Connect with us

News

Kamala Harris’ visit to the Philippines sends China a message of US intent | CNN

Published

on

Kamala Harris’ visit to the Philippines sends China a message of US intent | CNN



CNN
 — 

A Philippine archipelago identified for tropical holidays will grow to be the main target of political consideration this week when Vice President Kamala Harris turns into the very best rating US official to go to its fundamental island.

Palawan is dwelling to dive resorts in addition to a Philippine army base that Harris will go to on Tuesday, in response to a senior administration official, placing her on the sting of the South China Sea, the place China has been constructing army bases – some on islands claimed by the Philippines – in one of the vital outward indicators of its ambitions within the Pacific.

Harris met with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Monday, with the companions anticipated to debate 21 new tasks funded by the US, together with extra protection websites across the Philippines in places but to be revealed – a sign to Beijing that Washington is forging tighter ties with Manila.

Advertisement

The tasks are a part of the Enhanced Protection Cooperation Settlement (EDCA) between the 2 international locations, which permits US troops to make use of agreed places within the Philippines for safety workouts and joint army coaching, the White Home stated in an announcement.

However US-Philippine protection ties run even deeper.

The nation was dwelling to 2 of the US army’s largest abroad installations, Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base, which had been transferred to Philippine management within the Nineteen Nineties. A mutual protection treaty signed in 1951 stays in pressure, stipulating that each side would assist defend one another if both had been attacked by a 3rd occasion.

Talking to reporters Monday, Harris reaffirmed Washington’s “unwavering” dedication to the pact. “We should reiterate all the time that we stand with you in protection of guidelines and norms, (within the South China Sea),” Harris stated, including that any assault on Philippine vessels within the South China Sea would invoke mutual US protection commitments.

Sitting beside Harris, Marcos Jr. advised reporters: “I’ve stated many occasions, I don’t see a future for the Philippines that doesn’t embody the US, and that has come from the very lengthy relationship with the US.”

Advertisement

Ties between the 2 international locations had frayed below former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who sought nearer relations with China throughout his six years in energy.

Gregory Poling, a maritime safety professional at Washington’s Heart for Strategic and Worldwide Research, stated the US and the Philippines are shifting on from these “tough years.”

Poling stated Harris’ go to sends a powerful message of assist to the Philippines with out essentially threatening Beijing since Harris will probably be visiting Palawan, which is near the South China Sea however not one of many contested islands.

“The profit that the US within the Philippines will see in sending a message that ‘We stand collectively within the South China Sea’ far outweighs any modest frustration that it’s going to trigger in Beijing,” Poling stated.

Palawan is famend as a scuba diving and island-hopping getaway, however it’s also dwelling to the Antonio Bautista Air Base in Puerto Princesa, the middle of the Philippine army command in control of defending and patrolling its waters across the Spratly Islands.

Advertisement

The Spratly Islands lie within the southern portion of the 1.3 million-square-mile waterway – virtually all of which China claims as its sovereign territory primarily based on its interpretation of historic maps.

In line with the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, the Philippines occupies 9 options within the Spratly chain whereas China occupies seven. However Beijing, which calls the island chain the Nanshas, has constructed up and fortified a lot of its claims within the chain, together with constructing army bases on locations like Subi Reef, Johnson Reef, Mischief Reef and Fiery Cross Reef.

In distinction, solely one of many Philippine-controlled options even has a runway, Thitu Reef.

Different neighbors surrounding the resource-rich waterway additionally lay declare to elements of the realm, together with Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia.

In 2016, a tribunal in The Hague dominated in favor of the Philippines in a maritime dispute, concluding China has no authorized foundation to assert historic rights to the majority of the South China Sea.

Advertisement

Regardless of the ruling, Duterte tried to forge nearer ties with Beijing and made plans to cooperate on oil and gasoline exploration within the South China Sea, a transfer which divided Filipinos over the legitimacy of enabling China’s ambitions within the disputed territory.

Nevertheless, the exploration offers had been formally terminated in June 2022 as a result of constitutional challenges and issues about Philippine sovereignty, former Overseas Minister Teddy Locsin Jr. stated earlier than leaving workplace below Duterte.

Since taking workplace in June, Marcos Jr. has sought to reset ties with the US and restart amicable communications with China, each on financial and safety points.

On the sidelines of the APEC assembly final Thursday, Marcos Jr. and Chinese language chief Xi Jinping each agreed that maritime points “don’t outline the totality of Philippines-China relations,” in response to the Philippine press secretary.

“Our international coverage refuses to fall into the entice of a Chilly Warfare mindset. Ours is an impartial international coverage guided by our nationwide curiosity and dedication to peace,” stated Marcos Jr.

Advertisement

As a protection ally to Washington and a competing claimant over Beijing’s sweeping territorial claims over the South China Sea, the Philippines is essential to each Washington’s technique within the area and China’s geopolitical rise.

Rommel Banlaoi, president of the Philippine Affiliation for Chinese language Research, stated Marcos Jr.’s huge activity is to strengthen and modernize the nation’s protection system – with the assistance of the US – whereas establishing amicable dialogue with China to bolster financial ties with its largest commerce associate.

“Philippine President Marcos seems open to the concept of pursuing pragmatic cooperation within the South China Sea, whereas not surrendering its long-standing place in the case of the territorial points within the South China Sea,” Banlaoi stated.

Throughout her journey to the Philippines, Harris is predicted to make numerous different bulletins together with tighter US cooperation with Manila on clear power, cybersecurity, communication and agriculture.

The offers present US intent within the Pacific area, however one South China Sea professional stated Harris’ journey to the army base dangers aggravating Beijing to the potential detriment of the Philippines.

Advertisement

Anna Malindog-Uy, vp of the Asian Century Philippines Strategic Research Institute (ACPSSI), views the go to as “fairly a provocative, rabble-rousing, and inflammatory act.”

“It is going to put my nation, the Philippines, in a precarious and awkward scenario vis-à-vis Beijing,” she stated.

“I don’t see this as useful to my nation. It’s akin to upsetting Beijing on the expense of my nation, and I don’t suppose that is one thing enlightened and nationalist Filipinos will probably be blissful about.”

Advertisement

News

How a Major Democratic Law Firm Ended Up Bowing to Trump

Published

on

How a Major Democratic Law Firm Ended Up Bowing to Trump

Since President Trump’s first term, Brad S. Karp, the chairman of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, championed himself as a bulwark against what he saw as an unlawful and unpredictable presidency.

Mr. Karp, who has a long history of fund-raising for Democrats, sought to unite major law firms in “a call to arms” to fight Mr. Trump in court on issues like his administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their parents. He publicly said lawyers were obligated to defend the rule of law.

He hosted a “Lawyers for Biden” fund-raiser in 2023, and one of his top partners prepared Vice President Kamala Harris for her debates with Mr. Trump.

So it was not surprising that Mr. Trump targeted Paul Weiss with an executive order last week that created a potential existential threat for the firm, although the order was legally dubious and undercut fundamental principles of the justice system. In response, Mr. Karp began discussions with another big firm about presenting a unified and bipartisan front and challenging the order in court.

But on Wednesday, Mr. Karp walked into the Oval Office around 8:30 a.m., leaving behind the adversarial approach.

Advertisement

Now, he wanted to make a deal.

A day later, Mr. Trump announced that Mr. Karp had agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to issues the president has championed, including a task force being run by the Justice Department aimed at combating antisemitism “and other mutually agreed projects.”

The White House said the firm had committed to stop using diversity, equity and inclusion policies. And Mr. Trump said Mr. Karp had acknowledged to him that a former partner of the firm who had worked as a prosecutor in Manhattan and had pushed for Mr. Trump to be charged criminally had committed “wrongdoing.” These assertions appear inconsistent with a copy of the statement that Mr. Karp shared with his firm.

In deciding to bend to Mr. Trump, Mr. Karp likely saved his law firm, which had $2.63 billion in revenue last year and represents corporate clients like Exxon Mobil and Apollo Global Management, from hemorrhaging clients and lawyers.

But in doing so, Mr. Karp, who had positioned himself as a spokesman and advocate for the legal profession, left other firms even more vulnerable to Mr. Trump’s retribution campaign by demonstrating that his intimidation tactics could lead even a powerhouse like Paul Weiss to make public concessions, according to interviews with lawyers at other firms and legal experts.

Advertisement

In fact, a White House official said on Friday that despite the deal reached with Paul Weiss, Mr. Trump would continue to target law firms with executive orders, including some the president could sign as early as next week.

In the Oval Office on Friday, Mr. Trump asserted that law firms “did bad things” and had attacked him “ruthlessly, violently, illegally.” But now, he said, they “want to make deals.”

Mr. Karp’s decision left many in the legal world, including some in his own firm, reeling, concerned that other firms would now face a choice between bowing to Mr. Trump or abandoning their principles or political beliefs to avoid financial calamity.

Before reaching the deal, Mr. Karp, who has led Paul Weiss for nearly two decades, talked to some of the firm’s 200 partners to weigh their options, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. The group decided to seek a meeting with Mr. Trump to try and reach a deal, rather than engage in what could be a drawn-out legal battle, the people said. Those people and others who spoke for this story did so on the condition of anonymity to talk about discussions that were supposed to remain private.

Some of the firm’s corporate partners were particularly adamant that the firm should not sue the administration, the people said. That put them at odds with other partners who work on high-profile litigation and had been arguing that the firm should fight, some of whom expressed displeasure internally on Friday that Mr. Karp had settled, according to four people familiar with the matter.

Advertisement

The deal, while supported by the vast majority of the firm’s partners, also drew swift condemnation from lawyers outside the firm and critics of Mr. Trump.

And while many of the firm’s clients were relieved by the deal, some senior lawyers at large financial institutions began to privately express dismay, two people with knowledge of the matter said. Some of these lawyers suggested they would consider pulling business from the firm.

Mr. Trump has put law firms at the center of his efforts to seek revenge against enemies real and perceived, especially those linked to any efforts to investigate him or hold him legally accountable.

Before targeting Paul Weiss, Mr. Trump had issued executive orders imposing penalties on two other firms, Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie. Last week a federal judge barred the order against Perkins Coie from going into effect on the grounds that it would likely be found to be illegal.

Many within the legal community had hoped that Mr. Karp, with his firm’s resources, would fight Mr. Trump in court as aggressively as did Perkins Coie, which was targeted by a nearly identical executive order earlier this month.

Advertisement

Paul Weiss employs many prominent Democrats and has expressed pride in its long history at the forefront of the fight for civil rights. It has trumpeted how it was the first major New York City firm to have Jewish and non-Jewish lawyers working alongside each other, to hire a Black associate and to have a female partner.

According to two people briefed on the matter, it initially appeared that Mr. Karp was headed down the path of suing Mr. Trump’s administration.

Last week, a federal judge in Washington temporarily barred enforcement of the executive order Mr. Trump had directed at Perkins Coie, saying, “It sends little chills down my spine” to hear arguments that a president can punish individuals and companies like this.

The judge’s decision relieved many in the legal community by suggesting that the courts would serve as a check against Mr. Trump and that the big firms would not have to confront him directly.

But two days after that decision, Mr. Trump signed a nearly identical executive order against Paul Weiss. That action deeply unnerved the big firms by showing that Mr. Trump would not be deterred by the courts. And it demonstrated that he was willing to try to target firms that had years-old ties to lawyers on his enemies list, like Mark F. Pomerantz, a former Paul Weiss partner. Mr. Pomerantz had tried to build a criminal case against Mr. Trump several years ago while working at the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Advertisement

The executive order against Paul Weiss barred the firm from dealing with the government and suggested that clients of the firm could lose their government contracts. Those provisions were intended to drive business away from Paul Weiss, which employs more than 1,000 lawyers and has offices around the world.

Last Saturday and Sunday, Mr. Karp began discussions with William Burck, the co-managing partner of the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, about Mr. Burck joining Paul Weiss in bringing a court challenge against Mr. Trump’s order, people familiar with the talks said.

The discussions with Mr. Burck were notable given that Mr. Burck is one of the few lawyers at a major firm that represents the Trump Organization. He has also helped some of Mr. Trump’s nominees through their confirmation process. And bringing Paul Weiss together with Quinn Emanuel would signal to the industry that firms across the partisan divide were coming together to address what they saw as an all-out assault on their business.

Earlier this month, Mr. Burck declined to represent Perkins Coie, believing that it was not worth taking on Mr. Trump to help that firm. But with Mr. Trump undeterred by the judge’s ruling in the Perkins Coie case and moving against another firm, Mr. Burck agreed to help Paul Weiss and put his firm’s name on the suit against Mr. Trump.

At the same time, Mr. Karp weighed another possibility. With the help of Mr. Burck and other Trump-friendly contacts Mr. Karp had in the business world, Mr. Karp sought to determine whether it would be possible to cut a deal with Mr. Trump to resolve his firm’s problems.

Advertisement

Mr. Karp, whose firm has represented the N.F.L., had the New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, an ally of Mr. Trump’s, reach out to the president.

Mr. Burck began working the phones to the White House, reaching out to officials to signal that Mr. Karp was open to making a deal. During those conversations, Mr. Burck concluded that one of the White House’s biggest issues with Paul Weiss and other big firms was that they had refused to represent clients like Mr. Trump on the right — especially after the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol — whom they viewed as politically unsavory.

Mr. Burck relayed to the White House that Paul Weiss was willing to make some sort of public statement that they would represent clients no matter their political views.

Two days later, Mr. Trump called Mr. Karp and invited him to come to the White House. The following day, Mr. Karp went to visit Mr. Trump, where they met in the Oval Office for three hours. Mr. Trump’s adviser on negotiations, Steve Witkoff, joined the meeting, which was cordial, and both sides believed they had a potential framework for a deal.

At the same time, there was pressure on Mr. Karp. The lawyers at his firm who were preparing to sue Mr. Trump wanted to go to court as soon as possible, concerned that a judge might not give them a temporary restraining order because they waited too long.

Advertisement

In the day that followed, proposed language went back and forth between the White House, Mr. Burck and Mr. Karp.

Pursuing a deal represented a stark shift for Mr. Karp, who until recently was helping to marshal support for Perkins Coie. Mr. Karp was among the prominent lawyers working behind the scenes to persuade other law firms to sign a friend of the court brief on behalf of Perkins Coie, according to four people with knowledge of the matter. It is now unclear whether the brief — which was drafted by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., a solicitor general during the Obama administration and a partner at Munger Tolles & Olson — will be filed.

The ordeal with Mr. Trump came at a personally trying time for Mr. Karp, who had suffered a heart attack just a few months earlier and was still easing his way back into his normally frenetic work schedule of nonstop meetings and client calls.

On Thursday evening, Mr. Karp sent a firm-wide email justifying the decision, writing that he had really just “reaffirmed” the firm’s statement of principles outlined in 1963 by one of Paul Weiss’s original named partners, Judge Simon H. Rifkind.

“Thank you all for your patience during this time,” Mr. Karp told the staff at the firm. “With this behind us, we can devote our complete focus — as we always do — to our clients, our work, our colleagues and our firm.”

Advertisement

But it was a bitter pill for some to swallow as lawyers knew the outside world would view the deal as capitulating to Mr. Trump, especially at a time when other institutions, like universities and media companies, have begun to settle with Mr. Trump rather than fight, infuriating and demoralizing Mr. Trump’s critics.

George Conway, a conservative lawyer and frequent critic of Mr. Trump, posted on social media, “This Paul Weiss capitulation is the most disgraceful action by a major law firm in my lifetime, so appalling that I couldn’t believe it at first.”

By the time Mr. Trump made his announcement on Thursday, there were already signs that Paul Weiss had been burned in making a deal with Mr. Trump.

The copy of the agreement that Mr. Karp shared with Paul Weiss differed in some ways from Mr. Trump’s characterization of the deal in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Although Mr. Trump said the law firm had specifically agreed to not follow any diversity, equity and inclusion policies in its hiring practices, there is no reference to D.E.I. in the agreement that Mr. Karp shared. Mr. Trump has mounted an aggressive campaign against diversity initiatives in the federal government, labeling it as a form of workplace discrimination.

Advertisement

There also was no mention of Mr. Pomerantz, the former Paul Weiss partner, in the copy of the agreement circulated by Mr. Karp. Five people briefed on the matter said Mr. Karp said he did not criticize Mr. Pomerantz with the president, in spite of Mr. Trump’s assertion to the contrary.

In a statement issued on Thursday evening, Mr. Pomerantz denied he had done anything wrong.

Jonah E. Bromwich and William K. Rashbaum and Tyler Pager contributed reporting, and Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.

Continue Reading

News

Wang Chuanfu, the BYD founder with a battery obsession

Published

on

Wang Chuanfu, the BYD founder with a battery obsession

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

From a certain perspective, this might have seemed like a rocky week for electric car maker BYD and its metallurgist-turned-billionaire founder Wang Chuanfu.

China’s rival to Tesla, which recently raised nearly $6bn to fund ambitious global expansion plans, is facing crises on three continents. Its plans for a multimillion-dollar factory in Mexico are drawing opposition from both the Mexican government and senior officials in Beijing worried about tech leakage.

Meanwhile BYD’s Hungary plant, key to unlocking the lucrative European market, is being investigated by Brussels. And in Brazil, local labour officials have accused the company of “slavery”-like conditions for workers building a factory in the north-eastern Bahia state.

Advertisement

Yet all of these problems paled beside BYD’s launch on Monday of a new battery charging system able to add driving range of about 470km in five minutes — a fraction of the time it takes a Tesla to add range.

For the 58-year-old Wang, this achievement takes him one step closer to his long-held vision of homegrown Chinese technology conquering the global market.

Investors, too, appear so far happy to regard overseas problems as growing pains that will not derail BYD. It has targeted sales of more than 5mn cars this year, including 1mn overseas, while also developing its energy storage business. The group’s Hong Kong-traded shares have retreated from a record high but are up more than 50 per cent this year.

Wang is “much more of a disrupter than many had expected”, says Ilaria Mazzocco, an expert on Chinese cleantech industrial policy at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. “He’s an empire builder: people should think about him in the same category as Bezos or Musk,” she adds.  

Born in 1966 in the eastern province of Anhui, Wang is part of a generation of Chinese entrepreneurs who escaped poverty to join the nation’s newly minted billionaire class, benefiting from Deng Xiaoping’s opening of China to the world and the ascent of the city of Shenzhen into a high-tech manufacturing powerhouse.

Advertisement

After his siblings toiled for years to fund their younger brother’s education, Wang moved to Shenzhen and co-founded BYD as a battery company in the mid-1990s, leveraging his academic background in chemistry and metallurgy to produce lithium batteries and other components for then mobile phone kings Nokia and Motorola.

Wang’s obsession with batteries led to a pivot to vehicles in the early 2000s. Cracking the five-minute charge this week builds on his pioneering “cell-to-body” technology — sandwiching a battery cell inside a vehicle’s structure.

Neil Beveridge, a senior analyst at Bernstein in Hong Kong, says the new charging system is the fastest on the market and, if it is widely adopted, “should put an end” to the range anxiety cited by consumers as a key reason not to embrace electric cars.

The latest battery advancement follows the release of a new driver-assistance system known as “God’s Eye” and lower sales at rival Tesla following Elon Musk’s foray into US politics. Together this could help BYD take a larger share of what EY estimates will be $660bn in annual revenue opportunities from the shift to EVs by 2030.

The company’s stock rally has also taken Wang’s personal net worth, according to Bloomberg data, to just shy of $30bn, making him one of China’s richest men. Despite that he remains a workaholic who lives humbly. His house is walking distance from BYD’s main factories and he dispatches lieutenants to public-facing events unless his attendance is absolutely necessary.

Advertisement

Underlings have long described Wang as a restrained, highly detail-orientated micromanager. His approval was once sought for a business unit to distribute fruit to team members.

But his passion for batteries has revealed a performative flare. To demonstrate to an investor just how safe his battery cells are, he has drunk battery electrolyte fluid. He has reused cells after trucks drove over them and frequently shows visitors batteries being penetrated by nails.

The release of the God’s Eye system in February reflects an important shift in his leadership. For years Wang, referred to internally only as “the chairman”, resisted following in the footsteps of rivals who were pouring money into driverless software development.

Now that assisted driving features are becoming a key selling point with Chinese consumers, younger BYD engineers are slowly gaining more of a voice within the company — driving a change in strategy.

Still, questions remain about whether BYD’s business model, so successful in China, can be exported abroad. BYD’s vertical integration — controlling supply chains from the lithium mines to factories — has been pivotal in producing low-cost cars. So has access to China’s migrant labour force and Beijing’s support for cleantech champions.

Advertisement

But in international markets, Wang must contend with a lack of subsidies, new supply chains, higher labour and environmental standards and deepening western fears over Chinese technological dominance.  

Still, Mark Greeven, professor of innovation and strategy at IMD China, says that the company’s speed, scale and supply chain control is likely to rock the global trade system. “I wonder is it that BYD is not ready for the world?” he said. “Or is the world not ready for BYD?”

edward.white@ft.com

Continue Reading

News

Homeland Security makes cuts to civil rights and immigration oversight offices

Published

on

Homeland Security makes cuts to civil rights and immigration oversight offices

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem speaks to staff at DHS headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 28.

Manuel Balce Ceneta/Pool/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Manuel Balce Ceneta/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

The Department of Homeland Security is cutting jobs in the oversight divisions focused on civil rights as a part of a broader reduction in force effort across the federal government.

The affected offices, confirmed by DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, are the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.

“These offices have obstructed immigration enforcement by adding bureaucratic hurdles and undermining [the department’s] mission,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “Rather than supporting law enforcement efforts, they often function as internal adversaries that slow down operations.”

Advertisement

The two ombudsman offices provide oversight of the DHS immigration portfolio. This includes detention, by working with those detained who face issues with Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to help resolve issues with those seeking immigration-related benefits.

“DHS remains committed to civil rights protections but must streamline oversight to remove roadblocks to enforcement,” McLaughlin said. “These reductions ensure taxpayer dollars support the Department’s core mission: border security and immigration enforcement.”

Across the government, federal agencies have announced their plans for job cuts as directed by the White House. The latest round of firings, which were first reported by Bloomberg, come after an initial round in February focusing primarily on the other parts of the agency that do not handle immigration enforcement. At that time, 405 DHS workers were laid off across cybersecurity, disaster response and science and technology. USCIS lost under 50 employees.

Last week, ahead of the cuts, the Democratic ranking members of Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee, which primarily oversee immigration issues, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem warning against cuts to the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office, noting that its role is “statutorily-required.”

“A decision to eliminate the CRCL office or make significant reductions in CRCL staff will jeopardize DHS’s ability to comply with statutory requirements and to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of the American people,” wrote Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending