VERIFYING SITE ACCESS: 
Time - World Thursday, March 28, 2024 6:47:46 AM
Time - World
This site is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION. b3de is content aggregator mobile friendly website that presents content made available by your favorite sources ( and even some you've likely never heard of ) via really simple sindication and web syndication.
published Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:33:29 +0000  
King Charles Delivers Easter Message in First Public Address Since Kate Middleton's News
King Charles gave an Easter message in his first public address since Kate Middleton announced she was diagnosed with cancer.
King Charles III Leaves Hospital After Treatment For Enlarged Prostate

King Charles III told the nation in a pre-recorded message released on Maundy Thursday, ahead of Easter Sunday, that we “need and benefit greatly from those who extend the hand of friendship to us, especially in a time of need.”

Audio of His Majesty’s message was broadcast at Worcester Cathedral on Thursday, where his wife Queen Camilla was presiding in his stead over the annual Royal Maundy service, during which the sovereign or their deputy hands out money to local people honored for their community contributions.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The King, who announced in February he had been diagnosed with cancer and has stepped back from public-facing duties while he’s undergoing treatment, said in his message that it was “a great sadness that I cannot be with you all today.” He read a passage from the Bible about Jesus washing the feet of his disciples and said “in doing so, he deliberately gave to them and to us all an example of how we should serve and care for each other.”

“In this country, we are blessed by all the different services that exist for our welfare, but over and above these organizations and their selfless staff, we need and benefit greatly from those who extend the hand of friendship to us, especially in a time of need,” the King said.

The King expressed that the 150 Maundy money recipients are “wonderful examples of such kindness, of going way beyond the call of duty and of giving so much of their lives to the service of others in their communities.”

King Charles added that Thursday’s act of worship reminded him of his pledge at the start of his coronation service “to follow Christ’s example—not to be served but to serve. That I have always tried to do and continue to do with my whole heart.”

“It is my special prayer today that our Lord’s example of serving one another might continue to inspire us and to strengthen all our communities. May God bless you all this Easter,” he concluded.

The hopeful holiday message comes at a difficult time for the royal family, as His Majesty and his daughter-in-law, Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales, are undergoing cancer treatment. The King announced his diagnosis in February and has withdrawn from public-facing duties, including Thursday’s service, while he receives treatment. However, Buckingham Palace has announced he’s expected to attend the traditional royals’ Easter church service at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle on Sunday.

category News Desk
published Thu, 28 Mar 2024 06:30:00 +0000  
Thousands of Bus Drivers in Seoul Went on Strike to Reach a Deal for Better Pay
Bus drivers in South Korea's capital launched their first strike in more than a decade, which halted almost all city buses Thursday morning.
SKOREA-STRIKE-LABOUR-BUS

Bus drivers in South Korea’s capital ended their first strike in more than a decade, which knocked out service during the Thursday morning commute, after reaching a wage agreement with management. 

The bus drivers resumed their duties in time for Thursday evening service after agreeing on a 4.48% pay hike, the Seoul Metropolitan Government said. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The Seoul bus labor union, which represents some 18,000 bus drivers in the city, had launched the strike seeking a 12.7% pay rise. Management said the demand was excessive and initially offered 2.5%. Inflation averaged 3.6% in 2023. 

Commuters had to look for alternatives after some 7,000 buses among 7,382 registered with the city halted operations for several hours in the morning due to the strike.

The work stoppage was the longest in more than 12 years, with the previous labor action by Seoul bus drivers in 2012 lasting less than a few hours. Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon said about 90% of buses were out of service about six hours into the Thursday strike.  

The strike came as President Yoon Suk Yeol has been trying to end a walkout by doctors that started more than a month ago in protest of a government plan to boost the number of medical school students.

Read More: Thousands of Striking Doctors in South Korea Defy Government’s Return-to-Work Deadline

Yoon, a conservative, has found support among voters for taking a tough line in labor disputes. In 2022, his government ordered truck drivers to return to work after a two-week strike, resulting in a jump in his approval ratings.

category wire
published Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:31:23 +0000  
A Famine in Gaza May Bring a Genocide Ruling Against Israel
"What Gaza needs is a massive well-coordinated relief effort," writes David J. Simon.
Palestinians line up for a free meal in Rafah, Gaza Strip on Feb. 16, 2024. The World Food Program said Tuesday it has paused deliveries of food to isolated northern Gaza because of increasing chaos across the territory, hiking fears of potential starvation. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Back in January, the International Court of Justice responded to a petition asking it to rule that Israel’s campaign in Gaza amounted to genocide. To the disappointment of the petitioner, South Africa, the court appeared to conclude that Israel’s campaign was not inherently genocidal, essentially affirming the principle of Israel’s right to military engagement for aims such as self-defense, the pursuit of terrorists, and hostage rescue. The Court also declined to call for a ceasefire, which it had also been asked to do.

The court did conclude, however, that it was “plausible” that crimes related to genocide—possibly but not necessarily including genocide itself—might have occurred (a finding that drew Israel’s ire). In six “provisional measures,’’ the court effectively put Israel on notice. Two of the measures essentially urged Israel and its defense forces to ensure that genocide did not occur in the course of responding to October 7; another compelled Israel to guard against incitement of genocide. Two others pertained to preserving evidence and reporting back to the Court. The court also urged Israel to “address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

Read More: Is What’s Happening in Gaza a Genocide? Experts Weigh In

The crux of the Genocide Convention—the international treaty that gives the court jurisdiction—is that genocide is not simply “mass killing,” even of civilians, but rather a term for an effort to destroy a people. It offers four means, beyond killing, by which that might take place: “Causing serious bodily or mental harm . . .” (clause 2b), “inflicting . . . conditions of life calculated to bring about (a group’s) physical destruction . . .” (clause 2c),“imposing measures to prevent births . . .” (clause 2d), and “forcibly transferring children from one group to another” (clause 2e).

In the weeks after the ICJ order, battle casualties declined: roughly two-thirds of the roughly 32,000 deaths had already occurred by the new year. However, the humanitarian crisis—the part about which the ICG expressed explicit concern—has deepened. The UN reports that, as of late March, 75 % of the population of Gaza has been displaced from their homes. The prospect of an assault on the southern Gaza city of Rafah is likely to exacerbate the situation drastically. An analysis by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (a.k.a. the IPC, a crisis monitoring collaboration among the world’s leading international aid groups) predicts that by mid-summer “in the most likely scenario and under the assumption of an escalation of the conflict including a ground offensive in Rafah, half of the population of the Gaza Strip (1.11 million people) is expected to face catastrophic conditions.” That’s identified in the analysis as Phase 5, “famine”—the most dire of possible outcomes the IPC can make.

Read More: How Experts Believe Starvation Is Being Utilized in Gaza

It is worth asking, given the court’s concerns, whether the humanitarian crisis constitutes genocide. In legal terms, whether the situation can be deemed an act (or policy) of genocide depends on the parsing of the complete wording of Clause 2(C ): whether the conditions were “deliberately inflicted,” whether they reflect a calculation “to bring about . . . the destruction” of the Gaza’s Palestinian population, and, if so, whether an “intent to destroy” at least part of that population can be found to underlay that calculation.

In lay terms, the case is less complicated. The forced movement of much of Gaza’s population from the north of the territory to shelters and tent cities in the south—twinned with the policy of restricting relief to all of Gaza—has made famine practically inevitable. Any plausible assessment of the consequences of these policies would have to constitute a calculation that the population would face the type of risks it now confronts. Indeed, projections late last year by the Famine Early Warning Systems network raised exactly these concerns.

Humanitarian aid is airdropped to Palestinians over Gaza City on March 25, 2024.

Moreover, dangerous, slow-developing, and woefully insufficient famine mitigation measures like air-drops and temporary piers demonstrate both an awareness of the need for relief at a policy level and a willingness to be delusionally satisfied with band-aid measures. That Israel cited these measures, even though they were undertaken by other countries, as evidence of its good will and clean intentions, is damning rather than exculpatory.

What Gaza needs is a massive well-coordinated relief effort. The cessation of hostilities is a prerequisite for that. Recalcitrance on the part of either Israel or Hamas on reaching that cessation is inseparable from responsibility for the humanitarian crisis. In the absence of trust between one another, both sides should commit to allowing a third party—whether the UN, the U.S., the EU, Saudi Arabia or other Arab states, or whomever can be negotiated to play the role—to oversee the delivery of relief and monitor its distribution. Policy debates on issues including sovereignty status, security guarantees, and accountability for international crimes are an essential part of the medium-term solution for Gaza—but they can only begin after Gaza’s human crisis has been addressed.

The reason to act is not that the International Court of Justice might mandate it. Nor because failing to act raises the possibility the court will make a finding of genocide under clause 2(c) of the Convention (although, it might). The reason to act is the moral responsibility to avert a preventable human catastrophe.

category Israel-Hamas War
published Wed, 27 Mar 2024 18:17:09 +0000  
India's Income Inequality Is Now Worse Than Under British Rule, New Report Says
A new report finds that the present-day golden era of Indian billionaires has produced historic income inequality in India.
India-Billionaire-Inequality

A new study from the World Inequality Lab finds that the present-day golden era of Indian billionaires has produced soaring income inequality in India—now among the highest in the world and starker than in the U.S., Brazil, and South Africa. The gap between India’s rich and poor is now so wide that by some measures, the distribution of income in India was more equitable under British colonial rule than it is now, according to the group of economists who co-authored the study, including the renowned French economist Thomas Piketty.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The current total number of billionaires in India is peaking at 271, with 94 new billionaires added in 2023 alone, according to Hurun Research Institute’s 2024 global rich list published Tuesday. That’s more new billionaires than in any country other than the U.S., with a collective wealth that amounts to nearly $1 trillion—or 7% of the world’s total wealth. A handful of Indian tycoons, such as Mukesh Ambani, Gautam Adani, and Sajjan Jindal, are now mingling in the same circles as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, some of the world’s richest people.

“The Billionaire Raj headed by India’s modern bourgeoisie is now more unequal than the British Raj headed by the colonialist forces,” the authors write.

The observation is particularly stark when considering India is now hailed as an 8% GDP growth economy, according to Barclays Research, with some projecting that India is poised to surpass Japan and Germany to become the world’s third-largest economy by 2027. 

But the authors of the World Inequality Lab study reached this conclusion by tracking how much of India’s total income, as well as wealth, is held by the country’s top 1%. While income refers to the sum of earnings, interest on savings, investments and other sources, wealth (or net worth) is the total value of assets owned by an individual or group. The authors combined national income accounts, wealth aggregates, tax tabulations, rich lists, and surveys on income, consumption, and wealth to present the study’s findings.

Read More: Why India’s Next Election Will Last 44 Days

For income, the economists looked at annual tax tabulations released by both the British and Indian governments since 1922. They found that even during the highest recorded period of inequality in India, which occurred during the inter-war colonial period from the 1930s until India’s independence in 1947, the top 1% held around 20 to 21% of the country’s national income. Today, the 1% holds 22.6% of the country’s income. 

Similarly, the economists also tracked the dynamics of wealth inequality, beginning in 1961, when the Indian government first began conducting large-scale household surveys on wealth, debt and assets. By combining this research with information from the Forbes Billionaire Index, the authors found that India’s top 1% had access to a staggering 40.1% of national wealth.

Because the number of Indian billionaires shot up from one in 1991 to 162 in 2022, the total net wealth of these individuals over this period as a share of India’s net national income “boomed from under 1% in 1991 to a whopping 25% in 2022,” the authors said.

The report also found that the rise in inequality had been particularly pronounced since the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party first came to power in 2014. Over the last decade, major political and economic reforms have led to “an authoritarian government with centralization of decision-making power, coupled with a growing nexus between big business and government,” the report states. This, they say, was likely to “facilitate disproportionate influence” on society and government.

They added that average Indians, and not just the Indian elite, could still stand to gain from globalization if the government made more public investments in health, education, and nutrition. Moreover, a “super tax” of 2% on the net wealth of the 167 wealthiest Indian families in 2022-23 would result in 0.5% of national income in revenues, and “create valuable fiscal space to facilitate such investments,” the authors argued.

Until the government makes such investments, however, the authors caution against the possibility of India’s slide toward plutocracy. The country was once a role model among post-colonial nations for upholding the integrity of various key institutions, the authors say, and they point out that even the standard of economic data in India to study inequality has declined recently.

“If only for this reason, income and wealth inequality in India must be closely tracked and challenged,” the authors say.

category India
published Wed, 27 Mar 2024 14:17:07 +0000  
Why a U.K. Council Has Ordered the Removal of a Famous Prince Philip Statue
Cambridge city council ordered the removal of a divisive Prince Philip statue a decade after it was initially denied planning permission.
Queen Elizabeth II And Duke of Edinburgh Visit Australia - Day 6

Cambridge city council has ordered the removal of a controversial Prince Philip statue a decade after it was initially denied planning permission.

In 2014, Unex Group, a real estate and construction company, commissioned a piece of artwork—called The Don—that would ultimately inspire disdain for years to come. The $189,000 statue, a 13 ft. faceless depiction of the late Duke of Edinburgh, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II, in cascading gold and black academic robes, was erected outside a Cambridge office block to honor the Prince’s 35-year tenure as chancellor of Cambridge University.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] The sculpture that was formerly outside Unex House has just moved up the road.Hills Road, March 2023

However, after it was erected, trouble ensued. The city council said they had turned down a planning proposal to place the statue there, and that those who erected it had defied their orders. Even the artist Unex Group once referred to as the creator of the statue, Uruguayan sculptor Pablo Atchugarry, denied any connection to the work. “I am not the author of this sculpture, and it is an abuse that they had used my name. I wish somebody would apologize to me for this misunderstanding,” said in 2014 per the Guardian.

Now, it seems the statue’s time has come to an end. Greater Cambridge issued an enforcement notice saying that the statue has caused “harmful material impact” to the appearance of the area and was erected without permission. On March 5, they notified residents that the statue would be taken down within four months of April 11, though appeals could be made if residents opposed its removal. 

TIME has reached out to Cambridge city council for comment.

“I will be glad to see it gone, but remain angry that developers could just dump it in place and then force the council to spend officers’ time and money getting them to take it away. We deserve better.” Katie Thornburrow, a Cambridge city counselor wrote on her website.

category News Desk
published Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:57:37 +0000  
Japanese Supplement Pill Recalled After Two Deaths and More Than 100 People Hospitalized
Health supplement products believed to have caused two deaths have been ordered to be taken off store shelves in Japan.
Japan Drug Supplement Recall

TOKYO — Health supplement products believed to have caused two deaths and sickened more than 100 people have been ordered to be taken off store shelves in Japan.

The products from Kobayashi Pharmaceutical Co., billed as helping to lower cholesterol, contained an ingredient called “benikoji,” a red species of mold.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In addition to the products from Osaka-based Kobayashi, more than 40 products from other companies containing benikoji, including miso paste, crackers and a vinegar dressing, were recalled, starting last week, a government health ministry official said Wednesday.

At least 106 people had been hospitalized, and many more are believed to have been sickened, although it’s unclear if all the illnesses are directly linked to benikoji (pronounced beh-nee-koh-jeeh).

The ministry has put up a list on its official site of all the recalled products, including some that use benikoji for food coloring.

The company is investigating the cause of the problem. The recalled products could be bought without a prescription from a doctor, and could be purchased at drug stores.

Kobayashi apologized and asked in an online statement: “Please stop taking our products, and please do not use them in the future.”

Repeated calls to Kobayashi went unanswered. The company president and other top officials held a news conference last week when the problem first surfaced, bowing their heads in apology, as is the standard in Japan.

The ministry official warned there could be more victims in the days ahead. He asked everyone to stop ingesting anything with benikoji in it. Those with health problems, like weak kidneys, could be especially vulnerable, he said.

All the products were made in Japan, although it is unclear if any of the raw materials were imported. A recall of imported health supplements has happened before, but this is the first major recall of a domestically produced supplement, according to Japanese media reports.

category wire
published Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:00:33 +0000  
Nemonte Nenquimo on Respecting the Amazon and What is Owed to the Planet
The Waorani leader and co-founder of Amazon Frontlines and Ceibo Alliance won an order to halt drilling in Ecuador's Yasuní National Park.

Someone recently asked me why it was important to protect the Amazon rainforest from oil drilling. The question made me angry. Can you imagine being questioned about the importance of protecting your home from being destroyed in a fire? Or about protecting your home, your extended family’s homes, and all your people’s homes from demolition? Can you imagine being asked: Why is it important to protect your country from nuclear devastation?

Those questions seem absurd only when you take the existence of your home and your people for granted. Western civilization has always taken the destruction of my home and my people for granted. And now, this well-meaning question assumes that I must offer a defense of my existence. It also presents a false innocence about the asker’s complicity in the continued destruction of my home.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

As a Waorani leader tasked with communicating beyond our territorial borders to safeguard our land, I often face questions like this. Answering is part of the resistance, and it is not easy. Yet, with Ecuador’s government now pushing to ignore our hard-won ban on oil drilling in one of our most biodiverse forests, it remains an urgent question to answer. What I long for, and what the Amazon and Mother Earth demand, can be summed up in what is missing in the questions and policies so often pointed at me and my people: respect.

Why is it important to protect the Amazon rainforest from oil drilling? 

We Waorani like to walk. When we need to think, we head off walking in the forest. When we want to express our emotions, we walk and sing: our songs too are fruits of the forest. Wherever we walk, we are in communication with everything around us. We know the plants and the birds in the way city dwellers know the names of streets and the logos of stores. But streets do not breathe and stores do not take flight.

Read More: These Indigenous Women Are Fighting Big Oil—And Winning

The forest is our grocer, our pharmacy, our hardware store, our theater, our gym, our park. We cultivate our small orchards and walk the forest to hunt and to gather food, medicine, tools, and beauty and art supplies. Politicians and oil executives think that we are idiots, that we plod among the trees picking things up that look yummy. They say that we don’t even know the value of the resources beneath the ground. But that is how they show their own ignorance. The oil deep in the earth is the blood of our ancestors. And we know better than to dig up a grave.

Why pillage a grave when life is all around us? We don’t need oil. The forest is life itself. We know which plants can heal and which songs to sing to ask permission for cutting them and using their cures. We know that the petomo palm fruits in January and February and that its oil is excellent for maintaining long, shiny hair and healthy skin. We know that the monkeys and the tapirs time their reproductive cycles to coincide with fruit abundance. We know that the peach palm makes the best spears. We know not to use more than we need.

The first Europeans to enter the Amazon wanted only gold and power. They brought disease and murder. It is no wonder that all their tales of adventure describe the forest as a site of danger. I have had dreams of great dangers to come. Unrestrained industrialization has poisoned the atmosphere. Burning down the Amazon will accelerate climate change beyond a point of no return. Uncontrolled warming will imperil life on earth.

Mother Earth will not be saved. She does not need you or anyone to save her. She demands respect. And she will punish humanity for failing to give it. And yet, time and again, people in positions of governmental and industrial power refuse to do so; they insist on destruction. 

They’ve had so many opportunities to respect us, and they’ve squandered them all. Just in recent years, Ecuador’s political class could have upheld Indigenous peoples’ rights to free, prior, and informed consent—the right to decide what happens in their territories, as enshrined in international law by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But they didn’t. They made us fight. In 2019, my people achieved a historic legal victory protecting a half-million acres of Waorani territory, and setting a legal precedent to protect millions more. The government could have respected that court victory and complied with the ruling, but instead, it has failed to respect it, and continues to have its eye on drilling oil from our lands.

They could have respected our demands to stop all oil drilling and pumping in Yasuní National Park, one of the most biodiverse places in the world, but they didn’t. Again, they made us fight, this time joined by allies across the country. Just last year, the people of Ecuador again made history by voting in a national referendum to stop and permanently ban all oil exploitation in Yasuní. We won. We should be celebrating and coordinating with people in other regions and other countries to help devise strategies to protect their forests. Instead, we are forced to keep fighting: newly elected Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa has called for an illegitimate “moratorium” on complying with the results of the referendum.

Read More: The Fight to Save Ecuador’s Sacred River

Why can’t they respect us? Why can’t they even respect their own laws? How many times do we have to use the tools of the civilization that wants to destroy us, its courts and elections, to stop their destruction? Where is the rule of law when the rulers change the laws whenever they feel inconvenienced? Is it really so much to ask for respect?

I often feel heartbroken when I travel abroad to speak about our struggle. I see how many possessions and luxuries people have and how they only want more. Their greed fuels the burning of the Amazon. Some people on those trips tell me I’m a hero. No, I’m not. I’m just trying to do something. This is resistance. 

Why is it important to protect the Amazon from oil exploitation? My life, the lives of my family and people, our homes, our culture, our language, the lives of myriad plant and animal species, many of which are endemic to the Amazon, the life of the forest itself, and the lives of millions of people, perhaps even yours, all depend on it. Is that good enough?

Nenquimo, co-founder of Ceibo Alliance and Amazon Frontlines, is a Waorani leader who has won the Goldman Environmental Prize and a co-author of the upcoming book We Will Be Jaguars with Mitch Anderson

category TIMEEarthAwards24
published Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:45:00 +0000  
Lawmakers in Thailand Pass Historic Legislation Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages
The legislation, which still needs to be approved by the Senate and endorsed by the King, would make Thailand the first Southeast Asian nation to guarantee marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.
LGBTQ+ couples take part in a symbolic mass wedding ceremony on Valentine's Day at Siam Center on Feb. 14, 2024 in Bangkok, Thailand.

Thailand’s lawmakers passed a legislation to recognize same-sex marriage, paving the way for the country to become the first in Southeast Asia to guarantee marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. 

The 500-member House of Representatives voted to pass the so-called “marriage equality” bill, technically an amendment to the Civil and Commercial Code, in a final reading on Wednesday. As many as 400 lawmakers backed the legislation, while 10 opposed it and five members either abstained or didn’t vote, after more than three hours of debate.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Read More: ‘Nobody Is Taking Away My Child.’ What Thailand’s Push for Marriage Equality Means for One Family

The bill now heads to the upper-house Senate, which is set to review it on April 2. It will then be endorsed by the King and published in the Royal Gazette. The amendments will take effect 120 days later. 

When the changes come into force, Thailand will recognize marriage registrations of same-sex partners aged 18 and above, along with their rights to inheritance, tax allowances and child adoption, among others. Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin’s administration has made it a signature issue, and advocates say it would also burnish Thailand’s reputation as an LGBTQ-friendly tourist destination.

Read More: Thailand’s New Prime Minister Is Getting Down to Business. But Can He Heal His Nation?

“This will not take away any rights from men and women, and will instead extend the rights to LGBTQ groups,” said Danuphorn Punnakanta, head of a panel of lawmakers that steered the bill. “We seek to return to them the rights that they have lost.”

The landmark legislation seeks to formally change the composition of a marriage from “a man and a woman” to “two individuals,” and change the official legal status from “husband and wife” to “married couple.” The move goes further than attempts by previous Thai administrations, which sought to grant equal rights for same-sex couples by formalizing civil partnerships but stopped short of recognizing their marriage. 

Thailand will become the third place in Asia to recognize same-sex marriage, after Taiwan and Nepal, and rank among some 40 countries around the world to guarantee equal marital rights.

Read More: What Topped Asia’s Legal Agenda in 2023—From Same-Sex Marriage to the Death Penalty

Recent efforts elsewhere in the region have had mixed results. Hong Kong has yet to comply with a 2023 court order to establish laws recognizing same-sex partnerships, and India’s Supreme Court refused to legalize same-sex marriage, saying it’s an issue for parliament to consider.

LGBTQ activists in Thailand have fought for over a decade for the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples. Although Thai laws have protected LGBTQ people from most kinds of discrimination since 2015, attempts to formalize marriage rights had stalled. 

In 2021, the Constitutional Court upheld the law recognizing marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Last year, a bill to recognize same-sex civil partnerships failed to clear parliament ahead of elections. 

Tourism boost

Legalizing same-sex marriage could also have positive impact on tourism, which contributes about 12% to the nation’s $500 billion economy. In 2019, before the pandemic froze international tourism, LGBTQ travel to Thailand generated about $6.5 billion, or 1.2% of gross domestic product, according to industry consultant LGBT Capital.

Formal recognition could boost the reputation of a place already considered one of Asia’s best for LGBTQ visitors, allowing it to benefit from the “pink economy,” said Wittaya Luangsasipong, managing director of Siam Pride, an LGBTQ-friendly travel agency in Bangkok. 

“It will become a selling point for Thailand and raise our strength in the global stage,” Wittaya said. “It will create a relaxed and safe atmosphere and attract more and more LGBTQ visitors. We could also see more weddings by LGBTQ couples, which could generate income across industries and local communities.”

Many same-sex couples will also consider moving back or relocating to Thailand for work, he said.

Srettha’s government has vowed to push ahead with more progressive laws, including legislations to recognize gender identity and legalize prostitution. The health ministry has also proposed legalizing commercial surrogacy to allow LGBTQ couples to adopt children. Thailand is seeking to host the WorldPride events in Bangkok in 2028. 

“The marriage equality bill is just the first step. There are many more to come,” said Danuphorn of the ruling Pheu Thai Party. A gender identity bill will likely be proposed in the next sitting of the parliament that will begin in July, he said.

category wire
published Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:30:00 +0000  
Why the U.S. Faces a Delicate Balancing Act on Countering China in the South China Sea
In responding to China's aggression, the U.S. has to, in the words of one expert, "draw a balance between doing nothing and doing too much."
Philippines Undertakes Supply Mission To Ayungin Shoal

For years, China has been testing the limits of its aggression in the South China Sea to see how much it can push before someone, meaningfully, pushes back. It’s a dangerous game that recently left three Philippine Navy personnel injured after their resupply ship to the Second Thomas Shoal—an atoll at the center of disputes over rival territorial claims of the all-important waterway through which a third of the world’s trade passes—was surrounded and fired upon with a water cannon by Chinese coast guard and militia vessels.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In video of the March 23 incident, crew members could be heard shouting as jets of water pummeled the Philippine ship, which sustained heavy damage.

It’s not the first such attack by Chinese forces on Philippine sailors, nor is it likely to be the last. But looming over the increasingly confrontational encounters between the two nations is the potential of future U.S. military involvement. A mutual defense treaty between Washington and Manila necessitates one to come to the support of the other in the case of an “armed attack”—though it remains unclear what exactly would constitute such. “Responding to coercive actions in the ‘grey zone’ is difficult precisely because the lines between peace and conflict are blurred,” says Veerle Nouwens, executive director for Asia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

So far, China’s actions have only elicited sharp diplomatic protests. After the weekend incident, the Philippines summoned a Chinese diplomat to condemn “the aggressive actions by the China Coast Guard,” while the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its support for the Southeast Asian country, with a spokesperson saying China’s actions “are destabilizing to the region and show clear disregard for international law.” China’s defense ministry, meanwhile, called the Philippines a provocateur, warning that it should “cease making any statements that may escalate tensions and stop all acts of encroachment.”

Whether the war of words could one-day morph into an actual war, however, analysts say, is dependent on a number of competing considerations.

Chang Jun Yan, head of the military studies program at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore, tells TIME that there are three “important variables” the U.S. must prioritize: deterrence against China, reassurance to the Philippines, and diplomacy towards China. “The U.S. cannot afford to abandon any of these three things,” he says.

There’s also a fourth factor at play, says Joseph Liow, a professor of comparative and international politics and dean at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University (NTU): U.S. domestic politics. “If a conflict does break out in the South China Sea, how is the administration in power in Washington going to explain to its people that it is in their interest that the U.S. get involved in a conflagration—and in the process, risk going to war with China—over a bunch of rocks thousands of miles away?” U.S. resources are already stretched thin by conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza—and there’s dissatisfaction among many Americans over U.S. involvement in both those crises.

Read More: The War in Gaza Is a Test of U.S. Power

It leaves the U.S. in a difficult position of weighing whether or not to intervene as it watches with interest the ongoing, growing spats in the South China Sea. In short, says Colin Koh, a senior fellow at RSIS, the U.S. has to “draw a balance between doing nothing and doing too much.”

Allowing Beijing’s aggression against the Philippines to continue unchecked would be detrimental to U.S. interests, says Kevin Chen, associate research fellow at RSIS. Chen tells TIME that the U.S. risks losing “trade routes through the South China Sea, its standing as a security partner, and its access to bases in the Philippines, which would be invaluable in the event of a Taiwan contingency,” should it leave the Philippines to fend for itself. “Faced with Beijing’s assertiveness, the stakes are not only high for Manila, but for Washington’s credibility and defense strategy in the region as well.”

For its part, the Philippines has taken a diplomatic approach to calling for the U.S. to get involved. Last year, President Ferdinand Marcos said the existing mutual defense treaty needed to be adjusted amid the South China Sea conflict and other regional threats. “The situation is heating up,” he said, calling for clarity on the U.S.’s commitment. But speaking to Bloomberg last week, Marcos said that, while the U.S. has been “very supportive,” the Philippines can’t fully rely on its ally should a crisis erupt: “It is dangerous for one to think in terms of when something goes wrong, we’ll run to big brother.”

There are also clear risks to the U.S. intervening. “Obviously, relations with China have been difficult for the last few years,” says NTU’s Liow. “An outbreak of hostilities between these two great powers will be very dangerous,” he adds. “It is not in the interest of the U.S. to come to blows with China or vice-versa.”

The U.S. has tried in recent years to reduce its tensions with China, with President Joe Biden saying during his recent State of the Union address that he seeks “competition, not conflict.” And it’s “a thaw, importantly, whose consolidation America’s friends in the region support,” says Ali Wyne, senior U.S.-China research and advocacy advisor at the conflict resolution think tank International Crisis Group (ICG). The Indo-Pacific, where the U.S. has increasingly sought to make diplomatic inroads, includes nations with close relations with China, like Cambodia and Myanmar, as well as ones that adhere to political neutrality in the great-power rivalry, like Indonesia and Singapore.

“Regional states do not want to see war break out between the U.S. and China,” says Chang. “Ultimately, the use of force in the South China Sea will benefit no one.”

That doesn’t mean the U.S. is doing nothing. “U.S. commitment clearly goes beyond rhetoric,” says Chang, pointing to imposing sanctions, bolstering allies’ military capabilities, fostering economic partnerships, and supporting freedom of navigation rules in the region as indirect mechanisms of intervention.

The U.S. will likely continue, says ICG’s Wyne, to “impress upon China that an armed confrontation with the United States would carry severe security, economic, and diplomatic risks.” RSIS’s Chen says this will primarily take the form of “rhetorical support”—in other words, more statements. “We should also see more efforts by the U.S. to facilitate cooperation between third parties,” he says, “such as the upcoming U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral summit in April, as well as more joint patrols as a tangible reminder of U.S. defense support.”

RSIS’s Koh tells TIME: “We have to be realistic about what those current U.S. actions are, what they are designed for, what they are supposed to accomplish.” It’s “too much,” he says, to expect the U.S. to stop Chinese aggression. Rather, it appears the U.S. is seeking to contain it—and on that, the U.S. has actually been relatively successful, so far. “Because if you don’t contain, then there’s a likelihood that the Chinese get bolder and thereby they escalate even further.”What the U.S. has been doing is “drawing a line for China, not to cross.”

Of course, the U.S. could change its tune if that line does get crossed. “There are still possibilities for a sudden, sharp escalation,” says Chen. “Given the physical encounters at sea, it may not take long for an incident that causes Philippine fatalities. At that point, Washington would have to reassess its policies in deference to how Manila wants to move forward.”

An attack that results in a death would arguably leave the U.S. with no choice. “If the U.S. does not eventually back its allies when it said that it would,” says Liow, “the damage to American credibility and leadership will be consequential, perhaps even irreparable.”

category overnight
published Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:39:44 +0000  
Netanyahu's Appetite for Confronting U.S. Presidents May Cost Israel This Time
Darker days for American-Israeli relations may be ahead if Netanyahu stays the current course, write Dan Raviv and Yossi Melmen.
collage including photographs of Bill Clinton, Benjamin Netanyahu, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Israel/Palestine related protests

It was fully expected that Israel would be displeased that the United States abstained on a United Nations resolution calling for a Gaza ceasefire—instead of blocking it with a veto. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reaction was outright ridiculous, as he announced he won’t send his top advisors to Washington for talks about the war. Why did he do that?

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Netanyahu has a long history of angering presidents—mostly, although not exclusively, Democrats. After he lectured Bill Clinton in the White House in 1996, the President grumbled to his staff: “Who the f**k does he think he is? Who’s the f**king superpower here?”

While you might think that Israel’s longest serving prime minister would have learned from experience, think about this: He probably has concluded that he always gets away with it. Netanyahu, a self-described expert on the U.S., is taking U.S. support for granted—in the belief that Evangelical Christians and America’s tiny Jewish minority will ensure that Israel is always loved, constantly armed, and repeatedly forgiven for any missteps.

[video id=tfz97dc3 autostart="viewable"]

And yet, at this point, after President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have said that Israel has been bombing indiscriminately in Gaza, and Biden said the military reaction to the Hamas massacres of October 7 has been “over the top,” Netanyahu still thinks he can take a slap at Biden.

It’s getting pretty clear that Israel’s prime minister is gambling, and he’s putting his chips on Donald Trump. Netanyahu—and the rightwing extremists in his government who want to annex the West Bank, and now would like to rebuild Jewish settlements in Gaza—feel that if Trump is back in the White House, he will again let Israel do whatever it wants. And, in their view, if Republicans can capture the Senate and keep the House, then Israel will really have it made.

That’s a lousy bet. No one can count on Trump to stick to whatever position he’s voicing at the moment. In fact, the former president bears a grudge against Netanyahu for congratulating Biden on his election victory in 2020.Trump harshly criticizes American Jews for voting for Democrats,and in an interview with an Israeli newspaper now says the Gaza war looks bad and tells Netanyahu to finish it fast and focus on peace.

For decades, in Israeli politics, the government wanted to look like it was 100% in lockstep with the U.S.—that beacon of a free country that, since the Yom Kippur War of 1973, has been Israel’s main arms supplier and protector in the world’s diplomatic arenas. Israel was proud to say that it maintained bipartisan support in the U.S., and both its diplomats and the American lobby AIPAC took pains to make friends with both Democrats and Republicans.

But Netanyahu has embraced the hubris of thinking he’ll look strong to his political base if he challenges American presidents and other foreign critics. He and his closest officials have strengthened ties with the Republicans—especially hawkish conservatives who admire what the small Jewish state is able to accomplish in an overwhelmingly Muslim region.

Read More: Israel Must Not Let Netanyahu Reject the Biden Peace Plan

When Israeli leaders perceived that many Democrats were questioning Israeli actions, especially its occupation of the West Bank since 1967, Israel turned a cold shoulder to the progressives. And the American Left, no longer admiring Israel as a liberal and enlightened enclave in the Middle East, made Zionism one of its main targets for condemnation.

As statistics and our own sensibilities show, that has contributed to an upsurge in antisemitism—in the U.S. and worldwide—notably since October 7 and the Israeli invasion of Gaza that followed. Jews in many countries are being harassed or attacked by anti-Semites and anti-Zionists, who are cut from the same cloth, on both the political Left and Right.

Netanyahu’s bull-headed insensitivity is partially to blame. In the U.S., he was turning off liberals long before his current feud with Biden. Recall his 2015 address to Congress, after an invitation extended only by Republicans. His speech called on America to reject Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu preached, then lost. The support Israel forfeited from Democrats has had lasting impact.

The alliance between Israel and the U.S. is not a force of nature that can be taken for granted. Thirty years ago, we wrote a book aimed at deciphering the secrets of an alliance between a superpower and a tiny country in a far-off strategic region. We outlined factors such as shared democratic values, the importance of the Jewish American community, the strong attachment of Evangelicals to the Holy Land, and memories of the Holocaust.

We also warned that the passage of time and changes in U.S. demography could erode support for Israel. It’s happening now, with protests on American campuses against the war in Gaza. Many of the protestors consume a diet of self-selected, sometimes fake news and have little understanding of the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel still enjoys widespread support in America, though it’s constantly eroded by the behavior of Netanyahu and the extremists in his cabinet. “It seems that U.S. officials speak politely but firmly to their Israeli counterparts,” former Israeli ambassador to Washington Danny Ayalon told us. “But the Israelis pretend they don’t understand what they’re being told.”

For now, the Israeli government and military officials who were going to fly to Washington this week will stay home. They had been invited by the White House to hear alternatives developed by Pentagon and CIA strategists: ways of crushing the last remnants of Hamas, and hopefully liberating hostages, without a huge attack on Rafah, where over a million Palestinian refugees have gathered.

Netanyahu isn’t really interested in those talks. He explicitly declares that the Israel Defense Forces must enter Rafah, to kill or capture the top Hamas military chiefs. That means he, apparently backed by everyone in his post-October 7 war cabinet, feels it is necessary to restore Israeli deterrence by showing the power of the IDF.

To the Biden Administration and most of the world, that looks like indifference toward the tens of thousands of Gaza civilians who have been killed or wounded, and the hundreds of thousands made homeless.

Biden’s decision to abstain at the U.N. – rather than protect Israel, as usual, with a veto – was a message to Netanyahu that enough is enough. Netanyahu thinks he’s able to slap back, but his petulance reminds us of the satirical Peter Sellers movie of 1959, “The Mouse that Roared,” in which a tiny fictitious country declares war on the U.S. in the hope of receiving reconstruction aid.

That was farce, of course. The reality is that Israel cannot afford to endanger the aid that’s already flowing. On top of $3.8 billion in annual direct military assistance, the U.S. has sent more than 400 transport planes and 30 ships carrying 20,000 tons of ammunition, rockets, and other essential military equipment to help Israel prosecute the Gaza war. “Without this re-supply, the Israeli army wouldn’t be able to keep fighting beyond another six months,” a former Israeli general told us.

Darker days for American-Israeli relations could follow, especially if Netanyahu keeps misjudging the country that’s been Israel’s greatest defender.

category Israel-Hamas War
document height: viewport height:  
DIRECTION
 
 
DISTANCE
screen width: