Month: September 2024

…

your ad here

Brussels — Elon Musk’s woes are hardly limited to Brazil as he now risks possible EU sanctions in the coming months for allegedly breaking new content rules.

Access to X has been suspended in South America’s largest country since Saturday after a long-running legal battle over disinformation ended with a judge ordering a shutdown.

But Brazil is not alone in its concerns about X.

Politicians worldwide and digital rights groups have repeatedly raised concerns about Musk’s actions since taking over what was then Twitter in late 2022, including sacking many employees tasked with content moderation and maintaining ties with EU regulators.

Musk’s “free speech absolutist” attitude has led to clashes with Brussels.

The European Union could decide within months to take action against X, including possible fines, as part of an ongoing probe into whether the platform is breaching a landmark content moderation law, the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Nothing has yet been decided but any fines could be as high as 6% of X’s annual worldwide turnover unless the company makes changes in line with EU demands.

But if Musk’s reactions are anything to go by, another showdown is on the cards.

When the EU in July accused X of deceptive practices in violation of the DSA, Musk warned: “We look forward to a very public battle in court.”

The temperature was raised even further a month later with another war of words on social media between Musk and the EU’s top tech enforcer, Thierry Breton.

Breton reminded Musk in a letter of his legal duty to stop “harmful content” from spreading on X hours before an interview with U.S. presidential challenger Donald Trump live on the platform.

Musk responded by mocking Breton and sharing a meme that carried an obscene message.

EU ban ‘very unlikely’

Despite the bitter barbs, the European Commission, the EU’s digital watchdog, insists that dialogue with X is ongoing.

“X continues to cooperate with the commission and respond to questions,” the commission’s digital spokesman, Thomas Regnier, told AFP.

Experts also agree that a Brazil-like shutdown in the 27-country EU is unlikely, although it has the legal right.

The DSA would allow the bloc to demand a judge in Ireland, where X has its EU headquarters, order a temporary suspension until the infringements cease.

Breton has repeatedly insisted that “Europe will not hesitate to do what is necessary.”

But since X has around 106 million EU users, significantly higher than the 22 million in Brazil, the belief is that Musk would not want to risk a similar move in Europe.

“Obviously, we can never exclude it, but it is very unlikely,” said Alexandre de Streel of the think tank Centre on Regulation in Europe.

Regardless of what happens next, de Streel said the case would likely end up in the EU courts, calling X “the least cooperative company” with the bloc.

Jan Penfrat of the European Digital Rights advocacy group said a ban was “a very last resort measure” and that X would “probably” not close shop in the EU.

“I would hope that the commission thinks about this very, very hard before going there because this (a ban) would have a tremendously negative effect on the right to freedom of expression and access to information,” Penfrat said.

EU’s X-File

The commission in July accused X of misleading users with its blue checkmarks for certified accounts, insufficient advertising transparency and failing to give researchers access to the platform’s data.

That allegation is part of a wider probe into X, launched in December, and regulators are still probing how it tackles the spread of illegal content and information manipulation.

X now has access to the EU’s file and can defend itself including by replying to the commission’s findings.

The list of governments angry with Musk is growing. He also raised hackles over the summer in the UK during days of rioting sparked by online misinformation that the suspect behind a mass stabbing that killed three girls was a Muslim asylum seeker.

The billionaire, whose personal X account has 196 million followers, engaged in disputes with British politicians after sharing inflammatory posts and claiming a “civil war is inevitable” in the country.

Non-EU member Britain will soon be able to implement a similar law to the DSA with enforcement expected to start next year.
…

your ad here

…

your ad here

washington — During his recent trip to Mongolia, Russian President Vladimir Putin promoted a plan to build a pipeline from his country to China. The pipeline, which could weaken U.S. energy leverage over Beijing, would have to pass through Mongolia.

In a joint press conference held after talks in Ulaanbaatar on Tuesday, Putin said cooperation in the gas sector looks promising.

The two sides have completed drawing up documents to design the Soyuz Vostok gas pipeline extension in Mongolia and it is “at the stage of state expert appraisal and assessment,” Putin said.

New export market

The Soyuz Vostok gas pipeline extension is part of the Power of Siberia 2 (PS-2) pipeline. The PS-2 pipeline would transport about 50 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas annually to China when completed.

It is seen as an effort by Moscow to divert gas that had been exported to Europe to Asia after the Nord Stream 1 pipeline under the Baltic Sea was damaged by explosions last year.

Russia uses the Power of Siberia 1 pipeline to deliver gas to China, exporting 22.7 bcm in 2023. It aims to raise the supplies to 38 bcm annually by 2025.

“China is really Russia’s option to find a customer for a sizable portion of the pipeline gas it previously sent to Europe,” said Erica Downs, a senior research scholar focusing on Chinese energy markets at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

“Putin will continue to champion the project and look for ways to characterize any discussion of the project with Mongolian officials as progress,” she continued.

Beijing and Moscow have been in talks for years over PS-2, but a final agreement has not been reached. Mongolia also has not made a final approval for the pipeline to pass through its land.

“The pipeline, if built, would reduce U.S. LNG [liquefied natural gas] exports to China,” further weakening U.S. energy leverage over China that is already declining, said Joseph Webster, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.

Beijing seeks to reduce foreign energy dependence by “replacing imports with indigenously produced energy” including solar, wind, and nuclear energy, Webster said.

A report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service on Aug. 28 said, “PS-2 could strengthen China’s bargaining position” with the U.S. if it receives additional Russian natural gas. The U.S. has been the sixth largest exporter of LNG to China between 2016 and 2023, the report noted.

The report said PS-2 could also help Russia avoid sanctions imposed by the West because “PS-2 would involve pipeline trade of natural gas” and “no existing sanctions would impact this trade.”

Renewed push

Putin made an extra effort to promote the pipeline deal at the press conference with Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh.

He said Russia and Mongolia are “not only talking about the transit of Russian gas across Mongolia” but “the potential delivery of gas to Mongolian consumers.”

Ahead of the talks, Putin said Mongolia initially “preferred to limit themselves to being just a transit country” for the pipeline but is now considering a deal to obtain “cheap pipeline gas to support the development of their economy and infrastructure.”

Putin made the comments in a written interview with Mongolia’s Onoodor newspaper, according to the Kremlin on Monday.

Putin’s renewed push to boost PS2 came after Mongolia in August excluded the pipeline project in its national development plan through 2028.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the Heritage Foundation, said Putin made the remarks “to project strength” and because he “needs a market for his oil.”

“He wants to see what the West says,” and also “to see whether Mongolia changes its mind,” but the pipeline deal is still incomplete “until we get confirmation from Mongolia,” she said.

Khurelsukh did not confirm in his statements in the bilateral talks with Putin whether he agreed to allow the pipeline deal to proceed.

In a series of documents signed on Tuesday, Russia and Mongolia made agreements on the supplies of oil, petroleum products, and aviation fuel but did not mention any agreements on the pipeline deal.

China-Russia competition

Mongolia is heavily dependent on Russian energy, importing 95% of its petroleum products and more than 20% of electricity. A spokesperson for the Mongolian government told Politico on Tuesday that is why it did not arrest Putin when he was in the country.

The International Criminal Court issued a warrant for Putin’s arrest for crimes committed in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As a member country of the ICC, Mongolia was obligated to arrest him.

“Mongolia probably does not have to make a final decision about Power of Siberia 2 anytime soon because China is in no hurry to move forward with the project,” Downs said.

“The fact that Mongolia did not include Power of Siberia 2 in its next four-year spending plan indicates that it does not expect the project to move off the drawing board before 2028,” she said.

Russia also has been in talks with China about the project in recent months.

In May, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said Beijing and Moscow are expected to sign a contract on the PS-2 gas pipeline “in the near future.”

But the pipeline deal between the two remained stalled over pricing demands by Beijing, the Financial Times reported in June.

On Wednesday, Chinese Ambassador to Russia Zhang Hanhui apparently told the Russian News Agency Tass on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok that Beijing and Moscow would eventually launch PS-2 despite difficulties surrounding the project.

“China always drives a hard bargain on the pricing of gas imports and wants to control as much as possible of the transportation network involved in its imports and exports,” said Thomas Duesterberg, senior fellow at Hudson Institute.

“Russia and China compete over influence in Mongolia, and the Russo-Mongolian deal is subject to close scrutiny because of these factors, and that likely explains the failure at this time to reach a deal,” he added.

Chinese Vice President Han Zheng will visit Mongolia from Sept. 4 to 8 after attending the Eastern Economic Forum held in Vladivostok, the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced on Tuesday.

It is uncertain, however, whether Beijing and Ulaanbaatar will discuss the PS-2 pipeline project.
…

your ad here

European Union governments have accused Russia of “weaponizing” migration by helping illegal migrants cross into the EU, stoking political tensions in countries such as Finland, Poland and Latvia. Latvian political observers say this tactic, in part, led to the gains of far-right parties in European elections this year. Henry Wilkins reports from Riga, Latvia
…

your ad here

Ukraine faces wildly different prospects under a potential Donald Trump or Kamala Harris U.S. presidency. But as their campaigns race to the finish line, neither candidate has laid out exactly how they plan to deal with Russia’s war on Ukraine. Experts say in that same space of time, the battlefield in Ukraine has itself radically changed, giving more power to Ukraine in determining its own fate. VOA White House correspondent Anita Powell reports from Washington.
…

your ad here

London — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer defended his government’s decision to suspend some arms shipments to Israel Wednesday, saying the move was necessary to comply with international law.

“We absolutely recognize and support Israel’s right to self-defense and have taken action in support of that right of self-defense. … But in relation to licenses, this isn’t an Israel issue. It’s the framework for all licenses that have to be kept under review,” he said.

“We either comply with international law or we don’t. We only have strength in our arguments because we comply with international law,” Starmer told lawmakers in Parliament.

Israel has strongly criticized the move and said it would only serve to strengthen Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip. Israel invaded the Palestinian territory after Hamas militants killed more than 1,200 people and took 253 hostages in a cross-border terror attack on October 7.

Britain on Monday suspended around 30 of the 350 licenses for weapons exports to Israel after a legal review. Foreign Secretary David Lammy made the announcement in parliament on Monday.

“The assessment I have received leaves me unable to conclude anything other than that for certain U.K. arms exports to Israel, there does exist a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law,” Lammy told lawmakers, adding that the export bans include “equipment that we assess is for use in the current conflict in Gaza, such as important components which go into military aircraft, including fighter aircraft, helicopters and drones, as well as items which facilitate ground targeting.”

The British move will have little impact on the Israel Defense Forces’ operations, said Middle East analyst Yossi Mekelberg of the London-based policy institute Chatham House. “Most of Israel’s weapons and ammunition come actually from the United States and Germany. It amounts to nearly 99% of the arms supplied to Israel.”

But the symbolism of Britain’s move is significant, Mekelberg said.

“Suspension sends a clear message that you can be a friend of Israel, you can support Israel — including Labour [the ruling party] — supportive of Israel, especially after October 7, and rightly so. But at the same time to disagree fundamentally with the way Israel conducts the war and how it uses weapons,” he said.

“I think we can start seeing a change [in Britain’s approach], and I think what some of us wonder is if it will go as far as recognizing a Palestinian statehood. This probably would be the biggest step forward,” Mekelberg said.

Andreas Krieg, a fellow of the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies at Kings College London, said the political impact of the export ban would outweigh the practical implications.

“The U.K. might not be the strongest hard power in the Middle East, but it has significant soft power and influence. It shows that for the very first time that a very close partner and ally of Israel doesn’t trust the Israeli government, when they’re saying that they are complying with the laws of armed conflict,” Krieg told VOA.

“The fact that the U.K. is now saying that there are potential doubts is casting bigger doubts over Israel’s campaign and the complicity of other countries as well, including Germany and the United States, in aiding and supporting Israel’s campaign, particularly in Gaza, but also potentially in the West Bank,” he said.

“Other European countries might want to now revisit their arms export licenses and to what extent their weapons are being used in what could be seen as an illegal war, a partially illegal war in Gaza,” Krieg said.

Washington paused the export of large 1-ton bombs to Israel in May over concerns that they could be used in a ground invasion of the city of Rafah but has continued to supply billions of dollars’ worth of other weapons.

Germany, which supplies about 39% of Israel’s arms imports, has not said it plans to suspend any arms shipments.

Israel strongly denies breaking international law in Gaza and claims it targets only Hamas militants, whom it accuses of hiding in schools, hospitals and mosques and using human shields.

Critics accuse the Israel Defense Forces of conducting indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population and targeting basic infrastructure. The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza says more than 41,000 Palestinians have been killed since the Israeli operation began, most of them women and children. Most of Gaza’s 2.3 million people have been forced to flee their homes.

The Israeli military says the death toll includes several thousand Hamas combatants. The U.S., the U.K. and other Western countries designate Hamas as a terror group.

Writing on the social media platform X, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly criticized Britain’s move to ban some arms exports.

“Days after Hamas executed six Israeli hostages, the UK government suspended thirty arms licenses to Israel. This shameful decision will not change Israel’s determination to defeat Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization that savagely murdered 1,200 people on October 7, including 14 British citizens.”

“Hamas is still holding over 100 hostages, including 5 British citizens. Instead of standing with Israel, a fellow democracy defending itself against barbarism, Britain’s misguided decision will only embolden Hamas. Israel is pursuing a just war with just means, taking unprecedented measures to keep civilians out of harm’s way and comporting fully with international law,” Netanyahu wrote on Tuesday.

In recent days, tens of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets of Tel Aviv to protest Netanyahu’s handling of the war in Gaza and the failure to secure the release of the remaining hostages.

“I think there’s a growing divide between the Israeli public and Israeli national interest, and the Netanyahu government. So, siding or moving against the Netanyahu government is now seen less and less so as moving against Israel as a whole, or the Israeli public,” said analyst Andreas Krieg.

Meanwhile the European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell last week proposed sanctioning two unnamed Israeli government ministers, accusing them of having a “colonial agenda” in the occupied West Bank. Israel is conducting an ongoing raid against militants in the territory, focused on refugee camps in Jenin and Tulkarem. Israeli settlers are accused of forcibly seizing Palestinian land in the West Bank with the support of the IDF, which Israel denies.

“We are … witnessing a formal radicalization on the part of some members of the Israeli far-right for whom Gaza has always been a minor issue compared with the West Bank and Jerusalem. Maybe, they don’t care about the settlements in Gaza, since any return to calm would make it more difficult to pursue the colonial agenda they have for the West Bank, the expansion of the colonies,” Borrell told reporters in Brussels on August 29.

Any decision on sanctioning Israeli ministers would require unanimity among EU member states. Borrell said that threshold had not been met.
…

your ad here

  Washington  — In an interview with a Mongolian newspaper, Russian President Vladimir Putin this week accused the West of persecuting Russian journalists. 

“In order to hide from inconvenient facts, from truthful information, the West, which considers itself the standard of freedom, has launched an open persecution against Russian correspondents,” Putin told the newspaper Onoodor.  

Putin spoke with the newspaper the day before he arrived in Mongolia, where he traveled despite being under an international arrest warrant. 

And the comments came just days after the Kremlin announced it was banning entry to Russia for 92 more people — mainly U.S. citizens, including several journalists — over what Moscow characterized as Washington’s anti-Russia posture. 

Among those banned were The Wall Street Journal’s editor-in-chief Emma Tucker, as well as other journalists from the Journal, The New York Times and The Washington Post.  

Media analysts said Putin’s comments reflect the restricted environment facing journalists in Russia. 

“This is nothing new, this kind of vocabulary. But it underlines yet again that there is no independent press in Russia, especially when it comes to reporting on the war in Ukraine,” Karol Luczka, Eastern Europe monitor at the International Press Institute in Vienna, told VOA. 

Putin’s comments follow years of Moscow’s harsh crackdown on independent media, with dozens jailed, including local and foreign reporters, and a series of harsh laws that analysts say make independent journalism all but impossible. 

Since the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, independent outlets and journalists have been forced to decamp to other countries to avoid arrest and to keep reporting on Russia. And even in exile, Russian journalists continue to face Moscow-backed harassment in a process known as transnational repression. 

Putin’s claims echoed a statement that Russia’s Foreign Ministry gave VOA in August. 

The Foreign Ministry declined to answer VOA’s specific questions about threats and harassment facing journalists, but a spokesperson said “protecting the rights of journalists” is the ministry’s “constant focus of attention.” 

The emailed response then shared a list of instances in which foreign governments fined, banned or suspended Kremlin-run media. 

Washington has imposed sanctions against some state-run Russian television stations, which it says have spread disinformation to boost Moscow’s war in Ukraine. And Canada and the European Union blocked broadcasts to Russian state-run news outlets.  

Russia’s Washington embassy, meanwhile, did not immediately reply to VOA’s email requesting comment for this story. 

Putin, however, maintained that news outlets operate freely in Russia. 

“The only requirement for them is compliance with Russian legislation,” he said. “Foreign correspondents accredited in our country should understand this.” 

Luczka said that statement was “laughable” and “not something that can be taken seriously.” 

“What does respect the law mean? The laws are such in Russia that independent media cannot function — so, yes, they can function as long as they respect the law, but the law says that they cannot function,” Luczka said. 

In early August, two American journalists — Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Alsu Kurmasheva and The Wall Street Journal’s Evan Gershkovich — were released from Russia, where they were held on bogus charges, in a historic prisoner swap between the U.S. and Russia. Gershkovich was accredited to report in Russia but was still arrested for his work.

Press freedom experts say their jailings underscored Russia’s disdain for media freedom. 

Putin’s comments came ahead of his first trip to Mongolia in five years. 

Ukraine and the European Union expressed concern that Mongolia, which is a member of the International Criminal Court, or ICC, did not act on a warrant to arrest Putin when he arrived in Mongolia on Monday. 

The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023 over alleged war crimes committed in the war in Ukraine. As a member of the ICC, Mongolia has a responsibility to act on warrants. 

Some information in this report came from Reuters. 
…

your ad here