weeks later, it said it needed time to prepare for data collection and to consider changes to aspects of the rule.

In an email to ProPublica, the agency said it will address PFAS in many ways. Its approach, the agency said, is to give more time for compliance and to work with water systems to reduce PFAS exposure as quickly as feasible, “rather than issue violations and collect fees that don’t benefit public health.”

The court expects an update from the EPA in the Superfund designation case by Wednesday, and in the legal challenges to the drinking water standards by July 21. The EPA could continue defending the rules. It could ask the court for permission to reverse its position or to send the rules back to the agency for reconsideration. Or it could also ask for further pauses.

“It’s just a big unanswered question whether this administration and this EPA is going to be serious about enforcing anything,” said Robert Sussman, a former EPA official from the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. As a lawyer, he now represents environmental groups that filed an amicus brief in PFAS cases.

Back in North Carolina, problems caused by the chemicals continue to play out.

A consent order between the state and Chemours required the manufacturer to drastically reduce the release of GenX and other PFAS into the environment. (The chemicals commonly called GenX refer to HFPO-DA and its ammonium salt, which are involved in the GenX processing aid technology owned by Chemours.)

Chemours told ProPublica that it invested more than $400 million to remediate and reduce PFAS emissions. It also noted that there are hundreds of PFAS users in North Carolina, “as evidenced by PFAS seen upstream and hundreds of miles away” from its Fayetteville plant “that cannot be traced back to the site.”

PFAS-riddled sea foam continues to wash up on the coastal beaches. Chemours and water utilities, meanwhile, are battling in court about who should cover the cost of upgrades to remove the chemicals from drinking water.

Community forums about PFAS draw triple-digit crowds, even when they’re held on a weeknight, said Emily Donovan, co-founder of the volunteer group Clean Cape Fear, which has intervened in federal litigation. In the fast-growing region, new residents are just learning about the chemicals, she said, and they’re angry.

“I feel like we’re walking backwards,” Donovan said. Pulling back from the drinking water standards, in particular, is “disrespectful to this community.”

“It’s one thing to say you’re going to focus on PFAS,” she added. “It’s another thing to never let it cross the finish line and become any meaningful regulation.”

The EPA of Trump’s first term didn’t just call for more regulation of PFAS, it also stressed the importance of better understanding the forever chemicals through research and testing.

In a 2020 update to its PFAS action plan, the EPA highlighted its support for North Carolina’s investigation of GenX in the Cape Fear River. And it described its efforts to develop the science on PFAS issues affecting rural economies with “first-of-its-kind funding for the agriculture sector.”

Zeldin, too, has boasted about advancing PFAS research in an April news release. “This is just a start of the work we will do on PFAS to ensure Americans have the cleanest air, land, and water,” he said.

At about the same time, though, the agency terminated a host of congressionally appropriated grants for PFAS research, including over $15 million for projects focused on food and farmlands in places like Utah, Texas and Illinois.

Scientists at Michigan State University, for example, were investigating how PFAS interacts with water, soil, crops, livestock and biosolids, which are used for fertilizer. They timed their latest study to this year’s growing season, hired staff and partnered with a farm. Then the EPA canceled two grants.

In virtually identical letters, the agency said that each grant “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities. The objectives of the award are no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.”

The contrast between the agency’s words and actions raises questions about the process behind its decisions, said Cheryl Murphy, head of Michigan State’s Center for PFAS Research and co-lead of one of the projects.

“If you halt it right now,” she said, “what we’re doing is we’re undermining our ability to translate the science that we’re developing into some policy and guidance to help people minimize their exposure to PFAS.”

At least some of the researchers are appealing the terminations.

About a month after PFAS grants to research teams in Maine and Virginia were terminated for not being aligned with agency priorities, the agency reinstated them. The EPA told ProPublica that “there will be more updates on research-related grants in the future.”

Even if the Michigan State grants are reinstated, there could be lasting consequences, said Hui Li, the soil scientist who led both projects. “We will miss the season for this year,” he said in an email, “and could lose the livestock on the farm for the research.”

Federal researchers are also in limbo. Uncertainty, lost capacity and spending restrictions have stunted the work at an EPA lab in Duluth, Minnesota, that investigates PFAS and other potential hazards, according to several sources connected to it. As one source who works at the lab put it, “We don’t know how much longer we will be operating as is.”

The EPA told ProPublica that it’s “continuing to invest in research and labs, including Duluth, to advance the mission of protecting human health and the environment.”

Meanwhile, the agency is asking Congress to eliminate more than half of its own budget. That includes massive staffing cuts, and it would slash nearly all the money for two major programs that help states fund water and wastewater infrastructure. One dates back to President Ronald Reagan’s administration. The other was spotlighted in a paper by Trump’s first-term EPA, which said communities could use these funds to protect public health from PFAS. It trumpeted examples from places like Michigan and New Jersey.

The EPA lost 727 employees in voluntary separations between Jan. 1 and late June, according to numbers the agency provided to ProPublica. It said it received more than 2,600 applications for the second round of deferred resignations and voluntary early retirements.

“These are really technical, difficult jobs,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. “And the EPA, by encouraging so many employees to leave, is also losing a lot of institutional knowledge and a lot of technical expertise.”

The shake-up also worries DeWitt, who was one of the scientists who helped investigate the Cape Fear River contamination and who has served on an EPA science advisory board. Her voice shook as she reflected on the EPA’s workforce, “some of the finest scientists I know,” and what their loss means for public well-being.

“Taking away this talent from our federal sector,” she said, will have “profound effects on the agency’s ability to protect people in the United States from hazardous chemicals in air, in water, in soil and potentially in food.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Anna Clark.

But the claim is false. A review of footage captured from multiple angles reveals that Iwaya was standing a considerable distance away from Wang.

The claim was shared on Weibo on March 23.

“Tokyo, March 22, 2025. Japan’s foreign minister is helping China’s foreign minister by pulling out a chair,” the claim reads.

It was shared alongside the 14-second video that shows a man in a suit pulling out a chair for Wang at what appears to be a conference room.

Some users commented to say it showed a “power dynamic” between the two officials.

“He [Iwaya] can’t even look at Wang … afraid of authority,” one user said.

(Weibo)

The claim began to circulate online after foreign ministers from Japan, China and South Korea met in Tokyo on Saturday, seeking common ground on East Asian security and economic issues amid escalating global uncertainty.

It was the first gathering of the countries’ foreign ministers since 2023.

The three agreed to accelerate preparations for a trilateral summit in Japan this year that would also include talks on how Tokyo, Beijing and Seoul can tackle declining birthrates and aging populations.

But the claim about the video is false.

A reverse image search found that the video circulated online does show the trilateral meeting held on Saturday.

But a closer look at the video taken from different angles shows that Iwaya was standing a considerable distance away from Wang.

Photos and videos from the summit show that the tie Iyawa was wearing was different from the one worn by the man who pulled out the chair for Wang. Additionally, Iyawa’s suit appeared darker than the other man’s.

Edited by Taejun Kang.

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.

Still of ‘Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone,’ Hoyo Films.

Anyone who is offended by a child sharing their lived experiences of survival can choose not to watch the BBC Gaza documentary. But do not deny innocent children – who have experienced unimaginable grief and loss – the right to tell their stories, writes Sylvia Monkhouse

Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone is a harrowing account of life in Gaza as seen through the eyes of Palestinian children. It provides a rare window into young lives devastated by months of relentless bombings, displacements, and unspeakable horrors.

It aired on 17 February on BBC Two, but was swiftly removed from iPlayer four days later, following fierce lobbying from pro-Israel voices. The reasons given for its removal? Well, they simply don’t add up.

The main objection was that the father of Abdullah, the 13-year-old narrator, is the deputy minister of agriculture in Gaza’s Hamas-run government. But like it or not, it’s a fact of life in Gaza that almost anyone living there will have some connection to Hamas. Hamas runs the government, so anyone working in an official capacity must also work with Hamas. Not only that, but Abdullah’s father is hardly a “terrorist leader” as was claimed. He is a technocrat, in a role concerned with agriculture, not politics or military, who even studied at UK universities.

Other objections included the risk of payments potentially funding Hamas. But as Hoyo Films and now the boy himself have confirmed, Abdullah was paid a very small sum via his sister’s bank account which was used to cover basic living expenses. And the complaints around the use of antisemitic language have been rebuffed by many – including Jewish Voice for Labour. The word ‘“Yehudi” is simply Arabic for “Israeli,” and is used by Jewish Israeli journalist Yuval Abrahamto to describe himself in the Oscar-winning film No Other Land.

Crucially, absolutely nothing in the film has been found to be factually inaccurate.

The film received five stars in the Guardian and the Times, which described it as “exceptional”. It’s an outstanding, powerful film and a crucial piece of journalism. Since international journalists are banned from Gaza, there are scant opportunities to witness Gazan children’s stories. This film gave us a small insight and humanised Palestinian children.

Why then, is an innocent child, the victim of unimaginable suffering, put under such intense scrutiny as to whether or not they should be allowed to tell their story?

Consider the source

When you consider the source of the complaints, you can’t help but feel like the humanisation of Palestinians was precisely the problem.

Spearheading the campaign to have the documentary removed from public view was Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s ambassador to the UK. Throughout her political career, Hotovely has gone out of her way to dehumanise Palestinians, accusing them of being “thieves of history” who have no heritage, and calling the Nakba – the violent mass displacement of Palestinians – “an Arab lie.” More recently, she claimed there was “no humanitarian crisis” in Gaza.

Despite strong counterprotests from a far greater number of people wanting the documentary to stay put – including over 1,000 industry professionals and more than 600 British Jews – the BBC bowed to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby, and dutifully took the documentary down.

That’s why I decided to start a petition, calling on the BBC to reconsider its decision, and allow Palestinian children their right to be heard. The petition quickly gained lots of support and now has over 25,000 signatures.

Failing Palestinian children

Not long after I started the petition, it emerged that Abdullah, the film’s 13-year-old narrator, has experienced harassment as a result of the kickback against the film, and now fears for his life. “I did not agree to the risk of me being targeted in any way”, he said. And “[if] anything happens to me, the BBC is responsible for it.”

Putting children’s safety and mental wellbeing at risk is not only blatantly wrong, but is in breach of the BBC’s own guidelines on safeguarding young people. Sadly, Abdullah’s was not an isolated case.

In a recent interview with the Independent, former BBC newsreader Karishma Patel explained her reason for quitting the BBC: its longstanding refusal to show the full extent to which Irael is harming Palestinian children. She recalls how she begged the BBC to cover five-year-old Hind Rajab’s story while she was still alive, trapped inside a car with her murdered relatives. The BBC chose not to, only naming her after she was killed, and not even making clear in the headline who had done it. “The BBC failed Hind,” says Patel. “And it has failed Palestinian children again in pulling the [Gaza] documentary.”

I’ve just written to Tim Davie, Controller-General of the BBC, to draw his attention to the huge number of people who want the documentary to be reinstated, and why the reasons put forward to justify its removal simply do not add up. I told him, “Anyone who is offended by a child sharing their lived experiences of survival can choose not to watch it. But do not deny innocent children – who have experienced unimaginable grief and loss – the right to tell their stories.” You can read my full letter here.

Let’s see if he responds. The BBC didn’t bother reaching out to Abdullah to apologise to him after they pulled the film. So I’m not holding out too much hope.

The post In Pulling the Gaza Documentary, the BBC is Failing Palestinian Children appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Sylvia Monkhouse.

It aired on 17 February on BBC Two, but was swiftly removed from iPlayer four days later, following fierce lobbying from pro-Israel voices. The reasons given for its removal? Well, they simply don’t add up.

The main objection was that the father of Abdullah, the 13-year-old narrator, is the deputy minister of agriculture in Gaza’s Hamas-run government. But like it or not, it’s a fact of life in Gaza that almost anyone living there will have some connection to Hamas. Hamas runs the government, so anyone working in an official capacity must also work with Hamas. Not only that, but Abdullah’s father is hardly a “terrorist leader” as was claimed. He is a technocrat, in a role concerned with agriculture, not politics or military, who even studied at UK universities.

Other objections included the risk of payments potentially funding Hamas. But as Hoyo Films and now the boy himself have confirmed, Abdullah was paid a very small sum via his sister’s bank account which was used to cover basic living expenses. And the complaints around the use of antisemitic language have been rebuffed by many – including Jewish Voice for Labour. The word ‘“Yehudi” is simply Arabic for “Israeli,” and is used by Jewish Israeli journalist Yuval Abrahamto to describe himself in the Oscar-winning film No Other Land.

Crucially, absolutely nothing in the film has been found to be factually inaccurate.

The film received five stars in the Guardian and the Times, which described it as “exceptional”. It’s an outstanding, powerful film and a crucial piece of journalism. Since international journalists are banned from Gaza, there are scant opportunities to witness Gazan children’s stories. This film gave us a small insight and humanised Palestinian children.

Why then, is an innocent child, the victim of unimaginable suffering, put under such intense scrutiny as to whether or not they should be allowed to tell their story?

Consider the source

When you consider the source of the complaints, you can’t help but feel like the humanisation of Palestinians was precisely the problem.

Spearheading the campaign to have the documentary removed from public view was Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s ambassador to the UK. Throughout her political career, Hotovely has gone out of her way to dehumanise Palestinians, accusing them of being “thieves of history” who have no heritage, and calling the Nakba – the violent mass displacement of Palestinians – “an Arab lie.” More recently, she claimed there was “no humanitarian crisis” in Gaza.

Despite strong counterprotests from a far greater number of people wanting the documentary to stay put – including over 1,000 industry professionals and more than 600 British Jews – the BBC bowed to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby, and dutifully took the documentary down.

That’s why I decided to start a petition, calling on the BBC to reconsider its decision, and allow Palestinian children their right to be heard. The petition quickly gained lots of support and now has over 25,000 signatures.

Failing Palestinian children

Not long after I started the petition, it emerged that Abdullah, the film’s 13-year-old narrator, has experienced harassment as a result of the kickback against the film, and now fears for his life. “I did not agree to the risk of me being targeted in any way”, he said. And “[if] anything happens to me, the BBC is responsible for it.”

Putting children’s safety and mental wellbeing at risk is not only blatantly wrong, but is in breach of the BBC’s own guidelines on safeguarding young people. Sadly, Abdullah’s was not an isolated case.

In a recent interview with the Independent, former BBC newsreader Karishma Patel explained her reason for quitting the BBC: its longstanding refusal to show the full extent to which Irael is harming Palestinian children. She recalls how she begged the BBC to cover five-year-old Hind Rajab’s story while she was still alive, trapped inside a car with her murdered relatives. The BBC chose not to, only naming her after she was killed, and not even making clear in the headline who had done it. “The BBC failed Hind,” says Patel. “And it has failed Palestinian children again in pulling the [Gaza] documentary.”

I’ve just written to Tim Davie, Controller-General of the BBC, to draw his attention to the huge number of people who want the documentary to be reinstated, and why the reasons put forward to justify its removal simply do not add up. I told him, “Anyone who is offended by a child sharing their lived experiences of survival can choose not to watch it. But do not deny innocent children – who have experienced unimaginable grief and loss – the right to tell their stories.”  You can read my full letter here.

Let’s see if he responds. The BBC didn’t bother reaching out to Abdullah to apologise to him after they pulled the film. So I’m not holding out too much hope.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Sylvia Monkhouse.

The BBC has removed its documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone from iPlayer after it was revealed that its teenage narrator is the son of a Hamas official.

The broadcaster stated that it was conducting “further due diligence” following mounting scrutiny.

The film, which aired on BBC Two last Monday, follows 13-year-old Abdullah Al-Yazouri as he describes life in Gaza.

• READ MORE: Can we trust the BBC on Israel-Gaza? These media experts don’t think so
• Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone
• ‘No safe place’: the BBC documentary showing Gaza through a child’s eyes
• Other Gaza ceasefire reports

However, it later emerged that his father, Ayman Al-Yazouri, serves as the Hamas Deputy Minister of Agriculture in Gaza.

In a statement yesterday, the BBC defended the documentary’s value but acknowledged concerns.

“There have been continuing questions raised about the programme, and in light of these, we are conducting further due diligence with the production company,” the statement said.

The revelation sparked a backlash from figures including Friday Night Dinner actress Tracy-Ann Oberman, literary agent Neil Blair, and former BBC One boss Danny Cohen, who called it “a shocking failure by the BBC and a major crisis for its reputation”.

On Thursday, the BBC admitted that it had not disclosed the family connection but insisted it followed compliance procedures. It has since added a disclaimer acknowledging Abdullah’s ties to Hamas.

UK’s Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said that she would discuss the issue with the BBC, particularly regarding its vetting process.

However, the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians urged the broadcaster to “stand firm against attempts to prevent firsthand accounts of life in Gaza from reaching audiences”.

Others also defended the importance of the documentary made last year before the sheer scale of devastation by the Israeli military forces was exposed — and many months before the ceasefire came into force on January 19.

‘This documentary humanised Palestinian children’
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU), criticised the BBC’s decision.

“It’s very regrettable that this documentary has been pulled following pressure from anti-Palestinian activists who have largely shown no sympathy for persons in Gaza suffering from massive bombardment, starvation, and disease,” Middle East Eye quoted him as saying.

Doyle also praised the film’s impact, saying, “This documentary humanised Palestinian children in Gaza and gave valuable insights into life in this horrific war zone.”

Journalist Richard Sanders, who has produced multiple documentaries on Gaza, called the controversy a “huge test” for the BBC and condemned its response as a “cowardly decision”.

Earlier this week, 45 Jewish journalists and media figures, including former BBC governor Ruth Deech, urged the broadcaster to pull the film, calling Ayman Al-Yazouri a “terrorist leader”.

The controversy underscores wider tensions over media coverage of the Israel-Gaza war, with critics accusing the BBC of a vetting failure, while others argue the documentary sheds crucial light on Palestinian children’s suffering.

Pacific Media Watch comments: The BBC has long been accused of an Israeli-bias in its coverage of Palestinian affairs, especially the 15-month genocidal war on Gaza, and this documentary is one of the rare programmes that has restored some balance.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape is still confident of delivering the PNG-US Defence Cooperation Agreement despite the cancellation of US President Joe Biden’s visit, and the leaking of a draft copy of the confidential document on Tuesday.

He said PNG’s national interest was at the heart of the agreement, which was still expected to be signed on Monday in Port Moresby between himself and the US government leader or official who would step in for Biden.

Marape said yesterday the agreement that was leaked on Tuesday was still in draft format, and he would announce the finer details today following a cabinet meeting yesterday

• READ MORE:  US planned security pact with PNG raises concerns for Pacific
• Other PNG-US defence pact reports

By yesterday afternoon, the White House was still yet to confirm who would step in for Biden to visit Papua New Guinea.

Copies of the leaked agreement were circulated to PNG and regional media on Tuesday, with Radio New Zealand carrying it on its website the same afternoon.

Marape said the agreement would greatly boost PNG’s defence capabilities and provide key infrastructure in strategic air and sea ports.

“There is a lot of misinformation in the news release. I will announce to the country the upsides of these agreements on Thursday [today],” Marape said told the Post-Courier.

Still in draft form
“The agreement was still in draft form and we will discuss it fully at our cabinet meeting later today [Wednesday].

“I want to inform all that PNG’s national interest is the reason why we [are] elevating our traditional military relationship with USA to a higher and better level, including addressing the needs of our military, to upgrade and sea and airspace border protection.”

Speaking to the Post-Courier separately on Tuesday, and without making any particular reference to the US-PNG Defence Cooperation Agreement, Chief of the PNG Defence Force Major-General Mark Goina said budget support to the military over the years had been unsatisfactory.

“Such agreements with our bilateral partners are crucial in helping plug the gaps,” he said.

“We have devised plans where we have a budget put in place, in accordance to our needs, and based on that, we have identified where the gaps are, and that is where our partners are brought in, partners like Australia, New Zealand, US, China, India, UK and other partners we have relationships with.

“So they come and cover those gaps for us,” General Goina said.

“That’s how we have been addressing our budget shortfalls.

“And this will continue until such time, when we are able to meet our own needs satisfactorily.”

Pact yet to be finaiised
The 14-page agreement, a copy of which was also seen by the Post-Courier, will be finalised by the end of this week for signing on Monday in Port Moresby.

When signed, the agreement will work in line with all previous defence agreements between the two countries.

The draft agreement, titled “Agreement on Defence Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America And the government of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea’, contains a total of 22 specific sections or articles, which deal with a broad range of issues.

The articles range from issues such as:

• the status of US personnel who will pass through or be based in PNG military facilities;
• access to and use of agreed facilities and areas covered in the agreement;
• pre-positioning and storage of equipment, supplies and materials;
• property ownership, security; entry and exit;
• movement of aircraft, vehicles and vessels; importation, exportation and taxes;
• driving and professional licenses;
• contracting;
• logistics support; medical and mortuary affairs, postal and recreational facilities and communications services; and
• utilities and communications; and o

Strategic specifics
The specific areas and facilities covered under the agreement include the strategically-valuable Nadzab airport and Lae wharf, the Lombrum naval base and Momote airport in Manus, and the Port Moresby seaport and Jackson’s International Airport.

Access to these strategic areas and facilities are covered in article five of the agreement, which states, in part, that: “The parties shall cooperate to facilitate the required approvals to enable unimpeded access to and use of the agreed facilities and areas to US Forces and US contractors as mutually agreed.”

“Such agreed facilities and areas may be used for mutually agreed activities including visits, training, exercises, manoeuvres, transit, support and related activities, refueling of aircraft . .” and others.

There were fears that the agreement would undermine PNG’s sovereignty, even though many similar agreements exist between the US and its allies around the world and the Indo-Pacific region — countries which still enjoy their freedoms and sovereignty.

Lawrence Fong and Gorethy Kenneth are PNG Post-Courier reporters. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

People demonstrate against the United States entering a war with Iran at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 9, 2020, in Washington, D.C.

Photo: Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images

Related

▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​

“Israel can’t meaningfully strike Iran’s nuclear program themselves — they know they can’t, and we know they can’t. We would have to get involved.”

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Murtaza Hussain.

Consul General Zheng Xiyan told Sky News that he was the grey-haired man in a hat seen on social media footage pulling the hair of protester Bob Chan.

"I think it's an emergency situation. That guy threatened my colleague's life ... that day we tried to control the situation," Zheng told the network, claiming that he "didn't attack anyone."

Asked again if he pulled Chan's hair, Zheng responded:

"Yes ... because he abused my country, my leader. I think it's my duty," he said. "Yes, I think any diplomat [would] if faced with such ... behavior."

Footage of the melee showed several men including Zheng gathered around a single protester on the ground, beating and kicking him. Police eventually step inside the gates to drag Chan away.

Sky News also aired footage of a man who appeared to be consular staff being kicked on the ground by unidentified men at the protest on Sunday, which was timed to coincide with the opening of the Chinese Communist Party's 20th party congress in Beijing.

Chan, who fled Hong Kong amid an ongoing crackdown on dissent and political activism under a draconian national security law, told a news conference in London on Wednesday: "I am shocked and hurt by this unprovoked attack because I never thought something like this would happen in the U.K."

Both Chan and the Greater Manchester Police denied claims from Chinese staff that Chan entered the consulate grounds under his own steam.

The investigation was launched after "a small group of men came out of the building and a man was dragged into the consulate grounds and assaulted," the police said in a statement at the time.

A British foreign office minister told parliament on Thursday that it would expect Beijing to waive diplomatic immunity if police find enough evidence to bring criminal charges against any of its consular staff including Zheng.

The British government has described the attack on Chan as "unacceptable," and summoned China's Charge d'Affaires in London to explain what had happened. The Chinese ambassador is currently out of the U.K.

"I've instructed our ambassador to deliver a clear message directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing about the depth of concern with apparent actions by Consulate General staff," junior foreign office minister Jesse Norman told the House of Commons on Thursday.

"Let me be clear that if the police determine there are grounds to charge any officials, we would expect the Chinese Consulate to waive immunity for those officials. If they do not, then diplomatic consequences will follow."

His comments were backed up by a tweet from foreign secretary James Cleverly.

"If police determine there are grounds to charge any officials, we expect the Chinese ambassador to waive immunity for all those involved in the appalling incident at the Chinese consulate-general in Manchester," he wrote.

Ruling Conservative Party lawmaker Alicia Kearns, who chairs the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, called for Zheng's immediate expulsion.

"We now have an admission of guilt by the Chinese Consul General - he must be expelled immediately," Kearns said via her Twitter account.

Lord Alton of Liverpool, who is a patron of the London-based rights group Hong Kong Watch, accused several Chinese diplomats including Zheng of taking part in the attacks, naming Zheng, deputy consul general Fan Yingjie, consul Gao Lianjia and counselor Chen Wei.

Chan's media appearance came after Chinese consul general Zheng Xiyuan revealed to British newspapers The Guardian and the Manchester Evening News on Tuesday the contents of a letter he wrote to the Greater Manchester Police. 

The Guardian quoted Zheng's letter as saying the protesters had displayed slogans that were “deliberately designed to provoke, harass, alarm and distress our consular staff.” He said the activists were “asked politely” to remove the imagery “but refused to do so”.

The banners included a picture of Chinese President Xi Jinping with a noose around his neck, along with slogans in Chinese saying “Wipe out the CCP” and “[expletive] your mother," Zheng wrote.

However, Hong Kongers in the U.K. told RFA the second banner meant "celebrate my ass," in a satirical reference to the 20th party congress.

Neither the English-language nor the Chinese-language websites of the foreign ministry mentioned the incident on Thursday, although spokesman Wang Wenbin told a regular news briefing in Beijing on Wednesday that representations had been made over the Manchester incident, describing the protesters' actions as "lawless harassment."

Several organizations representing Hong Kongers in the UK -- including Hong Kong Liberty, HKAID and Hong Kongers in Britain, have said they plan to protest on Oct. 23, in support of the protesters who were attacked, and to call for a more definite response from the British government.

"We are immensely shocked and deeply saddened by the abhorrent violent assault of protesters at the Chinese Consulate-General in Manchester on Oct. 16, 2022," Hong Kongers in Britain said on its Facebook page, announcing a rally in Birmingham.

"We will not be intimidated into silence or be beaten into submission, the HongKongers has had to flee once, we shall not allow white terror to spread in our adopted country," the group said.

Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie.

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

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Eva Sêrro Spiekermann.

Following years of grassroots pressure, multinational food giant General Mills announced Tuesday that after a 20-year partnership, it will sell its majority share of an Israeli company operating a plant where Pillsbury products are made on stolen Palestinian land.

"With this move, General Mills is joining many other American and European companies that have divested from Israel's illegal occupation."

In a statement, General Mills said its decision to divest its 60% stake in the Israeli firm Bodan Holdings was centered on "strategic choices about where to prioritize our resources to drive superior returns."

Members of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)—the Quaker peace group that launched the "No Dough for the Occupation" campaign to boycott Pillsbury products two years ago—credited years of activism for the move.

"General Mills' divestment shows that public pressure works even on the largest of corporations," Noam Perry of AFSC's Economic Activism program said in a statement.

The campaign targeted the Minneapolis-based company because since 2002 it has made Pillsbury products in the Atarot Industrial Zone, an illegal Israeli settler colony in the occupied West Bank in Palestine. Israel's exclusively Jewish settlements have been condemned as a form of apartheid by United Nations human rights officials as well as international, Palestinian, and Israeli advocacy groups.

According to the Ramallah-based human rights group Al-Haq, the establishment of the industrial zone following Israel's 1967 conquest and occupation of the West Bank and nearby East Jerusalem has had "devastating consequences" on Palestinian "individuals, communities, and the environment."

Al-Haq says Israel "has systematically and unlawfully appropriated Palestinian public and privately owned land, exploiting Palestinian natural resources, while forcing the transfer of, and creating coercive environments to forcibly displace, the protected Palestinian population."

Before Atarot was built, the area where it is located was largely agricultural land belonging mostly to residents of the Palestinain village of Beit Hanina, who were ethnically cleansed under pretext of building unlicensed homes or to facilitate construction of the West Bank separation barrier, commonly called Israel's "apartheid wall." 

"No Dough for the Occupation" is endorsed by groups including the Palestinian Boycott National Committee, Jewish Voice for Peace, American Muslims for Palestine, SumOfUs, Women Against Military Madness, and others.

The campaign is also supported by several members of the Pillsbury family. In April 2021, Charlie Pillsbury published a Minneapolis Star Tribune opinion piece explaining that "we cannot support the products bearing our name when its parent company is benefiting from Israel's war crimes."

In a June 2021 interview with AJ+, Pillsbury noted that the General Mills facility is not only built on occupied land, "it's also a sweatshop where the Palestinians are searched when they come in, and when they go out" and "work under armed guards all day" for "half the wages" that they would if employed in Israel. General Mills denies claims of unequal treatment.

Pillsbury's Star Tribune article also noted that Israel is under investigation by the International Criminal Court for alleged and documented war crimes including the construction and expansion of settler colonies on land conquered both during the 1948-49 Nakba ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians and the 1967 expulsion of hundreds of thousands more.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, adopted in December 2016, declares that "the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law."

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also states that an "occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies," while prohibiting "individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory."

In 2020, the U.N. Human Rights Office included General Mills in a database of more than 100 companies—only seven of them U.S.-based—involved in Israel's occupation.

"With this move, General Mills is joining many other American and European companies that have divested from Israel's illegal occupation, including Microsoft and Unilever just in the last couple of years," said AFSC's Perry.

"We call on all companies to divest from Israel's illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine," he added, "and from the apartheid system it is part of."

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