- Over 600,000 Hong Kongers took part in primaries for pro-democracy parties over the weekend, seeking to select candidates for the September elections.
- Hong Kong and Beijing authorities spoke out against the primaries, saying they “undermined” the upcoming elections and likely violated the national security law.
- Chief Executive Carrie lam also warned candidates that once in office, consistently voting to block bills and directives from Beijing are “subverting state power” and are against the law.
Hong Kong Weekend Primaries
Hong Kong and Beijing officials have spoken out against primaries held over the weekend by pro-democracy groups ahead of September elections, saying such primaries subvert state power and are likely in violation of the national security law.
Many in Hong Kong view this as their last big election and a chance at challenging the government of Hong Kong. Organizers claim that 610,000 people voted over the weekend. Though thousands voted in person, most voted via a mobile app made specifically for this election.
The lead-up to the primary was contentious. On Friday, police raided the offices of the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute, a major pollster in the city.
There are claims the organization was targeted because it planned to work with the pro-democracy parties and help run the primaries. However, police claimed the raid was actually because computers belonging to the group were leaking the private information of thousands of people, including officers. While police said it was possibly from a hack, they did also state they are investigating whether or not the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute was responsible for the leaks.
On Saturday and Sunday, when voting actually took place, scenes were relatively peaceful. People who physically went to polls to vote did so with no police interference. Results show that a lot of “localists” – younger, more anti-CCP candidates, beat the older pro-democracy crowd. Despite little interference in the actual primaries themselves, officials were extremely critical of them.
Voting to Subvert the State
Late Monday night, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam attacked the primaries, telling reporters, “By the way, there’s no such thing as a primary in Hong Kong’s election system…”
She then added an ominous threat, saying, “As a further note of warning, if this so-called primary election’s purpose is to achieve the ultimate goal of delivering what they call a 35-plus, with the objective of objecting to, resisting every policy, initiative of the Hong Kong SAR government, then it may fall in fall into the category of subverting the state power. Which is now one of the four types of offenses under the new national security law.”
Beijing’s Hong Kong Liaison Office, its highest representative in the city, released a statement about the primary, saying, “With the support of external forces, opposition groups and leaders have deliberately devised plans to hold this so-called ‘primary election,’ which is a serious provocation to the current electoral system and caused serious damage to the fairness and justice of the Legislative Council elections.”
For many readers from democratic societies, some of these comments are likely confusing, such as the idea that primaries are “unfair” to the electoral system; something both Lam and the Liaison Office touched on. To clarify, Hong Kong has held primaries in the past, but beyond that, most countries don’t have primaries as part of the official election system. They’re independently run by the parties to narrow down candidates and are nearly universal in all democracies. This is even true in the United States, which is infamous for having a long and large primary election season.
Both statements also mentioned the 35-Plus plan. The name gives it away, but it’s a movement by pro-democracy parties to try and win 35 or more seats in the Legislative Council, which would allow them to block legislation and potentially force Lam’s resignation. While that might sound like politics as normal in a democracy, according to Lam, wanting to block all directives from Beijing is subverting state power and breaks the national security law.
Now, even if authorities don’t take it that far, Lam did state that many people who went to vote in person were in long lines, meaning groups larger than 50 people, which is currently illegal under the national security law.
Working with Foreign Powers
Hong Kong authorities also levied other serious accusations again primary organizers. The Liaison Office accused Benny Tai, a leading pro-democracy figure and organizer of the primaries, of trying to “seize the governance of Hong Kong and deliberately stage a ‘color revolution.’” Those are peaceful revolutions through civil disobedience and protests are. Famous ones in history include the Philippines’ Yellow Revolution, Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution, and Ukraine’s Orange Revolution.
Additionally, the Liaison office tried to insinuate that Tai and other opposition leaders were working with foreign powers, writing: “Who instructed [Tai] to openly manipulate the election in so high-profile a manner? Who gave him such confidence?”
They went on to say, “With the support of external forces, the opposition minority groups and head figures have deliberately devised plans to hold this so-called ‘primary election,’ which is a serious provocation to the current electoral system and a serious damage to the fairness and justice of the Legislative Council elections”
Under the national security law, these are serious crimes that aren’t uncommon in many nations. Most nations make it illegal to get undisclosed foreign help in an election. Under this law, working with foreign powers could mean a prison sentence of at least 10 years to life.
Hong Kong and Chinese authorities offered no proof to back up their claims that foreign entities were behind the weekend’s primaries.
See What Others Are Saying: (CNN) (The Independent) (The Hill)
Egypt Seizes Ship That Blocked Suez Canal Until Owners Pay Nearly $1 Billion
- Egyptian authorities seized the Ever Given, a mega-ship that blocked the Suez Canal for nearly a week last month, after a judge ruled Wednesday that the owners must pay $900 million in damages.
- The ship was seized just as it was deemed fit to return to sea after undergoing repairs in the Great Bitter Lake, which sits in the middle of the Suez Canal.
- The vessel’s owners said little about the verdict, but insurance companies covering the ship pushed back against the $900 million price tag, saying it’s far too much for any damage the ship actually caused.
Ever Given Still in Egypt
An Egyptian court blocked the mega-ship known as the Ever Given from leaving the country Wednesday morning unless its owner pays nearly $1 billion in compensation for damages it caused after blocking the Suez Canal for nearly a week last month.
The Ever Given’s ordeal started when it slammed into the side of the canal and became lodged, which caused billions of dollars worth of goods to be held up on both sides of the canal while crews worked round the clock to free the vessel. An Egyptian judge found that the Ever Given becoming stuck caused not only physical damage to the canal that needed to be paid for but also “reputational” damage to Egypt and the Suez Canal Authority.
The ship’s Japanese owner, Shoei Kisen Kaisha, will need to pay $900 million to free the ship and the cargo it held, both of which were seized by authorities after the ship was transported to the Great Bitter Lake in the middle of the canal to undergo now-finished repairs. Shoei Kisen Kaisha doesn’t seem to want to fight the judgment in court just yet. It released a short statement after the ruling, saying that lawyers and insurance companies were working on the claims but refused to comment further.
Pushing Back Against The Claim
While Shoei Kisen Kaisha put in a claim with insurers, those insurance companies aren’t keen on just paying the bill. One of the ship’s insurers, UKP&I, challenged the basis of the $900 million claim, writing in a press release, “The [Suez Canal Authority] has not provided a detailed justification for this extraordinarily large claim, which includes a $300 million claim for a ‘salvage bonus’ and a $300 million claim for ‘loss of reputation.’”
“The grounding resulted in no pollution and no reported injuries. The vessel was re-floated after six days and the Suez Canal promptly resumed their commercial operations.”
It went on to add that the $900 million verdict doesn’t even include payments to the crews that worked to free the ship, meaning that the total price tag of the event could likely be far more for Shoei Kisen Kaisha and the multiple insurance companies it works with.
See what others are saying: (Financial Times) (CNN) (The Telegraph)
Treated Radioactive Water From Japanese Nuclear Power Plant Will Be Released Into Ocean
- The Japanese government confirmed Tuesday that it will officially move forward with plans to dump millions of gallons of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.
- The government spent a decade decontaminating the water, only leaving a naturally occurring isotope in it that scientists recognize as safe for people and the environment.
- Despite the safety claims, protesters took to the streets in Tokyo to show disapproval of the decision. Local business owners, in particular, have expressed fears that more municipalities worldwide could ban Fukushima products, including fish, because of distrust in the water.
- Meanwhile, officials have insisted that the dump is necessary as the water takes up a massive amount of space, which is needed to store highly radioactive fuel rods from the remaining cores at the now-defunct nuclear facility.
Editor’s Note: The Japanese government has asked Western outlets to adhere to Japanese naming conventions. To that end, Japanese names will be written as Family Name followed by Given Name.
Radioactive or Bad Publicity?
After years of discussions and debate, the Japanese government announced Tuesday that it will dump radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.
Government officials consider the move necessary, but it’s facing backlash from local businesses, particularly fisheries, over potential consequences it could have. Many are especially concerned that the decision will create bad press for the region as headlines about it emerge. For instance, a headline from the Guardian on the issue reads, “Japan announces it will dump contaminated water into sea.”
While the water is contaminated and radioactive, it’s not nearly what the headlines make it out to be. The government has spent the last decade decontaminating it, and now it only contains a trace amount of the isotope tritium. That isotope is common in nature and is already found in trace amounts in groundwater throughout the world. Its radiation is so weak that it can’t pierce human skin, meaning one could only possibly get sick by ingesting more than that has ever been recorded.
According to the government, the decontaminated water at Fukushima will be diluted to 1/7 of the WHO’s acceptable radiation levels for drinking water before being released into the ocean over two years.
Something Had To Eventually Be Done
Over the last decade, Japan has proposed this plan and other similar ones, such as evaporating the water, which the International Atomic Energy Agency said last year met global standards.
The water has been sitting in containers for years, so why is there a push to remove it now? Space and leakage seem to be the primary reasons.
The water containers are slowly being filled by groundwater, and the government expects to run out of space relatively soon. Space is sorely needed, as Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide has pointed out in the past that the government wants to use the space to store damaged radioactive fuel rods that still need to be extracted from the plant. Unlike the water, those rods are dangerously radioactive and need proper storage.
Regardless, Suga reportedly recognizes that removing the water is going to end up as a lose-lose situation.
“It is inevitable that there would be reputational damage regardless of how the water will be disposed of, whether into the sea or into the air,” he said at a press conference last week. As expected, the government’s decision did trigger backlash, prompting many demonstrators to take to the streets of Tokyo Tuesday in protest.
To this day, eleven countries and regions still ban many products from the Fukushima prefecture despite massive clean-up efforts that have seen people returning to the area to live.
Greta Thunberg To Skip U.N. Climate Change Conference, Citing Vaccine Inequality
- Young environmental activist Greta Thunberg will not attend the U.N.’s climate change conference set to take place in Glasgow, Scotland this November.
- “Inequality and climate injustice is already the heart of the climate crisis. If people can’t be vaccinated and travel to be represented equally that’s undemocratic and would worsen the problem,” the 18-year-old tweeted Friday, adding, “Vaccine nationalism won’t solve the pandemic. Global problems need global solutions.”
- Since rollouts began late last year, 40% of vaccines have been administered in wealthy and Western countries, according to The Washington Post.
- Scientists have warned that the longer the virus continues to circulate widely, the more chances it will have to change and potentially develop vaccine resistance.
Thunberg Points To Vaccine Inequality
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has said she is skipping the UN’s climate change conference.
The COP26 summit is set to take place in Glasgow, Scotland in November, but 18-year-old Thunberg told BBC she won’t attend because she’s concerned about the impact COVID-19 will have on attendance.
In a Twitter thread Friday, she responded to a headline about her plans to miss the summit.
“Of course I would love to attend…But not unless everyone can take part on the same terms. Right now many countries are vaccinating healthy young people, often at the expense of risk groups and front line workers (mainly from global south, as usual…),” she wrote.
“Inequality and climate injustice is already the heart of the climate crisis. If people can’t be vaccinated and travel to be represented equally that’s undemocratic and would worsen the problem.”
“Vaccine nationalism won’t solve the pandemic. Global problems need global solutions,” the teen continued.
Thunberg went on to say that if the summit is delayed, it doesn’t mean urgent action should too.
“We don’t have to wait for conferences nor anyone or anything else to dramatically start reducing our emissions. Solidarity and action can start today,” she added before noting that digital alternatives for the conference would also be insufficient.
“High speed internet connection and access to computers is extremely unequal in the world. In that case we would lack representation from those whose voices need to be heard the most when it comes to the climate crisis,” she wrote.
Data on Global Vaccine Distribution Efforts
According to The Washington Post, nearly 20% of people in the United States are now vaccinated, but many other countries are unlikely to hit that same metric by the end of the year, even with international assistance through the Covax program.
Current projections predict it could be years before developing countries distribute enough doses to come close to herd immunity, which scientists say requires inoculating around 70-80% of a population.
Since rollouts began late last year, enough shots have been distributed to fully vaccinate about 5% of the world’s population, but The Post reported that the vast majority have been administered in wealthy and Western countries.
Around 40% of vaccines have been given in 27 wealthy nations that include only 11% of the world’s population, according to the Bloomberg Vaccine Tracker.
That’s pretty concerning because scientists also warn that the longer the virus continues to circulate widely, the more chances it will have to change and potentially develop vaccine resistance.
Thunberg’s comments are a blow for U.K. organizers, who have already postponed the conference once from last November because of the pandemic. Even now, there has been speculation that it could be delayed again this year.
Thunberg would not play a formal role at the conference but her decision not to attend is a significant symbolic moment.
At COP25, the young climate change activist gave a headline speech and she typically attends major climate events of this nature. On top of that, reports say this summit was slated to be one of the most consequential climate conferences since the 2015 Paris accord.
On the agenda for this year’s conference discussions were country-level plans for cutting carbon emissions, along with progress on the Paris agreement and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.