- On Monday, Police in Hong Kong arrested billionaire media tycoon Jimmy Lai, a long-time outspoken critic of the Chinese Communist Party. They also arrested his two sons and at least seven others the same day.
- All ten are accused of colluding with foreign forces, and under Hong Kong’s new national security law, they could face up to life in prison.
- Following those arrests, hundreds of Hong Kong police raided Lai’s newspaper, the pro-democracy Apple Daily, and rifled through documents before seizing 25 boxes of materials.
- Also on Monday, China issued retaliatory sanctions against 11 U.S. citizens—including Sens. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, and Pat Toomey—though it is unclear what those sanctions entail.
Arrest of Jimmy Lai and Newsroom Police Raid
The Hong Kong police force used the city’s new national security law on Monday to make their most-high profile arrest yet under the legislation.
It began when police stormed the offices of Next Digital, a media company owned by billionaire activist Jimmy Lai. Lai is also known for being the publisher for the Apple Daily, a pro-democracy outlet that is one of the most-read newspapers in Hong Kong.
Photographs show officers escorting Lai outside of the offices and placing him in police vehicles. In addition to Lai, officers also arrested his two sons, as well as at least seven others. Four of those reportedly include senior executives with the Apple Daily.
Following the arrests, more than 200 officers proceeded to search the Apple Daily’s newsroom. During that raid, which was streamed on Facebook Live by employees, officers reportedly rifled through reporters’ desks and papers, forced employees to show their ID badges, and told them to stop filming.
By the end of the search, police had confiscated more than 25 boxes of materials.
Hong Kong’s Basic Law—its mini-constitution—protects freedom of the press, but the raid immediately raised concerns that officers were seizing information critical of the Chinese Community Party.
Later, police claimed they took care to protect those media freedoms and that reporters could “continue their work” after the raid; however, that claim has been disputed.
In fact, the Apple Daily outright refuted the claim that media freedoms were protected, saying on Twitter, “The Hong Kong Police Force have blatantly bypassed the law and abused their power, despite claims about acting according to the rules.”
“They have, for instance, ignored the limitation of the search warrant and rifled through news materials, as well as restricting press members from reporting and obstructing a news organization from operating.”
“The regime believes that we will be silenced by intimidation and harassment, and that they can take an international city down the path of autocracy,” the outlet added. “Hong Kong’s press freedom is now hanging by a thread, but our staff will remain fully committed to our duty to defend the freedom of the press.”
Police later barred several major news outlets, including Reuters and the Associated Press, from attending a press conference regarding the raid.
This is not the first series of arrests that police have made under the national security law. After it went into effect on June 30, several people were arrested during street protests. On July 29, four students in Hong Kong were arrested for “secession” over social media posts they made.
Reportedly, those students range from age 21 to as young as 16.
Alongside those arrests, police also seized their computers, phones, and other documents.
In a press conference, Senior Superintendent Steve Li Kwai-wah said that all four students are believed to be part of an online group that pledged to fight for Hong Kong independence.
“We have to enforce the laws even if the crimes are committed on the internet,” he said. “Don’t think you can escape from the responsibility in cyberspace and commit crimes.”
Hong Kong Elections Postponed
It’s also not just arrests that threaten basic human freedoms in the city. On July 31, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam postponed this year’s upcoming elections for a full year.
Lam has justified the move by saying that this was in response to a resurgence in COVID-19 cases. She called the decision “the most difficult one I have had to make in the past seven months.”
Despite this, a number of pro-democracy lawmakers have accused China of trying to delay the election. That’s because many believed pro-democracy candidates had a strong chance to finally win a majority in the city’s legislature, the Legislative Council.
Stoking similar criticism of trying to stamp out a democratic win, just two days prior to postponing the elections, the Hong Kong government announced that 12 pro-democracy candidates running for seats in the city’s legislature had been barred.
The government has argued that those candidates can’t stand because they would be unable to uphold the Basic Law of Hong Kong based on their positions on issues, such as advocating for democratic reforms and objecting to the national security law.
Those candidates include Joshua Wong and Gwyneth Ho, who were both front-runners in an unofficial democratic primary held earlier in July. Notably, that list also includes four incumbents—right, four already-sitting lawmakers who are up for re-election.
U.S. Sanctions and Chinese Retaliation
As China implements the new law, a number of countries have stepped in to sanction Beijing.
For example, in the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday that imposes sanctions on 11 Hong Kong officials—including Lam, as well as the city’s current and former police chiefs.
Trump’s order freezes any U.S. assets owned by those people and bars any Americans from doing business with them.
That said, the U.S. and China have been playing a game of back-and-forth tag with sanctions for over a year. Thus, it came as little surprise that China retaliated on Monday by slapping sanctions on 11 U.S. citizens.
That list includes executives with human rights activist groups, as well as several lawmakers like Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.), Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Tom Cotton (R-Ar.), and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
Unlike the U.S. sanctions, it’s unclear what those sanctions entail. Announcing the sanction, the deputy director of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticized the U.S. for involving itself in what he called domestic affairs.
“The [sanctions] by the US side are an overt interference in Hong Kong affairs and gross interference in China’s domestic affairs…” Deputy Director Zhao Lijian said. “The Chinese side resolutely opposes and strongly condemns this.”
“Retaliate all you want,” Hawley responded on Twitter. “I’m not backing down.”
See what others are saying: (NPR) (CNBC) (South China Morning Post)
New Zealand Considers Banning Cigarettes For People Born After 2004
- New Zealand announced a series of proposals that aim to outlaw smoking for the next generation with the hopes of being smoke-free by 2025.
- Among the proposed provisions are plans to gradually increase the legal smoking age and possibly prohibit the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to anyone born after 2004; effectively banning smoking for that generation.
- Beyond that, the level of nicotine in products will likely be significantly reduced, setting a minimum price for tobacco and heavily restricting where it can be sold.
- The proposals have proven to be popular as one in four New Zealand cancer deaths are tobacco-related, but some have criticized them as government overreach and worry a ban could lead to a bigger and more robust black market.
Smoke Free 2025
New Zealand announced sweeping new proposals on Thursday that would effectively phase out the use of tobacco products, a move that is in line with its hopes to become a smoke-free country by 2025.
Among a number of provisions, the proposals include plans to gradually increase the legal smoking age and bar anyone born after 2004 from buying tobacco products. Such a ban would effectively end tobacco sales after a few decades. The government is also considering significantly reducing the level of nicotine allowed in tobacco products, prohibiting filters, restricting locations where tobacco products can be purchased, and setting a steep minimum price for tobacco.
“We need a new approach.” Associate Health Minister Dr. Ayesha Verral said when announcing the changes on Thursday.
“About 4,500 New Zealanders die every year from tobacco, and we need to make accelerated progress to be able to reach [a Smoke Free 2025]. Business-as-usual without a tobacco control program won’t get us there.”
The proposals received a large welcome from public health organizations and local groups. Shane Kawenata Bradbrook, an advocate for smoke-free Maori communities, told The Guardian that the plan “will begin the final demise of tobacco products in this country.”
The Cancer Society pointed out that these proposals would help combat health inequities in the nation, as tobacco stores were four times more likely to be in low-income neighborhoods, where smoking rates are highest.
Not Without Flaws
The proposals weren’t completely without controversy. There are concerns that a complete ban could bankrupt “dairy” store owners (the equivalent to a U.S. convenience store) who rely on tobacco sales to stay afloat.
There are also concerns that prohibition largely doesn’t work, as has been seen in other nations with goods such as alcohol or marijuana. Many believe a blanket ban on tobacco will increase the incentive to smuggle and sell the products on the black market. The government even acknowledged the issue in a document outlining Thursday’s proposals.
“Evidence indicates that the amount of tobacco products being smuggled into New Zealand has increased substantially in recent years and organised criminal groups are involved in large-scale smuggling,” the document said.
Some are also concerned about how much the government is intervening in people’s lives.
“There’s a philosophical principle about adults being able to make decisions for themselves, within reason,” journalist Alex Braae wrote.
The opposition ACT party also added that lowering nicotine content in tobacco products could lead to smokers smoking more, a particular concern as one-in-four cancer cases in New Zealand are tobacco-related.
See what others are saying: (Stuff) (Independent) (The Guardian)
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.