Connect with us

News

Taiwan loses diplomatic recognition of Nauru in wake of election

Published

on

Taiwan loses diplomatic recognition of Nauru in wake of election

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Taiwan has lost one of its few diplomatic allies after Nauru switched recognition to Beijing, a sign of increasing Chinese pressure on the country after it elected Lai Ching-te its new president.

The Pacific island nation’s move on Monday came two days after Lai from the ruling Democratic Progressive party, denounced by Beijing as a dangerous separatist, won presidential elections.

China’s foreign ministry said Beijing “appreciates and welcomes” Nauru’s switch of diplomatic recognition.

Advertisement

Taipei called the shift a malicious attack by China, which claims Taiwan as part of its territory and has sought to isolate it internationally. Taiwan’s foreign ministry said Nauru, which began talks with China on establishing formal ties last year, tried to extract “huge” financial aid from Taipei by comparing its aid with far larger promises from Beijing.

China “particularly chose to put this into motion at the key moment when we completed our democratic elections”, said Tien Chung-kwang, Taiwan’s deputy foreign minister. “Their motive is to deal a blow to the Taiwanese people’s confidence in the democracy and freedom we should be proud of. That nakedly displays the true nature of communist totalitarianism.”

Nauru’s change of ties reduced the number of countries that recognise Taiwan as a sovereign independent state to just 12.

Taiwan’s president-elect Lai Ching-te, centre, and vice-president-elect Bi-khim Hsiao, third right, met an unofficial delegation of US officials in Taipei on Monday © Democratic Progressive party/AP

The announcement also came as an unofficial US delegation held talks with Lai and other political leaders in Taipei. The delegation included former national security adviser Stephen J Hadley, former deputy secretary of state James B Steinberg and Laura Rosenberger, chair of the American Institute in Taiwan, Washington’s quasi-embassy in Taipei.

“I hope the US will continue to support Taiwan, deepen Taiwan-US mutually beneficial co-operation in various areas and safeguard regional peace and prosperity together with its democratic partners,” Lai said on meeting the mission. Washington sent similar groups following the elections in 2000 and 2016.

Advertisement

Poaching Taiwan’s diplomatic allies is a tactic China has used extensively against outgoing president Tsai Ing-wen and former president Chen Shui-bian, both from the DPP, which Beijing detests because the party refuses to define Taiwan as part of China.

Under former president Ma Ying-jeou of the opposition Kuomintang, which says Taiwan belongs to China although it disagrees with Beijing over which state should rule that nation, Beijing suspended those efforts.

Last year, Honduras cut ties with Taiwan in favour of China, following other countries in the region including Nicaragua, El Salvador and Panama, but Taipei retained the allegiance of Paraguay, where relations with the island had become an election issue.

Shi Yinhong, an international relations professor at Renmin University in Beijing, said the timing of the Nauru measure suggested it was intended to punish Taipei for Lai’s victory.

“It could be China’s first major retaliation against the newly elected Lai Ching-te administration,” Shi said.

Advertisement

He added that after the president’s inauguration on May 20, China would probably continue or even step up its pressure campaign against the DPP.

“Beijing is not even giving Lai Ching-te a ‘probation period’ to wait and assess what he will say in his inaugural address,” said James Chen, a foreign relations expert at Tamkang University in Taipei who advised KMT presidential candidate Hou Yu-ih during the campaign. “These moves will definitely continue.”

Additional reporting by Wenjie Ding in Beijing

News

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

Published

on

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wong/Getty Images

As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.

The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.

Advertisement

After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.

Continue Reading

News

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

Published

on

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.

Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years. 

Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”

They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010. 

Advertisement

Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze. 

The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.

Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.

Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”

From left, Maurice Pierce, Forrest Welborn, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen were exonerated in February 2026 after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the December 1991 killings of four teenage girls in an Austin, Texas, yogurt shop. 

Advertisement

CBS News/AP


Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003. 

Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife. 

Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.” 

Advertisement

“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.

For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.

In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”  

Continue Reading

News

The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center

Published

on

This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending